Mark 12:7

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.

In this chapter, we have, I. The parable of the vineyard let out to unthankful husbandmen, representing the sin and ruin of the Jewish church (Mar 12:1-12). II. Christ's silencing those who thought to ensnare him with a question about paying tribute Caesar (Mar 12:13-17). III. His silencing the Sadducees, who attempted to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection (Mar 12:18-27). IV. His conference with a scribe about the first and great command of the law (Mar 12:28-34). V. His puzzling the scribes with a question about Christ's being the Son of David (Mar 12:35-37). VI. The caution he gave the people, to take heed of the scribes (Mar 12:38-40). VII. His commendation of the poor widow that cast her two mites into the treasury (Mar 12:41-44).

12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.