From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Mark Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER 12:
12:1 Translations
WEB: He began
to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a hedge
around it, dug a pit for the winepress, built a tower, rented it out to a
farmer, and went into another country.
Young’s: And he
began to speak to them in similes: 'A man planted a vineyard, and put a hedge
around, and digged an under-wine-vat, and built a
tower, and gave it out to husbandmen, and went abroad;
Conte (RC): And he began
to speak to them in parables: “A man dug a vineyard, and surrounded it with a
hedge, and dug a pit, and built a tower, and he loaned it out to farmers, and
he set out on a long journey.
12:1 And He began to speak unto them by parables. He
spoke three parables: (1) the two sons,
Matthew 21:28-32; (2) the husbandmen; (3) the marriage of the king's son,
Matthew 22:1-14. Mark relates only the
second of these three parables. The
"began" implies an interruption since a former series of
parables. This mode of teaching is now
again resumed, and another series of parables is spoken. [8]
parables. This
particular parable which follows was specially directed against the scribes and
Pharisees' but it was uttered in the presence of a multitude of people. [39]
A certain man. i.e., God. [44]
planted a vineyard.
The vineyard is the
The imagery is specially appropriate.
No property was considered to yield so rich a return as the vineyard and
none required such unceasing care and attention. [39]
The first sentence would
remind His hearers of Psalms 80:8-11, and especially of Isaiah 5:1-7, where
and set an hedge around it. Probably a hedge of thorns, possibly a wall. God had separated His people from other
nations and guarded them from heathen influence by the law (compare Ephesians
Moreover, the
and digged a place for the wine vat. The
words are literally, “digged a pit for the
winepress;” the digging could only apply to the pit, a
place hollowed out and then filled with masonry. Sometimes these pits were formed out of the
solid rock. Examples of these are
frequent in
and built a tower. A
watch-tower sometimes was built forty or fifty feet high,
and used for the watchmen who guarded the vineyard, and during the vintage as
an abode for the workers and a place of recreation, and perhaps for storing the
fruit. The watchman remained at his post
day and night, for wild beasts would devour and destroy, and men would steal. [51]
This represents the
provision made by God for the protection and prosperity of His people,
especially the
and let it out
to husbandmen [leased it to
vinedressers, NKJV]. Probably for a part
of the fruit. The
"husbandmen” ("vinedressers") represent the rulers of the Jews
(Matthew
and went into a far country. Representing most vividly
an actual trust in the hands of [his tenants]. The vineyard was well equipped, and the owner
might certainly expect a fair return. [23]
12:2 Translations
WEB: When it
was time, he sent a servant to the farmer to get from the farmer his share of
the fruit of the vineyard.
Young’s: and he
sent unto the husbandmen at the due time a servant, that from the husbandmen he
may receive from the fruit of the vineyard,
Conte (RC): And in time,
he sent a servant to the farmers, in order to receive some of the fruit of the
vineyard from the farmers.
12:2 And at the season [vintage-time,
NKJV]. The reasonable time. He
does not claim fruit before it can have grown. [23]
he sent to the husbandmen a servant. The
servants represent the prophets of the Old Testament, calling for the fruits of
righteousness from the Jewish people.
The description of the maltreatment of the servants differs in all three
accounts, showing that no special interpretation is to be given to the
different sendings.
[11]
Note on the use of
the singular "servant:" Here
again we find Mark, according to his characteristic method, fixing attention of
a single individual when a plurality were actually engaged in the transaction
(cf. Matthew
that he might receive from the
husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. Referring
to the custom of giving a portion of the fruit as rent. The sending of the servant to receive the
fruit might represent any summons of God to His people to bring forth spiritual
fruit; but the next verse would rather limit its application here to the
mission of God's messengers, the prophets, sent to call the people to
repentance, faith and obedience. [45]
12:3 Translations
WEB: They took
him, beat him, and sent him away empty.
Young’s: and they,
having taken him, did severely beat him, and did send him away empty.
Conte (RC): But they,
having apprehended him, beat him and sent him away empty.
12:3 And they caught him, and
beat him. This treatment of the servant represents
the rejection of the prophets sent from God to the people. Jesus had already, before leaving Galilee,
charged the scribes and Pharisees of that region with sharing in the guilt of
their fathers in the rejection of the prophets (Luke 11:47-55), and in the
conflict in which He was now engaged, He a little while after brought the same
solemn indictment against the scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem (Matthew
23:29-37). [45]
and sent him
away empty. At least they spared his life! From their standpoint this was probably
better than just his “disappearing” (being killed and buried): a disappearance might only convince the owner
of the need to send somebody else while the beaten servant would serve as a
visible reminder that there was simply no way the owner was ever going to get
anything out of them. [rw]
12:4 Translations
Weymouth: Again he sent
to them another servant: and as for him, they wounded him in the head and
treated him shamefully.
WEB: Again, he
sent another servant to them; and they threw stones at him, wounded him in the
head, and sent him away shamefully treated.
Young’s: And again
he sent unto them another servant, and at that one having cast stones, they
wounded him in the head, and sent away -- dishonoured.
Conte (RC): And again,
he sent another servant to them. And they wounded him on the head, and they
treated him with contempt.
12:4 Again he sent unto them another servant, and at him
they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully
handled. The increase of severity toward the
servants, the first being merely beaten, the second being wounded in the head
with stones, and the third being killed, gives the force of a climax to the
description, but points to no historical feature in the significance of the parable. The servants sent to the husbandmen represent
the prophets who had been sent to the Jews, but there was no regular gradation
in the persecutions which they encountered.
[38]
12:5 Translations
WEB: Again he
sent another; and they killed him; and many others, beating some, and killing
some.
Young’s: 'And again
he sent another, and that one they killed; and many
others, some beating, and some killing.
Conte (RC): And again,
he sent another, and him they killed, and many others: some they beat, but
others they killed.
12:5 And
again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. The
repetition of the act of sending servants for the fruits of the vineyard, after
the maltreatment of those already sent, represents God's course in sending many
prophets to Israel from age to age regardless of their rejecting those who preceded
them. [45]
and many
others. i.e., not even the killing of a prophet would
end God’s effort to have the people act right.
The popular and religious leadership foes of such men were under the
illusion that if they just managed to get rid of this man, everything
would be fine for them. How events proved them wrong time and again! Just as it would when they applied the same delusionary reasoning to the Man of
12:6 Translations
WEB: Therefore
still having one, his beloved son, he sent him last to them, saying, 'They will
respect my son.'
Young’s: 'Having
yet therefore one son -- his beloved -- he sent also him unto them last, saying
-- They will reverence my son;
Conte (RC): Therefore,
having still one son, most dear to him, he sent him also to them, at the very
end, saying, 'For they will reverence my son.'
12:6 Having yet therefore one
son. The son is Jesus. [44]
His wellbeloved. There
are sons and there are sons. In all
normal families they are loved, but in some cases there is a depth and
intensity of love that does not usually exist.
The illustration comes from such a closely bonded family
relationship. [rw]
He sent him also last unto them. Last
not only chronologically, but because this would be the last “card he had to
play:” because
of the close and unique father-son relationship, if they were willing to listen
to anyone, surely it would be this one! [rw]
saying,
They will reverence [respect, NKJV] my son. Whilst
such would be the feeling of the earthly father in the narrative, yet God the
Father knew well how His Son would be received.
Still, however, it presents in strong light the reverence with which the
Son ought to have been received. [45]
12:7 Translations
WEB: But those
farmers said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the
inheritance will be ours.'
Young’s: and those
husbandmen said among themselves -- This is the heir, come, we may kill him,
and ours shall be the inheritance;
Conte (RC): But the
settlers said one to another: 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him. And
then the inheritance will be ours.'
12:7 But those husbandmen [vinedressers, NKJV] said among
themselves. The fact that they knew the man in front of
them was the heir shows that they had spoken with the son and, presumably,
asked for time to discuss the matter among themselves. [rw]
This is the heir. He
was making such a claim on them as they had never felt before, and they dimly
perceived that if this could but be silenced they should be left at peace. [23]
come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. They
thought, if he were once out of the way, no one else
would trouble them. In this view, verse
7 expresses not unfairly the spirit of the people, or at least of their
leaders, respecting Jesus. [23]
Alternate
interpretation: There is nothing
corresponding to this purpose in the dealing of the Jews with Jesus,
consequently it has no significance in the interpretation of the parable. [38]
Or perhaps there is this:
Although they would still not own the property and its crop, they
would have total control over it and not be answerable to any external
party. The religious hierarchy wanted
the unrestricted right to do things the way they wished to do them, and
to have out of the way the major figure remaining who would not quietly
acquiesce in this self-serving arrangement (i.e., Jesus)—to them the result
would amount to “ownership” though their religious titles and position would
never permit them to say things that bluntly in public. [rw]
12:8 Translations
WEB: They took
him, killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
Young’s: and having
taken him, they did kill, and cast him forth without the vineyard.
Conte (RC): And
apprehending him, they killed him. And they cast him out of the vineyard.
12:8 And they took him, and
killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
Threw his lifeless body over the wall [hedge, verse 1], utterly and
insultingly rejecting him. [23]
By which we are reminded
of Him who "suffered without the gate" (Hebrews
12:9 Translations
Weymouth: What,
therefore, will the owner of the vineyard do?" "He will come and put
the vine-dressers to death," they said; "and will give the vineyard
to others."
WEB: What
therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the
farmers, and will give the vineyard to others.
Young’s: 'What
therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do? he will
come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.
Conte (RC): Therefore,
what will the lord of the vineyard do?" "He will come and destroy the
settlers. And he will give the vineyard to others."
12:9 What shall therefore the lord
[owner, NKJV] of the vineyard do? The obvious answer is given in
Mark and Luke by Jesus Himself; in Matthew by His [listeners]. Both may well have occurred, Jesus answering
His own question and His answer being supported by their voices. Compare the cast of David, caught by a
parable and led to condemn himself, 2 Samuel 12:5-6. [23]
he will come and destroy the husbandmen. The
destruction of the husbandmen (vine-dressers) points to the destruction of
and will give the vineyard unto
others. A prediction that the
nation is finally to be overthrown, and that the opportunities and
responsibilities which had been peculiarly theirs are to be given to others,
i.e., not to any particular nation, but to all, Jews or gentiles, who would
accept the truth. [35]
In depth:
Who speaks of the doom of the vinedressers, Jesus or His listeners [39]? In St. Matthew's narrative the scribes answer
this question. St. Luke, as St. Mark
here, assigns the answer to our Lord. It
would seem probable that the scribes first answered Him, and that He Himself
repeated their answer, and confirmed it by His looks and gestures; so that from
thence, as well as from what followed, they might sufficiently understand that
He spake these things of them.
Or: Mark reports it as the answer of Jesus,
because it was the answer that He wanted and because, when it was given,
he approved it. [38]
WEB: Haven't
you even read this Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same
was made the head of the corner.
Young’s: And this
Writing did ye not read: A stone that the builders rejected, it did become the
head of a corner:
Conte (RC): "And
so, have you not read this scripture?: 'The stone
which the builders have rejected, the same has been made the head of the
corner.
The stone which the
builders rejected.
The figure is drawn from the building of a stone structure, where the
builders have thrown aside a stone as unsightly and unsuitable. The antitype of the stone is Jesus Christ,
despised and "rejected" by these builders to whom the words were
spoken. [45]
is become the head of the corner [chief cornerstone, NKJV].
It is a question whether this means the foundation-stone or the
top-stone. The figure would naturally
suggest the top-stone, the cap-stone.
That it means the foundation stone in he verse before us seems a
necessary inference from 1 Peter 2:4-8, where the apostle quotes from this
passage of the Psalm the phrase
"the stone rejected of men"
and without changing his figure, goes on to quote a passage from Isaiah
28:16, concerning a "foundation stone," thus identifying them. [45]
Alternate
interpretation: This would mean
Christ the most important foundation stone, joining two walls. A reference to the union of Jews and Gentiles
in Christ (as in Ephesians 2:19-22) may be included; but the main thought is
that the Messiah, even if rejected by the
"builders," should become
the corner-stone of the real temple of God. This involves the important idea that the
"builders" would be themselves rejected. [11]
If the former of the two
interpretation (i.e., Jesus as top-stone) be adopted, the meaning is that Jesus
Christ shall, in the spiritual building, hold; the highest place of honor,
being the crowning beauty and excellence of the whole structure; if the latter,
which seems to be the interpretation of an inspired writer, then the meaning is
that Jesus Christ is the chief foundation stone upon which the whole building
rests, a truth frequently presented in other scriptures. [45]
WEB: this
Cornerstone came from the Lord, and is wonderful in our esteem?'"
Young’s: from the
Lord was this, and it is wonderful in our eyes.'
Conte (RC): By the Lord
has this been done, and it is wondrous in our eyes.' "
and it is
marvelous in our eyes? The reaction of the people: amazement that things should work out this
way. [rw]
Weymouth: And they kept looking out for an opportunity to seize Him,
but were afraid of the people; for they saw that in this parable He had
referred to *them*. So they left Him and went away.
WEB: They
tried to seize him, but they feared the multitude; for they perceived that he
spoke the parable against them. They left him, and went away.
Young’s: And they were seeking to lay hold on him, and they feared
the multitude, for they knew that against them he spake
the simile, and having left him, they went away;
Conte (RC): And they
sought to take hold of him, but they feared the crowd. For
they knew that he had spoken this parable about them. And leaving him
behind, they went away.
but feared the people. The masses, the common people "whom they
despised as well as feared (John
The masses may be just as “unlearned” as
they, in their arrogance, think. But
that does not mean that they are either blind or oblivious that any arrest
would be blatant injustice and that the “authorities” would only be acting out
of wounded pride. [rw]
for they knew He had spoken the parable against them. The
parties referred to are the chief priests and scribes who had introduced this
conversation by asking Him for His authority (
They saw that He was
attacking their faithlessness to their divinely appointed duty, just as before
He had rebuked their profanation of the temple.
Again their only reply was to plot violence. [44]
and they left Him and went their way [away, NKJV]. Being
afraid to lay hold of Him, and being too much exasperated to continue the
conversation with Him, they went away and devised the plot mentioned in the
next paragraph. [38]
WEB: Their
next step was to send to Him some of the Pharisees and of Herod's partisans to
entrap Him in conversation.
Young’s: and they
send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians,
that they may ensnare him in discourse,
Conte (RC): And they
sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to him, so
that they might trap him with words.
Herodians. These
Herodians were a sect of the Jews who supported the
house of Herod and were in favour of giving tribute
to the Roman Caesar. They were so called
at first from Herod the Great, who was a great supporter of Caesar. Tertullian,
to catch Him in His words. i.e., to force from Him
some treasonable, blasphemous, or foolish answer, which would
give them an excuse for arresting Him.
[44]
They in the most artful
manner proposed to Him--apparently in good faith--a question
which answer it how He might, would, as they hoped, throw Him upon the
horns of a dilemma. If He said that
tribute ought to be given to Caesar, He would expose Himself to the
malice of the Jewish people, who prided themselves upon their freedom. If, on the other hand, He said that tribute
ought to be given to Caesar, He would incur the wrath of Caesar and of
the Roman power. [39]
WEB: When they
had come, they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and don't
defer to anyone; for you aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of
God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?
Young’s: and they
having come, say to him, 'Teacher, we have known that thou art true, and thou
art not caring for any one, for thou dost not look to the face of men, but in
truth the way of God dost teach; is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?
may we give, or may we not give?'
Conte (RC): And these,
arriving, said to him: "Teacher, we know that you are truthful and that
you do not favor anyone; for you do not consider the appearance of men, but you
teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to give the tribute to Caesar, or
should we not give it?"
Master [Teacher,
NKJV], we know that thou art true. This was said in a spirit of hypocritical
flattery, as though they were ready to pay Him honor as the Messiah. We find Nicodemus saying the same thing in a
spirit of sincerity (John 3:2). [8]
and carest for no man. This
ascribed to Him independence in His opinions, which would not be influenced by
themselves, not by either of the opposing parties, nor
by other men, but would be based alone on what appeared to be truth. [45]
for thou regardest not the person of
men. A Hebrew idiom to express impartiality, frequently enjoined upon
judges, who were not to be influenced in their judgment by rank or class, but
to deal out even-handed justice to all.
Such, these flatterers say, would be the decisions of Jesus. [45]
This was a cunning
temptation to lift Himself above all respect for the
Roman authorities. [8]
But teachest
the way of God in truth.
i.e., the
true doctrine. This was certainly hypocritical for both the
Pharisees and Herod condemned this Teacher of the truth. [11]
Is it lawful. For Jews. [23]
to give tribute [to pay taxes, NKJV] to Caesar.
Judea, the southern part of Palestine, was directly subject to Roman
(being governed by a governor, procurator, appointed by the Roman emperor), and
paid taxes to
Caesar. Caesar,
originally a personal name, had come to be simply a general name for the Roman
emperor at any time on the throne, as [in the nineteenth century] the German
emperor [was] called Kaiser, and the Russian emperor Czar. [35]
or not. Whichever side of the question Jesus took, it
seemed to them He would be in difficulty.
If He said that it was right to pay tribute, they could urge that this
was disloyalty to God, and so discredit Him with the people, perhaps even raise
a riot against Him. If he said it was
not right, they would complain of Him to the Roman governor on the ground that
He was encouraging disloyalty to
WEB: Shall we
give, or shall we not give?" But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to
them, "Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius,
that I may see it."
Young’s: And he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, 'Why me do ye
tempt? bring me a denary, that I may see;'
Conte (RC): And knowing
their skill in deception, he said to them: "Why do you test me? Bring me a
denarius, so that I may see it."
But He, knowing their hypocrisy.
I.e., in proposing to ask His opinion, while, in fact, only wishing to
entrap Him.35
He could have known it was hypocrisy because of supernatural
insight. On the other hand, if their
attire or other remarks made Him realize that they were Herodians
(verse 13)—well, it took nothing but common sense to realize that they would be
the last people around looking for an excuse not to pay taxes and
that any such question had to be presented out of an ulterior and hostile
motive. [rw]
Said unto them, why tempt [test, NKJV] ye me? Bring me a penyb [denarius, NKJV]. Many
have been preserved. They have the head
and name of the emperor stamped upon them.
[44]
that I may see it. Not
because the appearance of the coin was unfamiliar, but as an object lesson. [41]
WEB: They brought
it. He said to them, "Whose is this image and inscription?" They said
to him, "Caesar's."
Young’s: and they
brought, and he saith to them, 'Whose is this image,
and the inscription?' and they said to him, 'Caesar's;'
Conte (RC): And they
brought it to him. And he said to them, "Whose image and inscription is
this?" They said to him, "Caesar's."
And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription [inscription]? The head of the emperor stamped on the coin,
and his name written about the head were
the symbols of the fact that Judea was subject to the Roman emperor, that a
Roman governor and Roman soldiers maintained peace in Judea--a service for the
expenses of which taxes were paid. This
was all the more impressive because, in fact, the Romans were in authority in
no small measure because of the dissensions of the Jews among themselves. [35]
Their Rabbis at a later
day laid down the principle, no doubt admitted generally then, that to accept
the coin of a king was to acknowledge his authority. They therefore, by their general use of the
very coin in which taxes were paid, acknowledged the Roman authority; they
moreover in all their business transactions had the protection of its law, yea,
even in their religious worship. It was
a duty then to pay back every just obligation to the government. [45]
That the use of the
Roman coins did carry with it such an admission [of authority] is to be seem in the fact that in their revolt the Jews stamped out
the face and name of Caesar. [44]
And they said unto
Him, Caesar's. It was
Tiberius Caesar who was then reigning.
Caesar was a common name applied to many Roman emperors, beginning with
Julius Caesar. [8]
WEB: Jesus
answered them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God
the things that are God's." They marveled greatly at him.
Young’s: and Jesus
answering said to them, 'Give back the things of Caesar to Caesar,
and the things of God to God;' and they did wonder at him.
Conte (RC): So in
response, Jesus said to them, "Then render to Caesar, the things that are
of Caesar; and to God, the things that are of God." And they wondered over
him.
to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Has His answer stopped here, it might have
seemed a triumph for the Herodian party; but He
added, “and to God the things that are God's." [34]
and to God. This is as much as to say, that the two
things are not inconsistent, and that to pay taxes to Caesar is not disloyalty
to God. But it is saying it in such a
way that they could not make any use of His words against Him with the people
of the governor. [35]
These words do not
separate the religious and political duties of Christians. The second comprehends the first and gives it
its true foundation. The obedience to
Caesar is but the application of the general principle of obedience to God,
from whom is all power. [19]
the things that are God's. He
does not designate what are the duties to God, as He had not what was due to
Caesar; but these admitted duties must be faithfully performed. The two classes of duties can never be
in conflict, but if the demands of the temporal power conflict with
God's demand, the lower of course must give way to the higher. This, however, is an inference from the nature
of the two kinds of obligations, but is not made here a point in our Saviour's ever memorable saying. [45]
To make of this saying a
summary of the relations of church and state is to find in it something remote
from Jesus' purpose. That in giving an
answer of which His enemies could not lay hold to His injury He should have
reminded them of their obligation to the government to which they were in fact
subject (thus implying that the true kingdom of God was not national), and
should also have recalled them to their forgotten duties to God, is wholly in
accordance with His character as a moral and religious teacher. That He should recognize the legitimacy of
government was in accord with His entire spirit. Jesus was as far as possible from being a
gentle anarchist. The watchword of the
Christian is not "My rights,” but “My duties." [44]
And they marveled at Him. They
marvelled at His wisdom and skill in extricating
Himself so readily out of this net in which they had hoped to entangle
Him. Indeed, the words of the Psalmist (
WEB: There
came to him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection. They asked him,
saying,
Young’s: And the Sadducees come unto him, who say there is not a
rising again, and they questioned him, saying,
Conte (RC): And the
Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, approached him. And they
questioned him, saying:
which say
there is no resurrection; and they
asked Him, saying. Their question was intended to show
the absurdity of a belief in a resurrection.
[44]
Their question is as
insincere as the preceding; it was a puzzle upon a doctrine in which they were
total unbelievers. It proves, however,
that the doctrine of the resurrection was everywhere recognized as a doctrine
of Jesus. [23]
WEB: "Teacher,
Moses wrote to us, 'If a man's brother dies, and leaves a wife behind him, and
leaves no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up offspring for his brother.'
Young’s: 'Teacher,
Moses wrote to us, that if any one's brother may die, and may leave a wife, and
may leave no children, that his brother may take his wife, and raise up seed to
his brother.
Conte (RC): "Teacher,
Moses wrote for us that if any man's brother will have died and left behind a wife, and not have left behind sons, his brother should take
his wife to himself and should raise up offspring for his brother.
Moses wrote unto us. See Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This provision corresponded to the
universal desire in
If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind and leave
no children. A double condition: He precedes his wife in death and they have
had no children. These prerequisites
severely limited the number of occasions where the requirement could be
invoked. [rw]
That his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. This
brother-in-law (Levirate) marriage was common among the Semitic peoples. [44]
WEB: There
were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and dying left no offspring.
Young’s: 'There
were then seven brothers, and the first took a wife, and dying, he left no
seed;
Conte (RC): So then,
there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and he died without
leaving behind offspring.
and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. Whether
it was due to the death coming quickly after marriage or physical inability of
some sort on his part, was irrelevant.
The result was the same: a
marriage with no children to carry on the family name. [rw]
Weymouth: The second married her, and died, leaving no family; and the
third did the same.
WEB: The
second took her, and died, leaving no children behind him. The third likewise;
Young’s: and the
second took her, and died, neither left he seed, and the third in like manner,
Conte (RC): And the
second took her, and he died. And neither did he leave behind offspring. And
the third acted similarly.
Weymouth: And so did the rest of the seven, all dying childless.
Finally the woman also died.
WEB: and the
seven took her and left no children. Last of all the
woman also died.
Young’s: and the
seven took her, and left no seed, last of all died also the woman;
Conte (RC): And in like
manner, each of the seven received her and did not leave behind offspring. Last
of all, the woman also died.
Last of all the woman died
also. Childless by all the marriages, the
woman was not linked to any one of the husbands more than to the others. [23]
WEB: In the
resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be of them? For the seven had
her as a wife."
Young’s: in the
rising again, then, whenever they may rise, of which of them shall she be wife
-- for the seven had her as wife?'
Conte (RC): Therefore,
in the resurrection, when they will rise again, to which of them will she be a
wife? For each of the seven had her as wife."
If our Lord should say
that in the resurrection she would be the wife of one only, the other brethren
would have been excited to envy and continual strife. Nor could He have said that she would be
common to the seven brothers. Such were
the absurdities which, as they intimated, would flow out of His doctrine of the
resurrection, if it could be proved. But
our Lord scatters to the winds all this foolish reasoning, by adding one clause
omitted by them, and overlooked by men of mere earthly minds, namely, that in
the world to come this widow would be the wife of none of the seven
brethren. [39]
WEB: Jesus
answered them, "Isn't this because you are mistaken, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor the power of God?
Young’s: And Jesus
answering said to them, 'Do ye not because of this go astray, not knowing the
Writings, nor the power of God?
Conte (RC): And Jesus
responded by saying to them: "But have you not gone astray, by knowing
neither the scriptures, nor the power of God?
ye know not the Scriptures. Either
in the sense of not being familiar even with the letter of their teachings on
the subject, or more probably in that of not correctly understanding what they
did known as to its external form. The two things which He charges them with not knowing are, what God
had taught and what God would do.
[3]
neither the power of God. They
did not know that He can raise the bodies of the dead again to life, even as at
first He created them out of nothing; for a greater power is required to make
that to be which was not then to make that again to be which once was. Ignorance of the power of God led them to
interpret these Scriptures which speak of the resurrection to mean only a mystical resurrection
from vice to virtue. [39]
Weymouth: For when they have risen from among the dead, men do not
marry and women are not given in marriage, but they are as angels are in
Heaven.
WEB: For when
they will rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,
but are like angels in heaven.
Young’s: for when
they may rise out of the dead, they neither marry nor are they given in
marriage, but are as messengers who are in the heavens.
Conte (RC): For when
they will be resurrected from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be given
in marriage, but they are like the Angels in heaven.
There will be no
necessity for marriages in heaven. Here
on earth the father dies but he lives on in his children after death. In heaven there is no death, but every one
will live and be blessed for ever; and therefore it is that St. Luke adds here,
“Neither can they die any more."
St. Augustine says, “Marriages are on account of children; children on
account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither
is there any marriage." [39]
The text does not
affirm, however, that there will be no recollection of former marriages or no
recognition of each other as having existed in this tender relation. [42]
marry. Contract marriages as
husbands. [23]
nor are given in marriage. By the act of their parents, as wives. The reason, as given in Luke [for the
non-existence of marriage], is that they "cannot die any more." Marriage, especially as suggested by the
Levirate institution, exists for the sake of offspring. But birth and death are correlatives; they
belong in the same world: if one ceases
the other must cease. In that world
there is no death; hence no birth, hence no marriage. [23]
but are as [like, NKJV] angels which are in heaven. Not that they are to be angels, but like
them in that they are not to live a bodily, earthly life. This shows the power of God, which does
not simply restore men after death to a life like this, but introduces them to
a higher one. [35]
Weymouth: But as to the
dead, that they rise to life, have you never read in the Book of Moses, in the
passage about the Bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?'
WEB: But about
the dead, that they are raised; haven't you read in the book of Moses, about
the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
Young’s: And concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in
the Book of Moses (at The Bush), how God spake to
him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob;
Conte (RC): But
concerning the dead who rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how
God spoke to him from the bush, saying: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?'
have ye not read.
The implication is that if they
had read the Scriptures the way they should have, they should already have
noticed this and come to this conclusion.
Or, possibly, even a more severe snub:
These words of Scriptures would already have decided the matter for you
if you genuinely recognized the Divine authority of Scripture. [rw]
in the book of Moses. The Pentateuch, Genesis to Deuteronomy. [35]
Our Lord might have brought yet
clearer proofs out of Job, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc., but in His wisdom He
preferred to allege this out of Moses and the Pentateuch because, whatever the
viewed of the Sadducees may have been as to other parts of the Old
Testament, these books of Moses they readily acknowledged. [39]
How in the bush [in
the burning bush passage, NKJV]. The passage that has the
story of Moses at the burning bush, Exodus, chapter 3. [35]
God spake
unto him, saying. I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of. The
argument is either (1) purely formal
(turning on the implied tense of an unexpressed verb, and valid only as
addressed to men accustomed themselves to argue after this fashion); God
says, "I am the
God" of those long since dead;
but "God is the God of the living;" therefore the patriarchs were still alive,
possessed of immortality; or (2) roots on the attitude of God to men implied in
the words, "I am the God,"
etc.; the eternal God in His love for the patriarchs (and for all good
men), could not have allowed them to perish utterly. The eternity of a loving Father thus implies
the immortality of loving children. [44]
WEB: He is not
the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore badly mistaken."
Young’s: he is not
the God of dead men, but a God of living men; ye then go greatly astray.'
Conte (RC): He is not
the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, you have gone far
astray."
Ye therefore do greatly err. The
Sadducees entirely misunderstood the meaning of their own Scriptures. [39]
WEB: One of
the scribes came, and heard them questioning together. Knowing
that he had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the
greatest of all?"
Young’s: And one of the scribes having come near, having heard them
disputing, knowing that he answered them well, questioned him, 'Which is the
first command of all?'
Conte (RC): And one of
the scribes, who had heard them arguing, drew near to him. And seeing that he
had answered them well, he questioned him as to which was the first commandment
of all.
The
“then came” language may simply convey that this particular scribe arrived
independently of any larger group. [rw]
And having heard them reasoning
together. This scribe and others were present during
the reasoning with the Sadducees, and when Jesus had given them His answer,
added, "Master, thou hast well said" (Luke
And perceiving that He had answered
them well. The
scribe was evidently clearer-minded and more earnest than either the Herodians or the Sadducees.
The Herodians put a political question [
Asked Him, Which is
the first commandment of all? Not the first numerically, for this was
well known; but the first in point of importance. [38]
He may, in his own mind
(seeing the wisdom and skill of our Lord), have desired to hear what Christ had
to say to a very difficult question on a matter deeply interesting to all true
Hebrews. The question was one much
mooted amongst the Jews in the time of our Lord. "For many," says Bede, "thought that the first commandment in the Law
related to offerings and sacrifices, with regard to which so much is said in
Leviticus, and that the right worship of God consisted in the due offering of
these." [39]
Which. Literally, "of what kind." i.e., of what sort must a commandment
be, in order to be the first? The
qualitative word poia, "of what
kind," probably indicates that the man was thinking of commands by classes,
distinguished from each other by quality and graded according to importance. [23]
WEB: Jesus
answered, "The greatest is, '
Young’s: and Jesus
answered him -- 'The first of all the commands is, Hear, O
Conte (RC): And Jesus
answered him: "For the first commandment of all is this: 'Listen, O
The first of all the commandments. Instead of singling out particular
commandments as entitled to the preference, He gives the first and second place
to two contained in scripture [which implicitly includes] all the rest [of
God's commandments]. [3]
Is, Hear, O
Weymouth: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with thy whole heart, thy whole soul, thy whole mind, and thy whole strength.'
WEB: you shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the
first commandment.
Young’s: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out
of thy soul, and out of all thine understanding, and
out of all thy strength -- this is the first command;
Conte (RC): And you shall
love the Lord your God from your whole heart, and from your whole soul, and
from your whole mind, and from your whole strength. This is the first
commandment.'
love. Had
the essence of the divine law consisted in deeds, it could not possibly have
been expressed in a single word; for no one deed is comprehensive of all others
embraced in the law. But as it consists
in an affection of the soul, one word suffices to express it. [43]
With regard to the love
of God, St. Bernard says, “The measure of our love to God is to love without
measure; for the immense goodness of God deserves all the love that we
can possibly give to Him."39
with all your heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind . . . soul . . . mind. . . strength. This
enumeration was not intended by Moses, or by Jesus, as a metaphysical analysis
of man, but rather as a cumulative and comprehensive statement of the
obligation to love God. [23]
all . . . all . . . all. i.e.,
completely, unreservedly. [35]
heart. Being
here distinguished both from “mind"
and "soul," it means
the sincerity of both the
thoughts and the feelings--uprightness, trueheartedness,
as opposed to a hypocritical and divided affection. [43]
soul. i.e., feeling,
or what we call warmth. [43]
mind. Intelligence,
in opposition to a blind devotion, more devoteeism. [43]
The Hebrew (in Deuteronomy) enumerates
heart, soul, and strength; but the LXX rendered "heart" by
"mind." Jesus introduces both. [23]
And with all thy strength. In other words, with all our powers. [43]
this is the
first commandment. Out of
which all other Divine commands grow.
Without this irrevocable bedrock, we might challenge any and all Divine
rules that we wish had not been made. [rw]
WEB: The
second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no
other commandment greater than these."
Young’s: and the
second is like it, this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; -- greater than these there is no
other command.'
Conte (RC): But the second
is similar to it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other
commandment greater than these."
namely this,
Thou shalt love. In His teachings, Jesus clearly did not have
in mind political reform; neither did He intend to teach any formal
reorganization of society. He intended
to plant in the minds and hearts of men certain ethical principles dealing with
individual character and with the relations of each person to His fellow men
which would have the effect of regenerating society. The form which each society would take would,
of necessity, depend upon social and political characteristics of persons,
places, and times. [26]
thy neighbor. Paul
speaks of love to man as the fulfilling of the law, so far as man is concerned
(Romans 13:9). James honors this second
command as "the royal law," i.e., the king of laws--"according
to the scripture." [23]
as thyself. From Leviticus
Our love of ourselves is
not a frigid love, but a sincere and ardent love. In like manner we should love our neighbour and desire for him all those good things both for
the body and for the soul that we desire for ourselves. This is what our Lord Himself teaches, "All
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, even so do unto
them." [39]
There is none other commandment
greater than these. i.e., “This is all Scripture in a
nutshell." It is the whole law of
human duty in a portable, pocket form; so simple that a child may understand
it, so brief that all may remember it, so comprehensive as to embrace all
possible cases. [43]
WEB: The
scribe said to him, "Truly, teacher, you have said well that he is one,
and there is none other but he,
Young’s: And the scribe said to him, 'Well, Teacher, in truth thou
hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He;
Conte (RC): And the
scribe said to him: Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth that there is
one God, and there is no other beside him;
Well, Master. He was too
well instructed in the law not to see the force of this answer, and too honest
to resist his own convictions. [45]
Thou hast said the truth. This
scribe was put forward by the Pharisees "to tempt” Him; but he was too
well instructed in the law not to see the force of this answer and too honest
to resist his own convictions. [45]
For there is one God; and there is none other but He. He
wasn’t willing to dismiss Jesus when He had things right even to his own
mind. Far too many of Jesus’ critics
would rather suffer resentment than concede that Jesus was right on any
thing. He was “the enemy.” You never concede that your enemy has the
truth on any subject. Unless
you are intellectually honest. [rw]
Weymouth: and To love Him with all one's heart, with all one's
understanding, and with all one's strength, and to love one's fellow man no
less than oneself, is far better than all our whole burnt-offerings and
sacrifices."
WEB: and to
love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul,
and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more
important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Young’s: and to
love Him out of all the heart, and out of all the understanding, and out of all
the soul, and out of all the strength, and to love one's neighbour
as one's self, is more than all the whole burnt-offerings and the sacrifices.'
Conte (RC): and that he
should be loved from the whole heart, and from the whole understanding, and
from the whole soul, and from the whole strength. And to love one's neighbor as
one's self is greater than all holocausts and sacrifices."
is more than all the whole burnt offerings. Victims wholly consumed upon the altar. [45]
and
sacrifices. A general term, including all
[animal] offerings. The general
meaning of the scribe's reply is that obedience to the moral law is more
important than all ceremonial observances, though of divine appointment: and Jesus endorsed his reply. [45]
WEB: When
Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from
the
Young’s: And Jesus, having seen him that he answered with
understanding, said to him, 'Thou art not far from the reign of God;' and no
one any more durst question him.
Conte (RC):
He said unto him, Thou art not far from the
Perhaps among the “great
company of the priests” and other Jewish ecclesiastics who “were obedient to
the faith” almost immediately after the day of Pentecost (Acts 6:7), this
upright lawyer was one. But for all his nearness
to the
And no man after
that. Matthew introduces the remark that
[follows] at the close of the next
paragraph, but Mark more appropriately introduces it here, because this
was the last question which they propounded to Him and the next
paragraph discusses one which He propounded to them. [38]
Durst [dared, NKJV] ask Him any question. They dared not ask any more, because they
were not willing to be defeated as some of the questioners had been, nor
compelled to give assent to His answer as the last one had been, and they could
hope for nothing better. [38]
WEB: Jesus
responded, as he taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say
that the Christ is the son of David?
Young’s: And Jesus answering said, teaching in the temple, 'How say
the scribes that the Christ is son of David?
Conte (RC): And Jesus,
seeing that he had responded wisely, said to him, "You are not far from
the
while He taught in the temple. Not in private conversation, but in the course
of His public instructions. [3]
How say the scribes. As the
expounders of the law and the religious teachers of the people. [3]
that Christ. The Messiah. Notice
that the statement refers, not [specifically] to Jesus as a person, but to the
Christ, the Messiah predicted by the prophets and expected by the Jews, whoever
he might be. [35]
is the Son of David? This was a
favorite name for the Messiah among the Jews, and emphasized those qualities of
the Messiah, as they thought of him, in which he was
like David, the (earthly) king, the warrior.
[35]
That this name would
rightfully belong to the Messiah, no one doubted in those days. See Isaiah 11:1-4; Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc. [23]
WEB: For David
himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my
right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet."'
Young’s: for David
himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on My right
hand, till I place thine enemies -- thy footstool;
Conte (RC): For David himself said in the Holy Spirit: 'The Lord said to my Lord:
Sit at my right hand, until I set your enemies as your footstool.'
by the Holy Ghost [Spirit, NKJV]. David was inspired by God's Holy Spirit to
write the Psalms. He wrote them as the
record of his love of God, with prophecies mingled in them of the future
Messiah; and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit deepened the meaning of them
and guarded them from error. [25]
The Lord said to My Lord. The [110th] Psalm is more frequently cited by
the New Testament writers than any other single portion of the ancient
Scriptures (Acts
Sit Thou on My right hand. The
sitting posture is appropriate to kings, who are frequently described as
sitting on their thrones. [3]
till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The
word “till” does not imply that Christ will then cease to reign. "Of His kingdom there shall be no
end." But He will then formally
deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, only that He may receive it
again as the second Person of the Godhead.
[39]
WEB: Therefore
David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?" The common people
heard him gladly.
Young’s: therefore
David himself saith of him Lord,
and whence is he his son?' And the great multitude were hearing him gladly,
Conte (RC): Therefore,
David himself calls him Lord, and so how can he be his son?" And a great
multitude listened to him willingly.
and whence [how, NKJV] is He then his Son? The
answer they could not find, because their materialistic conception of the
Christ was such that they could not think of David as calling his physical son
his Lord. The preconceptions prevented
their seeing the point. [27]
Jesus desires to show
them that, according to their own understanding of this psalm, the Messiah is
something more and greater than the title "son of David" meant to them; he is David's Lord, not
simply his son, another king like David.
If the scribes had had a truer idea of the Messiah, it would not have
been so difficult for them to see that Jesus was the Messiah. [35]
And the common people heard Him
gladly. This remark has reference not merely
to the paragraph with which it is connected, but to the entire discussion which
had occupied the day. That the common
people hear a man gladly in our own age can not be taken as a proof in
itself that his teaching is
like that of Jesus, yet he who is most like Jesus will still be most gladly
heard by the common people. He who in
any great degree fails of this must have some serious defect as a preacher of
the gospel of Christ.
What was true of the
common people assembled then in
WEB: In his
teaching he said to them, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk in long
robes, and to get greetings in the marketplaces,
Young’s: and he was
saying to them in his teaching, 'Beware of the scribes, who will in long robes
to walk, and love salutations in the market-places,
Conte (RC): And he said
to them in his doctrine: "Beware of the scribes, who prefer to walk in
long robes and to be greeted in the marketplace,
Beware of the scribes. This
may mean, beware of the scribes who as a class love to go in long clothing,
etc.; or it may mean beware of those scribes who love to go, etc. In favor of the former interpretation is the
parallel passage in Matthew 23, where some of these descriptive expressions,
besides others of like purport, are applied to the scribes and Pharisees
generally. And yet whilst the warning is
against the scribes as a class, it would be pressing the language too
far to allow no exception. These things
surely could not be said of the scribe whom He had just pronounced not far from
the
which love to go in long clothing. [The Greek lexiographers]
Liddell and Scott render "in full dress"--i.e., in whatever official
robes they were entitled to wear; not, as Jesus, in the clothing of common
life. [23]
and love salutations [greetings, NKJV] in the marketplaces. The places of public assembly, as though they were honored and popular. [45]
Weymouth: and to occupy
the best seats in the synagogues and at dinner parties,
WEB: and the
best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts:
Young’s: and first
seats in the synagogues, and first couches in suppers,
Conte (RC): and to sit
in the first chairs in the synagogues, and to have the first seats at feasts,
and the
uppermost rooms [best places, NKJV] at
feasts. The places of
honor near the host. Cf. Luke 14:7-11. [35]
WEB: those who
devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive
greater condemnation."
Young’s: who are
devouring the widows' houses, and for a pretence are
making long prayers; these shall receive more abundant judgment.'
Conte (RC): who devour
the houses of widows under the pretense of long prayers.
These shall receive the more extensive judgment."
Or: I.e., are so hard on them in money matters,
perhaps in enforcing the payment of debts, or in insisting upon the payment of
tithes, etc., as to "eat up" the little property the poor women had,
even the houses that sheltered them. [35]
and for a pretense make long prayers. To keep up an appearance of
piety which did not exist. As the prayers were made for this purpose,
and made long in order to more effectually accomplish the purpose, they only
added to the wickedness which they were designed to conceal. [38]
these will receive greater damnation [condemnation,
NKJV]. Greater because they had misused their
spiritual privileges, betrayed the trust of the simple,
and, brought reproach upon the same of God.
[23]
There are many ways of
swindling the defenseless, but to do it with pretended piety is worst of all. [11]
WEB: Jesus sat
down opposite the treasury, and saw how the multitude cast money into the
treasury. Many who were rich cast in much.
Young’s: And Jesus
having sat down over-against the treasury, was beholding how the multitude do
put brass into the treasury, and many rich were putting in much,
Conte (RC): And Jesus,
sitting opposite the offertory box, considered the way in which the crowd cast
coins into the offertory, and that many of the wealthy cast in a great deal.
over against [opposite, NKJV] the treasury. In
the so-called court of the women, along the side of which were the
trumpet-shaped vessels to receive the gifts of the people. [44]
and saw. The imperfect tense in the original [Greek]
implies that He continued watching and observing the scene. [8]
how the people
cast money into the treasury. Free-will offerings for the temple, probably. [35]
Alternate
interpretation: The contributions
which the law of Moses required all of them to bring
when they came up to the annual festivals (Deut.
and many that
were rich cast in much. Highly appropriate since they
could give much without it hurting them. Which is not to rule out a
fraction who did it to gain public reputation by
making sure others knew how “generous” was their donation. [rw]
A
historical note on the
The Court of the Women obtained its name, not from its appropriation to
the exclusive use of women, but because they were not allowed to proceed
farther, except for sacrificial purposes. Indeed, this
was probably the common place for worship, the females occupying, according to
Jewish tradition, only a raised gallery along three sides of the court. This
court covered a space upwards of 200 feet square.
All around ran a simple colonnade, and
within it, against the wall, the thirteen chests, or "trumpets," for
charitable contributions were placed. These thirteen chests were narrow at the
mouth and wide at the bottom, shaped like trumpets, whence their name.
Their specific objects were carefully
marked on them. Nine were for the receipt of what was legally due by
worshippers; the other four for strictly voluntary gifts.
Trumpet IV. similarly
received the value of the offerings of young pigeons. In
Trumpet V. contributions for the wood used in the
In all probability this space where the
thirteen Trumpets were placed was the "treasury," where Jesus taught
on that memorable Feast of Tabernacles. We can also understand how, from the
peculiar and known destination of each of these thirteen "trumpets,"
the Lord could distinguish the contributions of the rich who cast in "of
their abundance" from that of the poor widow who of her "penury"
had given "all the living" that she had.
But there was also a special
treasury-chamber, into which at certain times they carried the contents of the
thirteen chests; and, besides, what was called "a chamber of the
silent," where devout persons secretly deposited money, afterwards
secretly employed for educating children of the pious poor.
It is probably in ironical allusion to the form and name of these
treasure-chests that the Lord, making use of the word "trumpet,"
describes the conduct of those who, in their almsgiving, sought glory from men
as "sounding a trumpet" before them—that is, carrying before them, as
it were, in full display one of these trumpet-shaped alms-boxes (literally
called in the Talmud, "trumpets"), and, as it were, sounding it.
WEB: A poor
widow came, and she cast in two small brass coins, which equal a quadrans coin.
Young’s: and having
come, a poor widow did put in two mites, which are a farthing.
Conte (RC): But when one
poor widow had arrived, she put in two small coins, which is a quarter.
and she threw
in two mites, which make a farthing [quadrans, NKJV]. About equal to one-fortieth
of a day's wages of a laborer. [35]
Weymouth: So He called
His disciples to Him and said, "In solemn truth I tell you that this
widow, poor as she is, has thrown in more than all the other contributors to
the Treasury;
WEB: He called
his disciples to himself, and said to them, "Most certainly I tell you,
this poor widow gave more than all those who are giving into the treasury,
Young’s: And having called near his disciples, he saith
to them, 'Verily I say to you, that this poor widow hath put in more than all
those putting into the treasury;
Conte (RC): And calling
together his disciples, he said to them: "Amen I say to you, that this
poor widow has put in more than all those who contributed to the offertory.
and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow has cast
more in. That is, more in proportion to their menas, and therefore more that was acceptable to God. He does not mean that this was more in value
than all which the others had put in, but it showed more love to the sacred
cause, more self-denial, and of course more sincerity in what she did. [42]
Alternate
interpretation: The poor widow gave
not a greater proportion of her goods, she gave all; and it has been
often remarked that she still had, in her poverty, the opportunity of keeping
back one half. [46]
than all they which have cast into the
treasury. It is not said that
the gifts of the others were worthless.
Many possessed, no doubt, no worth (Matthew 6:1); others a greater or a
less. [8]
Weymouth: for they have
all contributed out of what they could well spare, but she out of her need has
thrown in all she possessed--all she had to live on."
WEB: for they
all gave out of their abundance, but she, out of her poverty, gave all that she
had to live on."
Young’s: for all,
out of their abundance, put in, but she, out of her want, all that she had put
in -- all her living.'
Conte (RC): For they all
gave from their abundance, yet truly, she gave from her scarcity, even all that
she had, her entire living."
but she of her
want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. She did voluntarily
what Jesus had vainly commanded the rich young ruler to do; though poor
herself, she gave her all to feed the poor.
She did this, too, when she had only her widow's hands with which to
earn more; but he had refused though he had the strength and ingenuity of young
manhood to guard him against future want.
[38]