Mark 12:18

CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37) And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him--The other Evangelists are less definite. "As some spake," says Luke (Luk 21:5); "His disciples came to Him," says Matthew (Mat 24:2). Doubtless it was the speech of one, the mouthpiece, likely, of others. Master--Teacher. see what manner of stones and what buildings are here--wondering probably, how so massive a pile could be overthrown, as seemed implied in our Lord's last words regarding it. JOSEPHUS, who gives a minute account of the wonderful structure, speaks of stones forty cubits long [Wars of the Jews, 5.5.1.] and says the pillars supporting the porches were twenty-five cubits high, all of one stone, and that of the whitest marble [Wars of the Jews, 5.5.2]. Six days' battering at the walls, during the siege, made no impression upon them [Wars of the Jews, 6.4.1]. Some of the under-building, yet remaining, and other works, are probably as old as the first temple.

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. I. See here the method they take to entangle it; they quote the ancient law, by which, if a man died without issue, his brother was obliged to marry his widow, Mar 12:19. They suppose a case to happen that, according to that law, seven brothers were, successively, the husbands of one woman, Mar 12:20. Probably, these Sadducees, according to their wonted profaneness, intended hereby to ridicule that law, and so to bring the whole frame of the Mosaic institution into contempt, as absurd and inconvenient in the practice of it. Those who deny divine truths, commonly set themselves to disparage divine laws and ordinances. But this was only by the by; their design was to expose the doctrine of the resurrection; for they suppose that if there be a future state, it must be such a one as this, and then the doctrine, they think, is clogged either with this invincible absurdity, that a woman in that state must have seven husbands, or else with this insolvable difficulty, whose wife must she be. See with what subtlety these heretics undermine the truth; they do not deny it, nor say,…

12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 // Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). 12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).