Inductive Bible study (SOAP) is an approach to God’s Word focusing on three basic steps that move from a focus on specific details to a more general, universal principle. Through these three steps, we apply inductive reasoning, which is defined as the attempt to use information about a specific situation to draw a conclusion. The steps are observation (what does it say?), interpretation (what does it mean?), and application (what does it mean for my life?). Inductive Bible study is a valuable tool in understanding and applying the principles of God’s Word. In an inductive study everyone participates. We will be working through as much of a chapter of Marks Gospel each week, taking turns to do the following:
SOAP Method
S: SCRIPTURE: Read a section of scripture, then summarise in your own words (What does it say? What verse stuck out to you most?).
O: Observation: Read the related Companion material below, then summarise one point/observation in your own words (Is their an issue being addressed?)
A: Application: How do you apply this truth to your life? What does it mean for us today?
P: Prayer: Following the study we will spend time in small groups praying. How do you implement this verse into your life? finish with the quiz below.
Mission 119 Weekly Reading
Readings can be prepared for prior to the study by reviewing The Mission 119 accessed online or through the app. Create a login, click on “grow” (bottom tab) and search “Mark” from the top search bar. Review the chapter of study and 10 minute devotional provided in Mission 119.
There are six teaching incidents in this chapter. They appear to take place in the temple, for chapter 13 begins with Jesus leaving the temple. Looked at from another perspective, these incidents are six pieces of teaching by the King from his throne.
Mark 12: 1 – 12 Parable: Tenants of a Vineyard
This parable was addressed to those religious leaders who had come to Jesus with their prepared question concerning his authority. Even though Jesus said he wouldn’t answer their question, in a sense this parable did answer their question. Like all the parables of Jesus, it told a simple story. This one was about a man who designed and built his own vineyard, but the management of his vineyard he leased to others while he took himself off on a journey. At harvest time, he sent a servant to collect his rent. But the tenants’ no longer feared the owner, so they beat the servant and sent him away empty handed. The owner repeatedly sent other servants. But. on each occasion. thetenants either beat the servants or killed them.
Finally, the man sent his only son whom he loved, believing the tenants would respect him. But the tenants seized the son, convinced that by killing him they would become the rightful heirs of the vineyard.
In his story Jesus asked, “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” The answer was obvious. The owner would return, kill the tenants and give the vineyard to others.
Jesus didn’t need to interpret this parable. The religious leaders understood it all too easily. They knew he was speaking about them but, amazingly to us, they did not heed the parable even though they knew it was aimed at them. They went ahead anyway to find a way to avoid the crowd and kill Jesus!
Mark 12: 13 – 17 Taxes to Caesar
The religious leaders: those chief priests, scribes and elders of 11:27, went away to regroup and think. They decided to send some Pharisees and Herodians (3:6) to ask Jesus a question, to see if they could get him to say something that would condemn him. This question concerned paying taxes. This was a good tricky topic for no one liked paying taxes, especially to the occupying Roman government.
They began by heaping insincere praise upon Jesus. This was a sure sign of their conniving.
The question they put to Jesus was simple, “Should we pay taxes to Caesar?” While simple, the question needed careful handling. If Jesus said, “Yes,” the crowd would be deeply disappointed, and Jesus would lose some of his admirers. Also, the crowd’s view of the role of the Messiah had not yet been retrained, and many were still thinking that Jesus would lead some kind of rebellion against Rome, thus become their deliverer. On the other hand, if Jesus said, “No,” the Herodians would have all the evidence they needed to report Jesus to Roman authorities and have him arrested for insurrection. It was a brilliant question. But Jesus gave an inspired and even better answer.
He asked for a coin. He asked the Pharisees whose portrait was on the coin. Then he gave the answer that checkmated the opposition, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”
Mark 12: 18 – 27 Marriage After the Resurrection
We can imagine the Pharisees and Herodians returned to the chief priests and scribes to report their failure to trick Jesus. So now it was the turn of the Sadducees. This sect of the Jews makes their first and only appearance here in Mark’s gospel. If the Pharisees were conservative, the Sadducees were liberal. They align themselves with the wealthy priests and the temple rites, so they were angry at Jesus for disrupting their trade. As mentioned in the text, Sadducees—unlike the Pharisees—did not believe in the resurrection of the body at the end of the age. Nor did they believe in the presence of angels or spirits. They probably began as followers of the Sadok about 250 BC. At times during their history, they fought against the Pharisees; while at other times, they ruled the Sanhedrin Council with the Pharisees. As they were doing during this period of their history.
The Sadducees explained their question to Jesus. It had the sound of a question they had repeatedly given to the Pharisees and scribes, to prove their belief that the teaching of the resurrection is folly.
The question is based on the Law of Moses found in Deuteronomy 25:5 “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfil the duty of a brother-in-law to her.” The question went on to state that a woman married seven brothers in turn, after each one had died without offspring. Then they ask Jesus whose wife she would belong to at the resurrection.
There are two parts to the answer Jesus gave because the Sadducees were wrong at two points in their question. They were wrong about marriage. Resurrection life in the Kingdom of God does not require marriage. Procreation occurs on earth, not in the eternal realm of God’s Kingdom. Also they were wrong about the resurrection. Jesus quoted God at the burning bush, which was a very sacred and important part of the identity of Israel, for it was the occasion where God revealed himself for the first time to Moses. God identified himself as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. That is, he was the God of the living not the dead. We noted the same truth when examining the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Mark 12: 28 – 34 The Greatest Commandment
We’ve noted Jesus had been interrogated by the Pharisees, then the Pharisees and Herodians, and then the Sadducees. Overhearing these interactions with Jesus was a scribe. It seems that this scribe was thinking for himself and not trying to trick Jesus. So he asked Jesus which commandment was the most important?
Like the Sadducees with their question on marriage, this scribal question would have been one that was often debated among scribes. Apparently, there were 613 individual statutes of the law and frequent discussions about greater and lesser laws, with an attempt to put them into some kind of hierarchical order.
Jesus began his answer by quoting the Shema, the opening words to the morning and evening prayers from Deuteronomy 6:4 ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Given that God had told Moses that his personal name was “Yahweh” and that translators use LORD to signify that name and given there are alternate but very similar ways to render this Greek to English, it is not inappropriate to think of the Shema as saying, “Listen Israel, Yahweh is our God and he is the only one.”
By Jesus beginning this way, he affirmed the divine right of God and him alone to make commandments for his nation of Israel. And remember Jesus was in the palace of God the King, not far from his throne. The throne on which Jesus belonged, but which he had left to take on human flesh.
Jesus answered the scribe by reminding him of the most important commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” Because there is only one God and King, we are to love him totally. This commandment to love God is within the context of there being only one God to love, and he requires our full and undivided devotion.
In the Old Testament we read that our God is a jealous God (Ex 34:14). He passionately desires our full and undivided love, and any diminution of that love is grievous to him and our relationship with him. He will not tolerate anyone or anything taking away some of the affection that rightly belongs exclusively to him.
What then of our matrimonial, parental and filial love? All these are exhorted in Scripture, and all of them can and have challenged our love for God. Jesus was aware of this potential difficulty, and immediately told the scribe that the second commandment was also a commandment to love: “To love our neighbour as ourselves.” These are the two greatest commandments. So in answer to our question about family love, we can deduce that God expects us to love him completely and with an undivided attention, while also being able to love family and neighbours.
This ability to love one person totally and completely while loving another is something each parent has often experienced. Total love for a spouse is the normal experience, then when the first child arrives there is total love for the child without any diminution of love for the spouse. And this phenomenon is experienced for all subsequent children.
So, it is rightly expected from God that we love him totally without any competition from any other person, thing or activity.
The scribe gave a wise response to Jesus’ two commandments, and Jesus complemented him and told him he was not far from the Kingdom of God. The scribe had understood that to love God and to love your neighbour was more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices. Given that the scribe was speaking to Jesus in the temple near the altar of burnt offering with its particular aromas, and given that he was earning his income from those offerings, the scribe’s admission was truly noteworthy. The scribe had an insight into the spiritual realm of the Kingdom of God about which Jesus had been teaching.
The final sentence in this incident is a comment from the apostle, “After this no one dared to ask Jesus any more questions”. But Jesus was eager to keep teaching, for he loved to explain the Kingdom of God.
Mark 12: 35 – 40 Whose Son is the Messiah?
So Jesus asked the crowd, which I’m sure included some of those who had already asked him questions, a question about the ambiguous ancestry of the Messiah, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?” For the scribes taught the Messiah is the son of David. But Jesus noted that David (in Psalm 110:1) said; “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’” Then Jesus said, “David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” To make it a bit easier to follow let’s write it this way.
David was writing and saying that Yahweh spoke to David’s master (lord or boss), “Sit at my right hand…”
So the question Jesus was asking the crowd—and at the same time challenging the teaching of the scribes—was: “If the Messiah is David’s son, as the scribes teach, then how can David say the Messiah is his Lord who was sitting at the right hand of God?”
Jesus didn’t give an answer or at least Mark didn’t feel it necessary to give the answer. The followers of Jesus, who already believed Jesus to be the Messiah, knew Jesus was the Son of God! Thus, we see in Jesus a duel ancestry. According to the flesh, his distant ancestor was David; but according to the Spirit, his divine ancestor was God the Father.
In verse 38 Jesus continued his challenge to the authority of the scribes. This was important as the scribes were responsible for teaching the people the truths of God and his Kingdom, which on earth was known as the nation of Israel. The scribes had failed to teach correctly. So Jesus now made clear some of their failures of character.
• They liked to be seen in public in their special robes.
• They liked to be acknowledged by the public.
• They liked sitting in the most important seats in the synagogue.
• They liked to be directed to the places of honour at banquets.
• They devoured widows’ houses. (Probably requiring widows to sell their houses.)
• They liked making long public prayers.
Jesus said such persons would be punished most severely. While it is easy to dismiss these statements as belonging to an earlier time and different culture, they contain enough truth to challenge every Christian teacher. The world of the flesh and of Satan is always trying to undo the work of the Spirit, sometimes by directly opposing Christian teachers, other times by subtly causing them to embrace worldliness and the standards of their current culture.
Mark 12: 41 – 44 The Widow’s Offering
Mark closed his account of the teaching ministry of Jesus in the temple, his natural place of authority, with some teaching he gave from observing a widow making her offering.
There are a number of observations to be seen from this very ordinary every day event.
• It showed a contrast from the preceding ostentatious behaviour of the scribes of the preceding incident.
• There were benches placed around the temple courtyards. Jesus was either resting or preparing to speak only to his apostles.
• Jesus took an interest in people and their giving. Giving, as an act of worship, was important to God. Giving to support the temple and its upkeep was also important to God.
• The offering boxes (and there were perhaps 13 trumpet-shaped receptacles marked for different purposes) were set in the wall of the Court of Women. So this giving was done by Jews, as Gentiles could not enter this courtyard.
• Jesus did not rebuke those who gave large sums of money. Many Jews travelled to Jerusalem for the festivals, especially at Passover, and they brought with them their accumulated tithes and offerings.
• The widow put in two lepta (singular: lepton.) It is difficult to give this coin a meaningful value in today’s western culture. Simply to say, they were the smallest and least valuable coins available.
• While all giving was appreciated, the value of the giving was not in its monetary value but in the heart connection to the gift.
• In Kingdom terms, the amount given was not separated from the amount retained. God was aware of both.
A final comment on giving. The Kingdom of God, like all kingdoms, has its own culture. In this chapter we’ve seen it is a culture of love for both God and others. Here we see another cultural trait. It is a culture that values giving.
Our next chapter begins with Jesus leaving the temple perhaps on one of his daily trips back to Bethany.