The Danger of Half Truths

Doctrine, even correct doctrine, when miss-applied, over applied or simply applied to the exclusion of other correct doctrine can be just as dangerous as error. In Mark 12:35-37 we see the Lord demonstrating that a truth, once sufficiently mishandled by the religious teachers of the time, could blind some to the truth of Christ’s character. In passing we also see the Lord tacitly approve and commend detailed word-level analysis of the Old Testament. Finally we will see that seemingly arcane theological detail, when correctly handled, is able to speak to the heart of the man in the street.

In Matthew 22[1] we see a passage that is either parallel with the one in Mark, or an event that Marks narrative is referring to retrospectively. Here we see that the Lord asks the Pharisees: “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?” to which they respond: “The Son of David.”

It should be noted that the answer given was not technically incorrect. David had been promised that His line would continue as the royal line[2] and later generations had been promised that a ‘just’ king to come would come from David’s line[3]. In fact it had been prophesized that the king would be born in Bethlehem the city of David[4] which was certainly not required for a royal king and served to further strengthen the tie to the original David. Close inspection of Mark’s passage shows that the Lord does not say the answer is incorrect; but He does go on to show it is the wrong answer.

The Lord then goes on to show what the correct answer should have been. There are four things I find fascinating about His method of teaching –

1. His entire premise is based upon a single verse. Often in exegesis you will hear single verses explained away on the basis that lots of others say something else. Here you see the Lord stating that a single verse should have been adequate to show that the assumption that the Messiah was simply the Son of David was incorrect.
2. His entire premise is based upon a single verse of the Old Testament, Ps 110:1. We are told that all of scripture is profitable[5] and here is the Savior showing that the Old Testament is still the correct context from which we can derive truth.
3. His entire premise is actually based upon a single word of a single verse. We thus see the requirement for extremely accurate and literal translation; if we can be held accountable for not understanding a single word correctly then we should attempt to get hold of each single word as accurately as possible? In fact the Lord suggests elsewhere[6] that even a single punctuation mark must be preserved for the Law to be complete.
4. He actually leaves the message incomplete. All the commentators unanimously agree that this shows that the Messiah is greater than David yet Christ doesn’t bother to join all the dots. We are not told why but I suspect He simply requires that His audience is sufficiently on the ball that the more obvious deductions can be left for them to do. This is similar to the reason the Lord speaks in parables[7].

The one pivotal word that Christ brings out is that David calls Christ the Lord. All the commentators agree that this word is only used when addressing one that is superior – thus the Messiah is superior to David and thus not simply a son.

Some, including Matthew Henry go further and suggest that David, in the Spirit, is speaking of the Christ as already existing. If this observation is correct then this verse alone proves not simply that the Messiah was more than the Son of David but shows He is fully divine. We know that Christ is divine[8] yet the Lord does not bring out this point. I thus suggest that to say this verse proves the deity of Christ is a bit of a stretch but it certainly supports that interpretation. The Lord certainly uses His pre-existence to make a claim to deity in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I am.”

We thus have to ask why one correct answer was better than another. I believe this can be seen by analogy. If you were to ask my neighbors or friends what kind of father I was they would probably respond that I seem to be fairly engaged, loving – overall pretty reasonable. That would be a perfectly acceptable answer. However if you asked on of my sons that and got the same answer it would be very, very concerning. Most children under ten with a reasonable father, when asked that question, will beam and tell you with full confidence that they have the best father in the world. They are almost certainly wrong but the answer they give tells you that their relationship with their father is intact.

The Messiah was to be the Son of God, a herald for Jehovah and the unifier and pinnacle of the Jewish kingdom under the throne of David. If the Jewish leaders had had a good relationship with God then their first and foremost answer would have involved the Messiah’s relationship to God and His will. Instead they were focused upon national power, and thus their response was that He was the one to restore the throne of David.

We therefore see that a perfectly accurate answer missed the mark because the heart and attitude of the Jewish leaders had miss-focused them. If we were to take the same 5 word test today: “What think ye of Christ” we would almost certainly be able to give an answer that was accurate. In fact if you are reading this you have probably written several multi-page essays on exactly that topic! But I wonder – would the answer we gave actually be the right.