Jesus, the Son of God: Biblical Meaning, Muslim Understanding, and Implications for Translation and Bible Literacy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JESUS, THE SON OF GOD: BIBLICAL MEANING, MUSLIM UNDERSTANDING, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION AND BIBLE LITERACY By Matthew Carlton 1 1 Introduction Christianity Today's (CT) February 2011 cover story2 brings to light the startling fact that certain Bible translators are removing Father-Son terminology from the Bible text for Muslim audiences when those terms refer to Jesus and God the Father. What is their rationale for this? These translators, who are part of the Muslim- idiom translation (MIT) movement, claim that "Son of God" and related terms communicate wrong meaning to Muslims, and that this wrong meaning causes many to avoid even looking at a Bible. Based on this premise, the solution they propose and are implement- ing is to remove these terms from the Bible text. How do they jus- tify this practice? They first treat all Father-Son terminology as merely metaphorical. Then they propose the use of certain substi- tute terms that they claim will acceptably communicate to Muslims the correct meaning of these "metaphors". After reading the CT article and some of the MIT movement’s writings, a person could easily be led to believe that the primary key to removing barriers to the gospel among Islamic peoples is to take references to Jesus as "Son" and to God as "Father" out of the translated Bible text and replace them with these substitute terms. Is this growing trend a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Since 1983, Matthew Carlton has worked as a Bible translator and transla- tion/literacy consultant in six different countries of Africa and Asia. He is produc- ing Bible translation resources in several major languages and conducts translation production workshops for translation teams overseas. He has taught discourse grammar, Biblical Greek and exegesis, field methods for linguistic analysis, and Bible translation theory and practice. 2 Colin Hansen, ‘The Son and the Crescent’ in Christianity Today, February 2011. WORLD magazine's May 2011 article, ‘Inside Out’ by Emily Belz also discusses this issue. St Francis Magazine Vol 7, No 3 | August 2011 ! valid practice? Or are these translators promoting a false idea that should be stopped in its tracks? This article sets out to show how the above MIT claims are indeed false and that the solution is not to change the Bible text, but rather to focus attention and ministry efforts on improving methods of teaching Bible truths to Muslims, enhanced by a clearer understanding of what they really believe and accompanied by a genuine, sacrificial love for these lost people groups. 2 Is Jesus actually the Son of God, or is that just a metaphor?3 The answer to that question can help us determine what is, and what is not, an accurate and acceptable way for Bible translators to translate Father-Son terminology when it refers to Jesus and God the Father in the New Testament. If Jesus really is the Son of God in a way that is not metaphorical (even if we do not understand exactly how), then it is not accurate to remove Father-Son references from the Bible text and/or change them to something else, that is, we are not free in a translation to change the facts of who Jesus and His Father are. This means that if in certain cultures or parts of the world there are difficulties under- standing these terms (or even erroneous teachings about these terms), the issue is mainly one of Bible literacy; in other words, peo- ple must be taught the truth, including the Biblical facts about what it means that Jesus Christ is "the Son of God". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 A metaphor is an expression in which one concept is likened to another, different concept, usually by speaking of it as if it were that other. In other words, the two concepts are not the same, but have one or more points of similarity by which they can be compared. For example, the metaphor "the canyon was a furnace" is not intended to communicate that these two objects are actually the same, but rather that the canyon feels hot like a furnace. So when Jesus said to His disciples, "you are the branches" (John 15:5), He was telling them that they were like branches (that need to stay connected to the vine in order to bear fruit). In the same way, the MIT movement's labeling of the term "Son (of God)" in reference to Jesus as a metaphor means that Jesus is not actually God's Son but is only like a son to Him. In fact, since a metaphor cannot be the concept or entity that it is illustrating, it is contradictory to say that "Son" and "Father" are only metaphors if one truly be- lieves that Jesus is the Son of God. St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision "! ! St Francis Magazine Vol 7, No 3 | August 2011 ! What is the evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God's Son and that God is His Father? Would first-century Jews have understood these terms to be just metaphors or idioms as some have claimed, or rather, as they read the inspired writings of Jesus' disciples would they have understood Jesus to be God's Son in a more real sense? The New Testament begins with a Jewish author writing to a Jewish audience, using a Jewish genealogy to show who Jesus is. To move the genealogy forward, Jesus' disciple Matthew uses the verb "fathered" (from the Greek verb !"##$%) forty times, so that (following the Greek text), "Abraham fathered Isaac, then Isaac fa- thered Jacob... David fathered Solomon..." and so forth, until the genealogy reaches its goal/peak and culminates in verse 16 with a divine passive4 in the sentence, "Then Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus who is called Christ was fa- thered [by God]." It is interesting how all five times that Matthew mentions women in the genealogy (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah's wife and Mary) their role is not communicated with a verb, but with a prepositional phrase, the same phrase "from/by..." (Greek: ""&...") for each one. That pattern works together with the pattern of the fathers' role being communicated through the verb of each clause to rivet attention on the final use of the verb in the genealogy when it is suddenly a divine passive, with God as the implied Father.5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 Bible scholars such as Leon Morris, Robert Gundry and Donald Hagner recog- nize that Matthew uses a divine passive here. 5 Matthew says in 1:17 that there are three sets of fourteen generations in his gene- alogy, but then only lists thirteen men in the last set. To remedy this apparent discrepancy, some Bible scholars have suggested counting one of the names in the genealogy twice (for example, some include Jeconiah as a member of both the sec- ond and third sets). However, if it is recognized that God is implied as Jesus' Fa- ther in verse 16, then Matthew's count is accurate as is and there is no discrepancy. There is also other evidence that Matthew intended to have the divine passive complete the pattern for the third set in his genealogy. For example, in order to have fourteen individuals in each set (2 x 7 = double perfection), he left out at least four ancestors in the second set (including Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah from be- tween Joram and Uzziah in verse 8, and Jehoiakim between Josiah and Jechoniah in verse 11), and he probably left out a few more in the third set (which is suggested by the fact that in Luke 3 there are twenty-one, instead of only thirteen, men listed for the same time period). St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision #! ! St Francis Magazine Vol 7, No 3 | August 2011 ! Right after the genealogy, Matthew relates a bit more about this amazing situation by revealing in verses 18 and 20 that Mary was caused to be with child "from/by" God the Holy Spirit. Then, building on that context (including verse 16), Matthew again im- plies in verse 23 that Jesus is God's Son when he explains that, in fulfillment of Scripture, a virgin would conceive and give birth to a son who is God ("Immanuel").6 So by the end of the first chapter of Matthew, the stage has been set7: the Jewish audience would read the rest of this Gospel in light of the fact that Jesus Christ was a descendant of Abraham and King David (as they knew had been prophesied about the Messiah) and that He was fathered by God from Mary through the action of the Holy Spirit. They would also know that Matthew was saying that Jesus is none other than God's true Son, Immanuel, "God with us".8 Because of the carefully constructed context that Matthew provides, none of this would be understood as "just a metaphor" by the first- century Jewish audience,9 regardless of their background or any !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 In order for a virgin to conceive and have God as her offspring, it had to be God who was the Father of that son. That is in fact what the previous context already established (1:16, 18, 20). In addition, the phrase "All this took place" (verse 22) directly connects that context with verse 23. Also see Luke 1:35 in which the angel tells Mary, a virgin, that the child which God would miraculously cause her to conceive was the Son of God. 7 This is similar to what an author does when he defines his terms at the beginning of his paper so that every time those terms are used in the paper they are under- stood correctly by his audience the way he wants them to be understood.