Marcos 11
Bob Utley · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 11
Utley adds "This account of the fig tree is split into two sections with the cleansing of the temple placed between to signify that it refers to the judgment of God on the first century Jewish religious system and its leaders (as did the cleansing of the temple)." On the next day - Matthew adds it was "in the morning, (probably the fourth watch before 6 a.m) when He was returning to the city." (Mt 21:18)
Marcos 11
Utley writes that "This verse is absent in the Greek uncial manuscripts א, B, L, and W. It is included with several variations in MSS A, D, K, X, and the Peshitta translation and the Diatessaron (i.e. the four Gospels merged into one). It seems that an ancient scribe added this phrase from Matt. 6:15." Mark 11:27 They came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to Him,
Marcos 11
Utley - This has been and is the crucial question about Jesus. Where did He get His power and authority to speak and act? Jesus did not fit their expected mold of what YHWH’s Messiah would do and say! Authority (1849)(exousia from éxesti = it is permitted, it is lawful) means the power to do something and was a technical term used in the law courts, of a legal right. "Authority or right is the dominant meaning (of exousia) in the New Testament." (Vincent) Exousía refers to delegated authority and combines the idea of the "right and the might", these attributes having been granted to someone. Exousia means “delegated authority.” The word means also “the power of authority and of right.” It was used in legal practice of delegated authority. Here it is used of our Lord as having that authority in Himself, not derived from others. Exousia is an important term in the Gospels. Many conflicts in Jesus' life and ministry turn on debates about authority or the idea that Jesus taught with an unparalleled authority (Mt 7:29; 8:9; 9:6, 8; 21:23-27; 28:18; Mk 1:22, 27; 2:10; 3:15; 11:28-33; Lk 4:32, 36; 5:24; 7:8; 20:2-8). Some Uses of authority in Mark: Mark 1:22+ They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Mark 1:27+ They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” Mark 2:10+ “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–He *said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” As Akin says (from the verses above) "This man teaches with authority, cast out demons with authority and heals with authority. He does only what God can do! But they are not satisfied. They request his ordination papers. Show us your credentials! These are not honest questions. They want to destroy Him. They are not motivated by a willingness to know who He is and they have no interest in bringing their lives under His authority. Their goal is to ensnare Him, embarrass Him, and discredit Him. And they think they have found a way. If He admits He has no religious credentials, that He did not go to seminary or even Bible College, and that He is acting on His own authority, He will probably lose the respect and following of the people. His popularity ratings will tank and they can be finished with this troublemaker. On the other hand if He makes a claim to divine authority then they could charge Him with blasphemy, arrest Him and start the process for His destruction. Either way this country ―hick from the sticks‖ would be finished. Paul Apple on authority - People today don’t respond well to the authority of Jesus; to the authority of the Word of God; nobody is going to tell me what to do; I will read the bible to have it say what I want it to say; I will live my life the way I think best You can’t have the salvation that Jesus offers without the authority that Jesus commands J C
Marcos 11
Utley - Jesus often used this second-question technique when dealing with those who tried to trick or trap Him (cf. Mk 2:6–9, 19, 25–26; 3:23–24; 10:3, 37–39; 12:14–16). He would be open with them if they would be open to Him (cf. v. 33).") Akin - Jesus would have been a masterful chess player without a doubt. He brilliantly makes a counter move in verses 29-30 by asking the representative delegation from the Sanhedrin a question, ―Jesus said to them, ―I will ask you one question [lit. ―one word‖]; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me.‖ Jesus‘ counter-question was a common debating technique among rabbis in that day. And, it exposed their heart and motives. Jesus says let‘s look at the evidence of the one who paved the way for my coming and with whom I closely aligned myself: the ministry of John the Baptist. Interestingly, those who come to Jesus with hostile intentions never receive a direct or straight answer. Oh, they get a response, but it is one that forces them to think and reason. This is reinforced in our text as Jesus twice commands them, ―answer me‖ (v. 29, 30). This ―sharp demand‖ for an answer is found only in Mark. The implication is they lack the courage to give an honest answer.
Marcos 11
Utley - Jesus answers them by the parable in Mark 12:1–12, which is one of the most severe condemnations of Israel and her leaders in the entire NT. Stevenson writes "I enjoy playing chess. There sometimes comes a point in a chess game where, no matter what you do, you are going to lose a piece. That is what happened here. They pondered their possible range of answers and came to the conclusion that, no matter what they said, it would be wrong. Notice that they are more interested in fighting Jesus and in holding onto their popularity than they are in learning the truth. The one thing that they do not do is to ask, "I wonder if John and Jesus are right in what they are saying?" Why? Why don’t they see their need for the truth? It is because they have a vested interest in continuing in their unbelief. And so, they refuse to answer the question." (A Question of Authority) R C Foster summarizes this section - "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men?" Two questions are matched against the two which they have asked. Baptism was such a concrete, vivid, impressive act they could not avoid His question about John by asking "What teaching?" and then beclouding the issue with fine distinctions. Moreover, the baptism of John had been an innovation. Since nothing like it had been commanded in the law, the same acute issue was faced: Did John have the right to set up an institution for the forgiveness of sins when the Old Testament plainly declared the sacrifices in the temple were to be offered for that purpose? Only on the ground that John was a prophet directly inspired to speak for God, as had been the case with Moses when he gave the law, was John justified in doing this. Whether their decision as to a reply resulted from an immediate, covert, desperate exchange of ideas by looks and whispers or by withdrawal and lengthy consideration, their public reply which was awaited by Jesus and the multitude left them utterly discomfited. They refused to answer the question as to whether the authority of John's baptism was from heaven or merely from men, but their refusal constituted the most humiliating kind of confession. And in thus admitting that they dared not answer the dilemma (their hypocritical statement, "we know not," was too thin to deceive any one), they showed that the nation knew, and they did not dare deny, that John had been sent with a message from heaven. (Studies in the Life of Christ) Neither Will I Tell You? Why did Jesus refuse to give a straight answer to those who asked him why he acted as he did? It was during Holy Week, while he was walking in the temple precincts in Jerusalem, that some representatives of the Sanhedrin, Israel’s supreme court (comprising chief priests, scribes, or teachers of the law, and elders, as we are told in Mk 11:27), came to Jesus and asked him, “By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority?” By “these things” they meant not so much his teaching in the outer court but his cleansing of the temple, which had taken place the previous day. What right had he to put a stop to buying and selling within the bounds of the temple, or to forbid anyone to carry anything through the temple—to use the outer court as a short cut on their business errands? Many religious people might have agreed with him that the sacred area should not be turned into a bazaar, but a temple police force was stationed to protect its sanctity. Who authorized Jesus to act as he did? His cleansing of the temple was what would have been recognized in Old Testament times as a prophetic action—the kind of action by which a prophet would occasionally confirm his spoken message and bring it home to the people around him. Jesus protested that the temple was being prevented from fulfilling its purpose as “a house of prayer for all nations” (see Is 56:7). Gentiles were not allowed to enter the inner courts, but in the outer court they might draw near to the true and living God and worship him, like those “Greeks” who, according to John 12:20, went up to worship at Passover. Because of this the outer court was sometimes called “the court of the Gentiles.” But Gentiles were hindered in using it for its proper purpose if space within it was taken up by market stalls and the like. One of the latest Old Testament prophets had foretold how, when representatives of all the nations were to go up to Jerusalem to worship, “there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day” (Zech 14:21 RSV). Jesus’ prophetic action was designed to enforce this lesson. But by what authority did he perform such a prophetic action? By what authority did any of the ancient prophets perform prophetic actions? By the authority of God, in whose name they spoke to the people. So, when Jesus was asked, “Who gave you this authority?” the true answer was “God.” Why then did he not say so? Because his questioners would not have believed him. He tested them first with another question, to see if they were capable of recognizing divine authority when they saw it. Reminding them of John the Baptist’s ministry, he asked them whether John’s authority was derived “from heaven [that is, from God] or from men.” This put them on the spot: they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men?’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet” (Lk 20:6). Could they recognize divine authority when it was expressed in the actions and teaching of John? If so, they might be expected to recognize it when it was manifested in the deeds and words of Jesus. But they professed themselves unable to say what the source of John’s authority was. So Jesus said to them in effect, “If you cannot recognize divine authority when you see it in action, no amount of argument will convince you of its presence. If you cannot tell me by what authority John baptized, I will not tell you by what authority I do these things.” There are some people who will demand authority for truth itself, forgetting that truth is the highest authority. (Walter Kaiser, et al - go to page 451 in pdf - Hard Sayings of the Bible)