Hello, welcome to the podcast, Bible Wisdom Today. My name is Stan Watkins.

The Bible has always been an important foundation for my personal faith, leading me to complete a Bible degree and enter Christian ministry, ultimately going with my wife and family to Europe for 6 years. There I served in the areas of Bible teaching and music. Since returning to the states, I have supported my local church as I have had opportunity, but now I would like a more regular outlet for teaching God’s word.

Understanding the Bible is not simply a matter of belief that it is God’s word. The Bible was written long ago, in a foreign language, within an alien culture, using unfamiliar literary styles. Today’s Bible student must overcome each of these obstacles. This podcast is for those willing to do the hard work to discover God's wisdom for life today.

Our last episode ended with a confrontation in the temple between Jesus and the Sanhedrin, which was the highest court for religious matters in first century Israel and also administered some aspects of civil life under Roman oversight. It was composed of elite members of society, in particular the priests, elders, and scribes. We saw how Jesus embarrassed them with his brilliant answer to their question about his authority and his follow-up parable implicating them as unworthy leaders of God’s people. They were not ready to give up, however, and today we see them bring a series of questions to Jesus, not as the entire Sanhedrin, but as smaller delegated groups. Again, Jesus is able to answer each of their questions and even asks them an additional question of his own. 

Sometimes, people think that Jesus is just a timid philosopher, meek and mild, and that the only reason someone would follow him is if they were feeble also. This is an uninformed viewpoint. You do not need to be embarrassed to follow Jesus. The Jesus of the gospels is not feeble, frail or fragile, but powerful in his logic and authoritative in his teaching. This is especially true in the temple scene in this episode, which I have entitled “Jesus, who answers all questions.”

Transition music 1

In a 1951 article in the Journal of Theological Studies published by Oxford University, Dr. David Daube, a preeminent twentieth century scholar of ancient law, demonstrated how the four questions we will examine today in Mark 12 reflect an ancient rabbinic scheme found in the Talmud.[1] These four types of question are first, legal questions concerning the application of Mosaic law to our lives; second, mocking questions, ridiculing a belief held by the opponent; third, moral questions, concerning fundamental principles for living a successful life; and finally questions of Biblical interpretation, pointing to seeming contradictions between passages of Hebrew scripture. Whether Jesus’ interrogators were specifically following this scheme is uncertain, but Mark is apparently aware of it when he gathers these four questions into one climactic confrontation in the temple.

Let us read Mark’s narrative about the Pharisees’ legal question, beginning with chapter 12, verse 13.

The Pharisees’ legal question (12:13-17)

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
 But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” 
 And they were amazed at him.
 Mark 12:13-17

We see immediately that these questioners were an official delegation from the Sanhedrin. “They sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus.” “They” refers to the Sanhedrin in the previous story from our last episode and “sent” is the same root word as “apostle,” someone sent for a specific purpose. Their particular purpose was to trap Jesus into saying something he would regret. The word “trap” was commonly used for trapping wild animals, and their question reflected the same vicious intent. If he answered that they should not pay taxes to the Romans, they could then accuse him to the civil authorities. If he said that they should pay taxes, that would make him very unpopular with the people. Either way, the leaders win.

The “imperial tax” was hugely unpopular with the people. It was a poll tax paid by all subject peoples but not Roman citizens. The residents of Judea had paid this tax since becoming a province in AD 6, but Jesus himself did not pay it because he was a resident of Galilee, which was not under direct Roman rule.

The Pharisees and Herodians were not natural allies. The Pharisees were fervently religious, committed to the strictest standards of Judaic purity. As such, they believed that paying this tax to a foreign overlord was an immoral act. The Herodians, on the other hand, were followers of Herod Antipas, who promoted their own self-interest by cozying up to the king. They were not normally in Jerusalem, since Herod ruled in Galilee and the region east of Jordan, but this was Passover season and Herod had come to Jerusalem. These two parties disagreed over taxation, but they agreed on their desire to arrest and kill Jesus. They came to trap him.

They began with a thick layer of flattery. Flattery was common in first century dialogue, but this seems unusually two-faced. They compliment Jesus for his integrity, fairness, impartiality, and truthfulness. They attempt to lull him into a false sense of confidence so he might consider them friends and speak without guard. The irony is that even though they do not believe what they are saying, they are speaking truth. Jesus was all that they said. They should have known that a man who was “not swayed by others” was not likely to be swayed by their false sweet talk.

Jesus saw through their design. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked, using a different word which simply means “test.” “Bring me a denarius.” The denarius coin was required to pay the poll tax. The emperor Tiberius’ image was on it with the inscription “Son of the divine Augustus.” The image was idolatrous and the inscription blasphemous. This coin was highly offensive to the Jews, yet how ironic that the Pharisees actually had such a coin while Jesus did not. 

Jesus’ diversion was brilliant. Since the coin had both Caesar’s picture and name on it, it must be his. Give it back. This statement was deliberately ambiguous and provocative, containing two implications.

• First, politically, Jesus takes a categorically anti-Zealot stance. Zealots believed that overthrowing the government was the will of God. Jesus, on the other hand, taught submission to the government, even Roman government, because it was instituted by God.
• Secondly, on the theological side, Jesus refers to Caesar’s image on the coin in an apparent allusion to the image of God imprinted on humanity at creation (Genesis 1:26). Since Caesar is made in the image of God and his rule is subject to God’s rule, paying taxes is a form of submission to God, not only to government. Just like the coin bears Caesar’s image, and so belongs to Caesar; humanity bears God’s image and so belongs to God. God and government are not two exclusive entities operating in their own sphere, rather, all human affairs, including the political, are subject to God’s sovereignty

Jesus does not stop at answering their question about taxation. He concludes with “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” but adds “and to God what is God’s.” Caesar and God were two undisputed authorities in the first century, yet Jesus presumed to speak for both, demonstrating his incontestable authority. From Jesus’ perspective, your political views and civil duties are not independent of your faith but rather are expressions of your prior commitment to God.

Jesus had comprehensively answered the Pharisees’ legal question. The second type of question in this ancient sequence was a mocking question, brought to him now by the Sadducees.

The Sadducees’ mocking question (12:18-27)

Mark 12:18,

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
 Mark 12:18-27

This is the only story in Mark where Jesus has an exclusive encounter with the Sadducees. Both Pharisees and Sadducees seem to have arisen among the Jews in the early second century BC during the Maccabean revolt against the tyranny of the Seleucid Empire headquartered in Syria. 

The Sadducees were members of the highest social class of Jewish society, marked by wealth and rank, including priests and lay aristocrats. With their strong contingent of priests, their influence was focused on the temple, but the priesthood also exercised political influence. In this role they were receptive to Hellenism and collaborative with Roman rule.

Theologically they were conservative, however. While the Pharisees believed that God had revealed himself through the law, the prophets, other scriptures such as the Psalms as well as oral tradition, the Sadducees believed that God had spoken through the Torah alone. For this reason, they did not believe in the resurrection of the body, since it is not mentioned in the Torah. In truth, the doctrine of resurrection is only vaguely mentioned in scattered scriptures throughout the Old Testament, but most Jews in Jesus’ day believed in resurrection. They had extrapolated this doctrine from the few scriptural allusions to it and the examples of Enoch and Elijah, whom they believed had not died. The Sadducees question, then, was designed to discredit resurrection as superstition. They did so by telling a ridiculous story meant to show that resurrection was absurd.

Their story was based on the Jewish law of levirate marriage, where a brother would marry the widow of his deceased brother in order to provide heirs to his brother’s name to inherit their ancestral land. He also was responsible to care for the childless widow, who would otherwise be destitute in their society.

The idea of seven brothers dying in turn without progeny was highly unlikely, but the use of seven, the number signifying completion, made it the perfect example. This was probably a stock story that they had used before to discredit the doctrine of resurrection and now they would use it against Jesus, who had spoken of his own resurrection.

In asking “whose wife will she be” they assume that polygamy is wrong and intend to show resurrection as ridiculous by pointing out the impossibility of being married to seven men in heaven. Jesus could either concede that they were right to reject the doctrine of resurrection, or he could argue that it was the first husband who retained that relationship in heaven. 

Jesus does neither. “Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?” The Sadducees took pride in basing their beliefs on the Pentateuch alone, but Jesus accuses them of not knowing their own subject. He explains that in heaven “they will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” The Jews commonly believed that resurrected life was simply a prolonged earthly life in more glorious conditions, but Jesus taught that it was a totally new kind of life. God’s resurrection power lifted people beyond earthly things, even marriage and family. Jesus described this as being “like the angels in heaven,” who do not require marriage nor reproduction to sustain their race since they do not die. Because the Sadducees based their story on the assumption that resurrected life includes marriage, their analogy was irrelevant.

Many today, continue to make the same mistake as the ancient Sadducees. We may believe in resurrection, but we consider resurrected life as basically a glorified form of our present life. But Jesus tells us, “No.” It will be so much more, more than we can know. We cannot imagine our future resurrected reality any more than a baby in utero can imagine a great work of art. It is totally outside our experience.

Jesus then goes on to prove the reality of the resurrection using Exodus 3:6, since the Sadducees only accepted the writings of Moses as scripture. His argument was based on grammar, which was completely acceptable within first-century rabbinic argument. When God revealed himself to Moses, the patriarchs had long been dead. Still, God says “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” If the patriarchs are dead, how can God use the present tense “I am?” The patriarchs must either have been alive when God spoke, or they would be at a later resurrection. God is not the God of the dead. If the patriarchs were dead, then God’s promise had died with them and the nation Israel had no more divine promise. But God was not so limited. His promise would be fulfilled. He would not pledge himself to the patriarchs unless they were to be raised to life.

“You are badly mistaken.” This was not just Jesus’ affirmation of resurrection, but his total condemnation of the Sadducees’ position. The ultimate proof of the Sadducees error, however, was not Jesus’ authoritative teaching, or his brilliant scriptural interpretation, but his own life. His empty tomb would soon prove the reality of resurrection life.

So far, Jesus has answered two different types of questions posed by the Pharisees and Sadducees. The scribes, the third major party in the Sanhedrin, had been watching Jesus successfully fend off all questions and their representative now came in a much more respectful posture to ask his moral question.

The Scribe’s moral question (12:28-34)

Mark 12:38,

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 
 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
 Mark 12:28-34

The question asked by the scribe is a moral question, according to the outline identified by David Daube. It concerned a fundamental principle for successful living. He has just seen Jesus engaging in brilliant scriptural argumentation and approaches Jesus without the negativity of the other questioners. He seems sincere. 

He came with an honest question, “Which is the most important commandment.” Jewish Rabbis counted 613 individual statutes and attempted to categorize them as “heavy” or “light.” Heavy commands concerned life’s uncompromising essentials and light commands were less demanding. This scribal representative wanted to get Jesus’ opinion on how to sum up the Torah best. This was a common question to ask esteemed teachers and the Talmud and Mishnah preserve several such answers from famous rabbis.

Jesus answers his straightforward question with a straightforward answer. “The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This citation from Deuteronomy 6:4 is called “Shema” from the first Hebrew word, “hear”. It became the Jewish confession of faith, which is still recited by the faithful in today’s synagogues. This is the core statement for both Judaism and Christianity: “Yahweh is the only God.”

The remainder of Jesus quotation is from the very next verse in Deuteronomy. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The word “all” is repeated four times to show that our love response to the Lordship of God is total. Mark adds the phrase “with all your mind” to the original list, and there is lots of overlap between these four terms, heart, soul, mind, and strength. Jesus probably did not intend for us to separate them out individually but to take them together to depict the entirety of our person offered to God. God is our one and only master.

The scribe had only asked for one command, but like Jesus had earlier expanded the question from the Pharisees and Herodians, here he adds a second great commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

This second commandment comes from a different part of Torah law, Leviticus 19:18. In the Old Testament “neighbor” only meant fellow Jews, but Jesus expanded the idea of neighbor as shown in Luke’s story of the good Samaritan, which includes part of this dialogue as a preface. Jesus intends for us to care for others with the same consideration as we care for ourselves. These two commandments sum up the entire Decalogue, the first four commands describing love for God and the last 6 detailing our love for others. “There is no commandment greater than these,” Jesus said.

To combine the command to love God with the command to love one’s neighbor was radical for Jesus, but totally revolutionary in Judaism. Both love of God and love of neighbor were affirmed separately but never combined before Jesus. Love for God expresses itself in love for our neighbor, and love for our neighbor is received by God as worship. In this way Jesus avoids the mysticism of loving God without human relationships or the humanism of loving people without reference to their creator.

“Well said, teacher,” the scribe replied. The interrogations end on a victory note for Jesus. Mark gives the scribe’s summation expansive treatment to make it more emphatic. He had approached Jesus on friendly terms and Jesus now commends him, not because of his understanding of the Law, but because he acknowledged the authority of Jesus. “You are not far from the kingdom of God,” Jesus said. Mark probably intends each of his readers to ask, “How far am I from the kingdom?”

Mark closes this cross-examination with the comment, “no one dared ask him any more questions.” This is unequivocal. Jesus has triumphed over his challengers; debate is closed. In the very center of Sanhedrin authority, the temple courts, Jesus has dismantled all their arguments.

We have seen Jesus successfully dispatch the legal question of the Pharisees and Herodians regarding paying taxes, compellingly demolish the mocking question from the Sadducees about the resurrection, and thoughtfully satisfy the scribes moral question about the greatest commandment. The questions of the Sanhedrin and their various constituencies were still inadequate, however, to uncover who Jesus truly was. Jesus now takes control of the conversation, asking them a question that will drive them to grapple with his true identity. According to the rabbinic four-question structure detailed earlier, there is only one type remaining, the question of biblical interpretation. That is precisely the sort of question that Jesus now poses to his challengers.

Jesus’ question of biblical interpretation (12:35-37)

Mark 12:35,

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
 “Sit at my right hand
 until I put your enemies
 under your feet.”’ 
 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
 The large crowd listened to him with delight.
 Mark 12:35-37

The rabbinic question of biblical interpretation generally dealt with two passages of scripture which seem to conflict. In Jesus’ question he quotes only one passage from Psalm 110, but he assumes his audience knows the other seemingly conflicting passages when he asks his rhetorical question, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?”

Most of his Israelite audience in the temple would have known the answer. God had promised king David through the prophet Nathan that his throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:12-13). This gave David and his nation eternal hope. When the Davidic monarchy fell, however, the nation began to focus on the promise that one would come to revive the David dynasty. Jeremiah called that messianic figure “the righteous Branch of David” and Isaiah called him a branch that would come up from the stump of David’s father, Jesse. Ezekiel prophesied that David would again be their shepherd and prince (Ezekiel 34:23-24). This was the prevailing view throughout first-century Judaism. In fact, just a few days earlier, blind Bartimaeus had reflected this understanding when he cried out to Jesus, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus now wants to test this conventional understanding of Messiah by comparing it with the text of Psalm 110.

Jesus begins his quotation with the preface, “David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit.” He refers to divine inspiration to convince his hearers that this quote, and the point he draws from it, carries the weight of divine revelation. This way of quoting scripture was a trait of rabbinic interpretation.

This citation from Psalm 110 is quoted or referenced in the New Testament 33 times, far more than any other. The crux of Jesus’ argument is based on the meaning of two words in the first line which are both translated “lord” in our English versions, “The Lord said to my Lord.”

The two words translated as “lord” are first, the personal name for God, Yahweh and second, the word Adonai, which means master. It would be easier to understand if the translators had chosen to say, “Yahweh said to my master.” 

This psalm was originally used at the coronation of Davidic kings, celebrating the induction of the king of Israel as God’s viceregent, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” After the fall of the house of David, this text came to be applied to the Messiah, whose kingdom would not fail, as David’s had. The Messiah would sit at God’s right hand. This is the interpretation behind Jesus’ question.

We might wonder at two different interpretations of one scripture. The first says “Yahweh says to my master, the king” and the second “Yahweh says to my master, the Messiah.” Is the original interpretation really the true meaning and the second understanding, the one assumed by Jesus, actually bogus? Jesus certainly didn’t think so. He, and apparently his contemporaries, believed that the true meaning of Psalm 110 referred to the Messiah. The Davidic monarchy had only been a foreshadow or a preparation.

Jesus invited the temple audience to reconsider whether “Son of David” was an adequate concept to explain the Messiah. If David, who was believed to be the author of Psalm 110, referred to the Messiah as master, then the Messiah must be greater than David and not merely his descendent. Notice that Jesus did not deny that he was the royal Messiah but only clarified that he was so much more. In the earlier question regarding resurrection, Jesus argued that resurrection life is not simply an extension of earthly existence; here he argues that the Messiah is not simply an extension of David’s dynasty.[2] The Messiah is not only David’s son, he is God’s son.

The New Testament commonly uses this quotation from Psalm 110 as proof of Jesus exaltation to a place of power and glory. We already saw in the presumptuous request of James and John that sitting at the right was considered a place of honor. That is what God offers the Messiah here, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” Jesus is given a place of glory and victory, not just in his future resurrection or in his second coming, but right now in the temple over his Jewish inquisitors.

The large crowd listened to him with delight. They loved the contrast between Jesus authoritative teaching and the timid moralizing of the scribes.

Following Jesus’ confrontation with the temple leadership, Mark turns to a different subject, which at first seems unrelated to what immediately precedes it, yet it provides a fitting conclusion to the long arc of Mark’s story. Throughout his narrative of Jesus ministry, Mark has woven the thread of discipleship. Now, beginning in chapter 12 verse 38, we see a contrast between the hypocrisy of the teachers of the law and the sincere worship of a widow, who stands out as Mark’s ultimate model of discipleship.

The ultimate model of discipleship (12:38-44)

As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
 Mark 12:38-44

The scribes commanded unrivaled authority in Jewish society. Jesus refers to their flowing robes, which were full-length prayer shawls with tassels which they wore over their shoulders like a blanket. They were made of wool or linen and distinguished rabbis and scholars as men of wealth and eminence. People greeted them with respect. 

The teachers of the law also enjoyed the important seats in the synagogue, which were along the walls and especially on the dais at the front that faced the congregation. These seats gave them the best position to address the congregation. Some today continue to seek this kind of honor which only God deserves, thus breaking the first command of Jesus to “love the Lord your God with all your heart.”

The scribes also broke Jesus second command to “love your neighbor.” As a rule, the scribes were not wealthy individuals and so were dependent on the gifts of the faithful for their living. This system was ripe for abuse. Widows, among the most vulnerable in society, often trusted their worldly goods to community leaders like the scribes. Jesus refers to this practice with the accusation, “they devour widows’ houses.” Several suggestions have been made as to what this refers to. Perhaps they defrauded the widow of funds that were entrusted to them or seized her home when she could not pay her debts. Maybe they charged for their legal and financial advice or charged for offering prayers on her behalf. They did like to make long showy prayers.

The Jewish historian, Josephus[3], tells of a Jewish man in Rome who pretended to be a scribe. He persuaded a high-standing woman named Fulvia to make large gifts to the temple in Jerusalem, which he then embezzled. All Rome, from the emperor Tiberius down to the commoner in the street, were outraged. This expression, “devour widows’ houses” would have reminded Mark’s original Roman audience of this event, and given them a frame of reference for the scribe’s rapacious hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, the temptation to use religion to satisfy one’s own greed is still with us, injuring followers in the process. Jesus’ judgment also remains just as blunt. They will be punished most severely.

Mark contrasts the wickedness of the scribes with the true devotion of a humble widow. In the temple court of women there were 13 chests to collect various kinds of offerings, not only the temple tax but also offerings freely given by the worshipers. We can compare this to our practice of designated funds. On each chest there was a trumpet-shaped opening with the small end upward to prevent theft. These “trumpets” also allowed everyone to hear the offering of the wealthy rattle into the coffers. 

Jesus refers to this woman as a poor widow. A man’s estate was distributed first to his sons. The family was then expected to care for the widow, but this often failed to happen. If they had not retained a dowry, widows were left destitute. This was the situation for this poor woman. She offered two small coins, the smallest coinage in circulation. Mark converts the amount into a Roman equivalent coin for his first readers. It was worth 1/64th of a single day’s pay.[4] 

Jesus summoned his disciples to hear his pronouncement on her giving. “Truly I tell you, he prefaced, “this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.” She put in everything. The value of the gift was in the sacrifice. Others gave what they could spare. She spared nothing. While the scribes were greedily cheating the poor and the rich were showing off their giving, this poor woman set the standard for humble discipleship.

The gift of the nameless widow now concludes Mark’s account of Jesus’ public ministry. Jesus’ initial call to the fishermen beside the sea to leave all and follow him is perfectly fulfilled here by this faithful widow with an undivided heart. This is why Jesus called his disciples to him to observe the model of the widow. She faithfully gave all she had, and in so doing prefigured Jesus, who would soon offer his life in sacrificial death.

Closing Comments

Today we have seen Jesus’ muscular intellect as he vigorously engaged his opposition in the temple courts. As his followers, we would do well to follow his example by thinking deeply and speaking persuasively. This is my primary goal in producing this podcast: to help others really understand what God says in the Bible, to meditate intently, and live accordingly.

In our next episode, Mark continues his theme of the temple, when Jesus declares “Not one stone here will be left on another.” This begins the longest teaching section in the book of Mark, sometimes called the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus discusses the coming destruction of the temple in AD 70 as well as the signs of his second coming.

If you have found this podcast helpful, I would appreciate your help in expanding its reach. One of the best ways to assist is by leaving a review on the podcast app where you listen. This demonstrates that you appreciate this podcast and will cause it to be listed higher where others can find it. While you are in your podcast app, be sure to follow the podcast so that you will be notified whenever new episodes are released. You also can follow this program at the podcast website, biblewisdomtoday.com. I look forward to spending time with you again, soon. Thank you for your help in growing this Bible Wisdom Today family.

[1] Daube, D. (1951). Four Types of Question. The Journal of Theological Studies, II(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/II.1.45

[2] Edwards, James R. The gospel according to Mark. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.

[3] Antiquities 18.81.84, cited by Edwards
[4] Osborne, G. R., Strauss, M., & Walton, J. (2014). Mark (teach the text commentary series). Baker Publishing Group.