Admonition Podcast

Alright, let's begin with a word of prayer and then we'll get into our text.

A gracious Father in heaven, we bow before your throne, grateful for the day that you
blessed us with.

We're grateful for all that you have done for us.

We're thankful for the uh mercies that you have showered upon Sister Frances in the
surgery and coming through it successfully.

We pray for her to have a speedy recovery and renewed strength and ability to get around.

Lord, we are grateful for all of the blessings that exist through the modern medicines and
surgeries and procedures that we have today.

We're also grateful and recognize that every good and perfect gift comes from You.

Lord, we pray that You will be with those who are traveling, those who are on the road or
will be later this week.

Pray that You give them safety and allow them to reach their destination safely.

We thank You for Your Word.

for your revelation.

And we thank you most especially for your Son who came and died on the cross for our sins
and didn't just die for us but taught us both how to live and how to serve you in a way

that is acceptable and set an example for us that as we see Christ, we see you.

All this we pray and ask in Jesus' name, amen.

Mark chapter 12.

We got down to verse 35.

Verse 35 says, then Jesus answered and said while he taught in the temple, how is it that
the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?

For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand
till I make your enemies your footstool.

Therefore David himself calls him Lord, how then is he his son?

And the common people heard him gladly." Now, as we've been going through chapter 12, what
has happened time and time again?

All right?

The scribes, the Pharisees, the Herodians, the lawyers are coming to Jesus and they're
testing Him with questions.

They're trying to find some reason, some statement, some uh teaching or doctrine that they
can use to discredit Him amongst the people.

And they have failed and failed and failed.

and failed.

Matter of fact, every single time they come trying to test him, it's themselves that are
getting discredited along the way.

And so now it's time for Jesus to ask a question.

So his question is, how is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?

If you were to look at that question, what would be your first thought?

Okay, wasn't the Messiah to be the son of David?

Yes, he was.

All right, turn back to Samuel.

2 Samuel chapter 7

beginning in verse eight, Now therefore, thus shall you say to my servant David, thus says
the Lord of hosts, I took you from the sheepfold, from following the sheep, to be ruler

over my people over Israel.

And I have been with you wherever you have gone, and have cut off all your enemies from
before you, and have made you a great name, like the name of the great men who are on the

earth.

Moreover, I will appoint a place for my people Israel.

and will plant them that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more, nor
shall the sons of wickedness oppress them any more as previously.

Since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel and have caused you to
rest from all your enemies, also the Lord tells you that he will make you a house.

When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after
you.

who will come from your body and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build a house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

I will be his father and he shall be my son.

If he commits uh iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of
the son of men.

But my mercy shall not depart from him as I took it from Saul whom I removed from before
you.

and your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you, your throne shall
be established forever." Now, here this text and in other occasions, other places, the

prophecy is made of a coming son of David.

Now, there's two aspects to this one.

One of them is Solomon and his direct

sonship of David and the building of the temple by Solomon.

But there's further a statement concerning the kingdom reign and a son who would dwell on
the king's throne forever and that his kingdom would be established forever pointing

towards the Messiah.

As you consider this, there's this passage and like we mentioned, there's others that
point to

the Messiah being from the offspring or a son of David.

Why then does Jesus question why the scribes have taught that Christ is the son of David?

What is the problem with the scribes' teaching?

Okay, well, there's the thousand years between the time David reigns and the time Christ
comes, but even if they just mean descendant of, I mean, the statement is accurate.

So if the statement is accurate, then what does that mean is wrong about the teaching?

Not the statement itself, but what they taught from the statement, the application of the
statement, their intention of saying,

the son of David is that the son is by nature inferior to the father.

So they're looking for a Messiah, but he's going to be the Messiah sitting on David's
throne.

Well, if you were to think of someone sitting on someone else's throne, which one would
you assume was greater, the one who's throne it was or the one who's sitting on it?

the one whose name's on it.

There's a reason why Trump likes to put his name on everything.

He wants to be the notice of the one who's greater than the other people using it.

So here you have the scribes teaching, reiterating, emphasizing, it seems to be Jesus's
point, always bringing up that this is going to be a son of David.

What Jesus points out is

what they're not teaching, what they have neglected to teach, what they have left out of
the promise of the Messiah.

For what they're looking for is a descendant, a king, a ruler, a military man.

Why is it that David was not allowed to build the temple of God?

uh God said, are a bloody man, you will not build my temple.

Rather your son Solomon will be a king of peace and he will build my temple.

Well they were looking for a son of David.

They wanted a warrior back on the throne to get them out from under the thumb of the
rulers who were over them.

They no longer wanted to be a subjugated nation.

They wanted to set their own destiny and have their own control and not have the Roman
Empire over them.

And so they were looking for a son of David, a warrior king to sit on the throne and give
them their kingdom back.

but what they missed, what they failed to teach is what Jesus emphasizes afterwards.

He says, for David himself said by the Holy Spirit, we'll come back to that thought in a
moment, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your

footstool.

Turn to Psalm 110.

Verse one.

Psalm 110 verse 1, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies
your footstool.

The Lord shall send the rod of your strength out of Zion, rule in the midst of your
enemies.

Your people shall be volunteers in the days of your power, in the beauties of holiness
from the womb of the morning.

You have the dew of your youth.

The Lord has sworn and will not relent.

You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

The Lord is at your right hand.

He shall execute kings in the day of his wrath.

He shall judge among the nations.

He shall fill the places with dead bodies.

He shall execute the heads of many countries.

He shall drink of the brook by the wayside.

Therefore, he shall lift up the head.

Now David writes this Psalm and Jesus says that he writes it by the power of whom?

the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is making it clear when David writes this Psalm, when David writes this prophecy,
he's not writing it of his own interpretation.

He's not writing his own opinion.

He's not writing his own thoughts and his own studied education on the matter.

He is writing this by the Holy Spirit.

So why weren't the scribes teaching it?

Why were the scribes talking about a son of David, but not describing the Son as the Lord
of David?

And it all comes back to, it didn't fit their narrative.

It didn't fit what they were looking for.

It didn't fit what they had in mind.

And so Jesus points out what David says concerning the Messiah.

Therefore David himself calls him Lord, how is he then his son?

When you go through the previous occurrences of the scribes, the Pharisees, and others
coming to Jesus, if Jesus asked them a question, did they have an answer for it?

No.

Even if they wanted to give an answer to it, they wouldn't because they knew it would make
them look bad.

Now Jesus asks a question.

Jesus turns it around on them, asks them.

to answer these things.

And there is, of course, there's no recorded answer of what they said in reply, but the
people received the teaching gladly.

Now.

The point that Jesus is making is that the Messiah would not be subservient to David.

The Messiah would not be inferior to David.

Rather, David had made it clear that the Messiah would be the Lord of David.

Now, if the people had come to the conclusion that Jesus was going to be the Messiah, what
did that mean about who they should be following?

Should they be following the Pharisees still?

The Sadducees?

The Herodians?

The chief priests?

The council,

Or should they be following the one who was the Lord of David?

And ultimately, Jesus is establishing the same thing that will predicate Peter's sermon in
Acts chapter 2.

Turn over to Acts chapter 2.

Verse 22, men of Israel, hear these words.

Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God
did through him in your midst as you yourselves also know.

First thing Peter is going to establish is there is no denying the facts of the situation.

There is no denying the signs, the miracles, and the deeds that established that Christ
was from God.

And none of them there could deny it.

You go all the way back to John chapter three in Nicodemus, one of the 70, one of the
council comes to Jesus and says, we know you are a teacher come from God.

for no one could do the things which you do except God be with him." Now that's all the
way in year one of Jesus' ministry.

Here we are three years into Jesus' ministry and well three and a half years after his
death and resurrection Peter says there's no question about it.

There's no argument about it.

Every single one of you are aware of the situation.

But then he points out this, him being delivered by the determined purpose and
foreknowledge of God.

you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death, whom God raised up,
having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by

it.

For David says concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is at my
right hand that I may not be shaken.

Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue was made glad.

Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.

For you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see
corruption.

You have made known to me the ways of life.

You will make me full of joy in your presence." Now, Peter comments on what David wrote.

He says, men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is
both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

Peter makes it clear David's not writing about himself.

If David was writing about himself, his tomb wouldn't be right over there.

But it is.

So he must be writing about someone else.

And yet he's describing this as the Lord.

Peter goes on, he says, therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him

that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit
on his throne." Now what does Peter say about whether or not Jesus was a son of David?

He said he was.

See, Jesus isn't arguing that the Messiah is not going to be the son of David.

Jesus is pointing out that that's all the scribes would teach about the Messiah, is that
he was the son of David.

But they wouldn't teach the truth of the matter, that he was the Lord of David.

Now notice what Peter says.

That he would, according to the flesh, raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

He, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ.

that his soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

This Jesus God has raised up of which we are all witnesses, therefore being exalted to the
right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He

poured out this which you now see and hear.

For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord,
sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus whom you
crucified both Lord and Christ." Peter takes the exact same prophecy of David that Jesus

is commenting on.

Jesus is establishing that the one that David spoke of is going to be the Lord.

It's not going to be someone inferior to David.

subservient to David, just a descendant of David, he is going to be the one that David
said was his very Lord.

And Peter says, this same Jesus who you crucified, God has now fulfilled this passage and
made him both Lord and Messiah.

That's what Christ means.

The Greek word is Christos.

for the word Messiah.

So Jesus is going to question them.

Therefore David himself calls him Lord, how is he then his son?

And the common people heard him gladly.

Then he said to them in his teaching, beware of the scribes who desire to go around in
long robes.

love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues and the best places
at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers, these will

receive greater condemnation." As Jesus brings to bear the discussion that has occurred
concerning the authority of the Christ,

He establishes that the Christ who is coming, the Christ who is prophesied, the Christ who
David spoke of, was going to be the Lord of David.

but his application is about the actions and the pretenses of the scribes.

The reason, if you were to reason through the passage, the reason why the scribes were not
teaching the proper thing concerning the Messiah is it would have denied their own

authority.

It would have made them subservient to the one who was coming.

It would have decreased their position in the eyes of the people.

And so they didn't teach about who the Messiah was.

They didn't teach that the Messiah was the Lord of David.

It's interesting to point out that this comes in a text immediately following a discussion
of what is the greatest commandment in law.

And what is it that Jesus said was the greatest commandment in the law?

All right, I shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy strength, all
thy mind.

But what did he say before that?

In Mark's record, Jesus gives the entire quotation from Deuteronomy, where He says, oh

And then Jesus has a discussion before the end of the context about the fact that David
said, one who was coming was the Lord.

but they, the scribes, were denying His authority.

They were denying His authority to substitute their own.

They were denying His position to aggrandize themselves.

He brings home the discussion about their perspective on what they taught.

in their actions because he says, beware of them because they go around in long robes.

In the first century synagogues we're told that in order for someone to get up and speak
publicly in the synagogue, you had to meet certain criteria.

First of all, you had to be a male.

You had to be a Jew.

But you also had to be dressed a certain way.

You had to have a robe on that went down to your ankles.

You couldn't show up in a regular laborer's garments.

Jesus, by the way, we have an idea on exactly what his garments looked like because guess
what?

He got up and spoke in the synagogue.

His dress and his apparel was appropriate for being a speaker or a rabbi in the synagogue.

So Jesus' garment, which we read about at His crucifixion, which was woven from the inside
out from top to bottom, would have been all the way down to His ankles.

But the scribes would go about in the marketplace and they'd go about in public in their
long robes.

Do you think they did that because that was the only garment they had?

No.

You think they did that because, well, you know, it might be a little chilly outside?

No.

Why did they do that?

Oh, there goes a teacher.

They could be identified.

They could be seen by the people.

Now,

What else do we learn about Jesus's garment?

If Jesus wore that in the marketplace, were they able to say, well, wait a minute, I saw
you in the marketplace just yesterday.

You had on the same robe we do.

How many robes did Jesus have?

By all indications of the text, he was wearing everything he had.

but they were doing this out of pretense.

They were doing this to be seen.

It is interesting that there are times you take a, sit down with some of the commentators,
especially those from a number of years ago and especially those from a denominational

background, and you'll find sections in scripture where denominational commentators are,

moaning and groaning back in the 1800s about the fact that preachers are moving away from
the robes and the apparels of the priests and of the position of a minister.

And still today, there's many who, when they get up to preach, they're in a collar and
they're in these garments that are the garments of a...

minister.

Jesus said, you're wearing that to be seen by men...

You have a problem.

And he goes on to point out that they're not just doing it to be seen, but to be greeted.

They want the adoration.

They want the recognition.

They want to be seen.

And then when they go to the synagogue, they expect to be seated in the best position.

And then when they go to the feast, they expect to be seated in an honorable position.

And then they turn around and do what to widows?

take everything they have.

Now, do you...

let's talk about language here.

Do you assume that everything you read in the Bible is literal?

Well, you should assume that everything you read in the Bible is literal unless the
context indicates that there is some sort of figurative speech being used.

Because the text is not indicating that it was the practice of the scribes to come and eat
the homes of widows.

But if you were to take the term devour in a literal sense, you would have to come to the
conclusion that it was the practice of the scribes to go about eating the houses of

widows.

Don't think that's what Jesus meant.

But Jesus rather is pointing out what the outcome is.

If you have something that consumes your house, what do you have afterwards?

Nothing.

Now what was it that God said to Israel they were to be careful about in regards to the
fatherless and widows?

They were to be careful to provide for them.

They were to be careful to make sure that they were protected and that they were treated
properly because God was the widow and the orphan's representative.

Because God made it clear, I will recompense those who do and who act unjustly towards the
fatherless and the widow.

You go back to this passage back here in Psalm 110 and notice what David writes one more
time.

The LORD said to my LORD, Sit at my right hand, Till I make your enemies your footstool.

The LORD shall send the rod of your strength out of Zion.

Rule in the midst of your what?

enemies.

I don't think it's coincidence that Jesus quotes this passage and then starts making
application to the scribes.

and draws forward the fact that their actions demonstrated through their actions towards
widows that they were the enemies of God.

It was a clear, definitive example by which Jesus could establish these people who are
your teachers are not the friends of God.

Here's one example and it's all you need.

Look at what they do to widows.

Now you can go over to Matthew chapter 23 and you can read.

the series of woes that Jesus gives in the same week of Jesus' life, though Mark doesn't
record it, you can read the list of woes that Jesus gives against the Pharisees, and he

attributes the same type of accusation against the Pharisees.

The picture here is that all of the leadership in Israel was either complacent or involved
in the taking of that which belonged to the widows.

Taking the very last possession they had.

Now watch this.

Go back to Mark chapter 12.

Verse 41, now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the
treasury and many who were rich put in much.

Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites which make a quadrants.

So he called his disciples to himself and said,

Assuredly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given
to the treasury.

For they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she
had, her whole livelihood."

Have you ever thought about that text in view of the fact that Jesus has just condemned
the scribes for devouring the houses of widows?

We often look at this text and think about it in terms of giving.

We often come here and look at it in view of the point Jesus makes at the end and not the
point that He made at the beginning.

Jesus!

commends the giving heart of the widow and condemns the actions of the people who were
insisting that a widow give everything she has so that they can have what they want.

Isn't that interesting?

That in the same act, one of a heart willing to give.

There is a commendable action, and in the same pretext before it, there is a condemnation
because of how they were using their power and influence among the people.

To take that which a widow couldn't afford to give.

We should be careful when we come to a text like this.

We should be careful to understand that the command of God, the correct understanding of
what God has taught us is not that we should impoverish ourselves or even and especially

someone who is already sitting in an impoverished state.

Well, just give everything you have.

It's not the instruction of God.

The instruction of God is clearly seen in another passage which we can go look at.

Let's do that.

First Corinthians chapter 16.

Paul writes to the church, says, concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given
order to the churches of Galatia, so must, so you must do also.

On the first day of the week, let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he
may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

Paul, as he looks at the first century church and the Corinthians,

promise and commitment to give to the needs of the Judean churches, which were at this
present time enduring much affliction and hardship due to a famine, he says, here's how

you give.

As you have been prospered.

If the widow had prospered nothing according to the command, what should she have given?

Nothing.

Why?

because she hadn't prospered anything.

The goal and the mission of the command to give is not the erasing of all the little bit
that someone who has nothing and is gaining nothing has.

And Jesus, by the way, is pointing this out.

Go back to the text in Mark chapter 12, he says, for they all put in out of their what?

Abundance.

Here come individual after individual.

They come into the temple.

Jesus is standing there at the door.

He's watching this as they go by the treasury and they take out of their abundance.

Now the text doesn't say it specifically, but the way I picture it is they don't even
count it out.

As if they were to put their hand into a bag filled with coins and just whatever came out,
what went in?

That's just the way my brain envisions it.

Out of abundance, little care for how much went in because they had an abundance.

But here comes this widow, and if she were to put her hand in her purse...

what was in there.

Two pennies.

And when she pulled it out, what'd she pull out?

everything.

and yet she was fully aware of what she put in.

It was out of her motivation and her heart that she gave what she gave.

But what the scribes were doing was pressuring those who had nothing, who gained nothing,
who prospered nothing to still give until they could no longer even sustain their own

lives.

Eddie.

assume from the text, and I think rightly so, that if she had abundance like what they
did...

she still would have been very purposeful in what she did.

And it just draws to mind the fact that we are to be purposeful in our giving, whether
it's our contribution giving or the giving and helping of others, that God that demands of

us and expects us to be purposeful.

She was a good steward of what she had while they were just tossing it carelessly.

Absolutely.

So.

It's one of those things that when you look at a passage and you only think of the passage
from one frame of mind, you get one perspective.

But sometimes when you read the verses before it, you read the verses after it, you draw
back, you pull back out and go, wait a minute, there's more here.

And the more that's here,

is the fact that Mark positions this so as for us to understand that this is connected to
Jesus' teaching about the abuse of authority by the scribes.

had what she had because the scribes had quote devoured her and what she had.

There's a possibility that her scenario was the situation that it was because of the
actions of the scribes, but it could also be a perspective based upon their actions in

their teaching.

the way that they taught, the way that they encouraged people to give even if they had
nothing to give.

Because by the way, where did the funds go?

You know, there's an old adage in our society, follow the money.

And where did all of this come from?

Where did all the discussion and the continual testing of Jesus originate?

Go back in the text and notice where we started this whole discussion.

Chapter 11, verse 15.

So they came to Jerusalem.

Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple
and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves and

he would not allow anyone to carry wares through the temple.

Then he taught, saying to them, It is written, house shall be called a house of prayer for
all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves.

And the scribes...

uh

and the chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy him."

They used their power.

They used their position as teachers and preachers.

And those who were before the people, they used it to get recognition.

They used it to get prominence.

They used it to get position.

And they used it to get profit.

and it didn't matter to them what it cost somebody else.

It only mattered what they got out of it.

You know, Ava, I was trying not to go there.

Yeah.

I was going to say, when we stop and think about some of the um false teachers that exist
today.

Teaching false doctrines when it's really all about the money and the lifestyle that they
live and they really don't care if you've sent your last $5 into them, you know, when they

ask and plead for you to, I'll give you a blessing or you'll have this or that.

Send your check in and your debts will go away and the tax collector will stop calling and
you'll be great while they're living in a mansion.

Yep.

It is appropriate to always step back and question about stewardship, to question whether
or not not just the giver is benefiting, but that the thing being given toward is being

done.

You go back into the Old Testament and you find the occasion where the temple is in
shambles and in disrepair and the king directs the funds but he directs them only to

someone who is of a good heart and who is of a good stewardship mindset because he knows
the money has been going all along.

The problem is the priests, the Levites, and the others have been stealing.

instead of doing what should have been done with the funds.

You also go back, at least my mind does, to Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the stewards and
the shepherds in Israel.

And that prophetic statement concerning the Son who was going to come, the Good Shepherd
who was going to come, and He was going to bring judgment against these other shepherds,

these evil shepherds, because instead of guarding the flock, they were allowing the flock
to be stolen.

Instead of helping the flock, they were allowing the flock to be hurt.

Instead of feeding the flock, they were consuming the flock and eating them themselves.

And Ezekiel is looking forward to a time true in his day and equally true in Jesus' day
that this would be the condition of the teachers of God's people when he came.

So I want to wrap this up with pointing this out.

someone who gives.

is blessed as a giver.

and they are not primarily responsible for what happens with the gift that they give.

But God holds to a greater condemnation and a greater judgment the one who receives the
gift and then uses it improperly, which is what the accusation is against the scribes.

and the others is that they were abusing that which was given.

In other words, they were stealing from God.

So as we wrap the whole text up, you remember that God said, the Lord said to my Lord, sit
at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.

Jesus accuses the scribes of being the enemies of God and therefore the enemies of the
Messiah.

Peter attributes the exact same statement to the fact that they were the enemies of God
because they were only interested in themselves.