20 There were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and dying did not leave seed;
Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first having married died, and not having seed, left his wife to his brother. In like manner also the second and the third, unto the seven. And last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore of which of the seven shall she be wife, for all had her?
There were then seven brethren: and the first, having taken a wife, died childless; and the second [took the woman, and *he* died childless]; and the third took her: and in like manner also the seven left no children and died; and last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore of which of them does she become wife, for the seven had her as wife?
Worthy.Bible » Commentaries » Matthew Henry Commentary » Commentary on Mark 12
Commentary on Mark 12 Matthew Henry Commentary
Chapter 12
In this chapter, we have,
Mar 12:1-12
Christ had formerly in parables showed how he designed to set up the gospel church; now he begins in parables to show how he would lay aside the Jewish church, which it might have been grafted into the stock of, but was built upon the ruins of. This parable we had just as we have it here, Mt. 21:33. We may observe here,
Now what effect had this parable upon the chief priests and scribes, whose conviction was designed by it? They knew he spoke this parable against them, v. 12. They could not but see their own faces in the glass of it; and one would think it showed them their sin so very heinous, and their ruin so certain and great, that it should have frightened them into a compliance with Christ and his gospel, should have prevailed to bring them to repentance, at least to make them desist from their malicious purpose against him: but, instead of that,
Mar 12:13-17
When the enemies of Christ, who thirsted for his blood, could not find occasion against him from what he said against them, they tried to ensnare him by putting questions to him. Here we have him tempted, or attempted rather, with a question about the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. We had this narrative, Mt. 22:15.
Mar 12:18-27
The Sadducees, who were the deists of that age, here attack our Lord Jesus, it should seem, not as the scribes, and Pharisees, and chief-priests, with any malicious design upon his person; they were not bigots and persecutors, but sceptics and infidels, and their design was upon his doctrine, to hinder the spreading of that: they denied that there was any resurrection, and world of spirits, any state of rewards and punishments on the other side of death: now those great and fundamental truths which they denied, Christ had made it his business to establish and prove, and had carried the notion of them much further that ever it was before carried; and therefore they set themselves to perplex his doctrine.
Mar 12:28-34
The scribes and Pharisees were (however bad otherwise) enemies to the Sadducees; now one would have expected that, when they heard Christ argue so well against the Sadducees, they would have countenanced him, as they did Paul when he appeared against the Sadducees (Acts 23:9); but it had not the effect: because he did not fall in with them in the ceremonials of religion, he agreeing with them in the essentials, gained him no manner of respect with them. Only we have here an account of one of them, a scribe, who had so much civility in him as to take notice of Christ's answer to the Sadducees, and to own that he had answered well, and much to the purpose (v. 28); and we have reason to hope that he did not join with the other scribes in persecuting Christ; for here we have his application to Christ for instruction, and it was such as became him; not tempting Christ, but desiring to improve his acquaintance with him.
Mar 12:35-40
Here,
Mar 12:41-44
This passage of story was not in Matthew, but is here and in Luke; it is Christ's commendation of the poor widow, that cast two mites into the treasury, which our Saviour, busy as he was in preaching, found leisure to take notice of. Observe,