Collin Hansen’s cover story for Christianity Today is an excellent example of theological journalism. He looks at the phenomenon that many Muslims seem to be coming to faith, in part because they are reading more paraphrastic translations that avoid “son of God” terminology.
Here’s an excerpt:
The results may be encouraging, but the scholarship is flawed, according to several accomplished academics whose expertise spans both testaments. The scholars, including Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminary), Jack Collins (Covenant Theological Seminary), and Vern Poythress (Westminster Theological Seminary), doubted they could endorse any alternative to “Son of God.” They expressed sympathy with missionaries who want to dispel mistaken notions held by Muslims. But they found fault with alternatives, particularly using Christ where “Son of God” originally appeared. If “Son of God” and Christ are strict synonyms, they note, then usage of both terms in Scripture is redundant; Peter did not confess, “You are the Christ, the Christ.”
” ‘Messiah’ is not an adequate substitute for ‘Son of God,’ ” Poythress wrote. “Both have the same referent, namely Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. But they do not have the same meaning. . . . The Greek expressions for ‘Messiah’ and ‘the Son of God’ do have similar meanings, in that both, in many contexts, indicate something about Jesus’ role as kingly ruler under commission from God. Moreover, both expressions evoke what people know or think they know about the great deliverer sent by God. But ‘Son of God,’ unlike ‘Messiah,’ indicates an analogy with a human family relationship. And it also has the potential to connote personal intimacy and love.”
Update: Ed Stetzer has a guest post by a friend who is working among Muslims and works through the various argument.
Seems like if you were going to compromise the “Son of God” term, you’d also have to get rid of any references to the “Father” too, right?
Right Andy. This really shouldn’t even be up for debate. Jesus IS the Son of God, period. And Muslims need to know that just like anyone else. Also, many Muslims are coming to faith by first having a supernatural dream where they see Jesus and then they encounter a Christian to explain the gospel.
The logical conclusion when pragmatism rules the church.
What is the stumbling block (scandal) in Christianity if it is not Christ crucified? (I Cor. 1:23) Did not this Divine title indicate His divinity? Who is Christ if not the Messiah – Anointed One of God and Jesus that very long awaited Messiah if He is not the Son of God the Father? Is this not why the Jews first of all could not imagine the immortal in human flesh, dying on a cross for the sin of mankind? And who gives someone “ears to hear” if it is not God? (Matthew 11:15) And how shall they believe and call on this One unless He is preached? (Romans 10:14f)
I am uncomfortable with the utter rejection of the avoidance of the ‘Son of God’ language. I do not know how one can avoid using it but it is a solution to a real problem. I would be far more comfortable if those who reject its avoidance could come up with an alternative. Because what is happening is Muslims cannot hear what we say. When we say one thing, they hear another thing. This other thing, we too would deny. Thus they deny what we deny and simply cannot hear what we are affirming. So how can we say “Son of God” in a way that they will hear what we are saying. Then if they reject that, they are rejecting the truth. But at the moment the Muslims are rejecting a lie; they are rejecting the notion the God could engage in physical relations to produce a son biologically.
We can say Son of God like the Holy Spirit did in the Bible: Son of God.
The Spirit was pleased to use the phrase Son of God dozens of times in the New Testament. I am certain that if that’s the phrase He used that’s the phrase he intended. As for objections from Muslims and others, we should always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks (us) for a reason for the hope that is in (us); yet do it with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18 ESV)
What’s with all the condemnation??
I don’t believe these missionaries are denying that Jesus is the Son of God. It seems to me they are trying to dispel the myth that Jesus is JUST a son of God and not “God in the flesh”. Many in other religions find this very confusing… that we say Jesus is God’s Son, and also God himself.
I’m not in favor of changing the term in translations, but I do think clearer teaching of the Lordship/Sonship of Jesus is needed.
I am writing this evening from an Islamic State. I am a “M.” I live and work and minister here and speak the language. I utterly reject and condemn the translation of God’s Word to change “Son of God” to something else. What an absolutely awful and foolish idea.
I fear this practice will discourage brothers and sisters in the homelands from coming to serve as Ms. Who would want to even be identified as being in the same category (“M”) as people who translate the Word so that it avoids/changes the words “Son of God.” Ugh.
By the way my Muslim-background believing colleagues and friends and partners here are aghast at the thought of this.
Oh, and by the way, by God’s grace, I’ve seen fruit in my ministry. And I’m not talking about one person in ten years, either.
I minister in a Muslim country as well, and I think if you had read the whole article you would find out for yourself what (other) Muslim background believers are saying about this.
I read the whole article
My apologies. Since there wasn’t any clear indication in your comment that you were interacting with the article, I wrongly assumed you hadn’t.
I have read the whole article and I would recommend those who are upset with the implications of this excerpt to do the same. The article is fairly balanced, though there are several crucial points it left out that would have helped immensely:
1) The genitive construction presents huge problems, not only in interpretation but also in translation. Greek grammars list a handful of functions, but there are actually many more potential *semantic* relationships in regard to the two nouns. Think for a minute: What does “of” really mean here? Read the article and see how this genitive construction is being (wrongly) interpreted.
2) It is common practice to put the alternative/literal rendering in a footnote, with an explanation. Coming at it from *both* angles (the text and the footnote) helps in understanding the phrase. The author should have mentioned this fact.
3) This is not a “pragmatic” solution in order to get converts. It is an attempt to help people understand the meaning of this phrase without unnecessary socio-religious interference.
After rereading the article, I noticed that my #2 above is actually addressed in a parenthetical comment: “(Translations that opt for a phrase other than the literal “Son of God” commonly include it in the footnotes to preserve connection to the biblical authors’ word choice.)” I must have missed that in my first reading.
Can someone help me out? Should the original post read “paraphrastic translations” instead of “periphrastic translations”?
Yep—my bad!
Can I make a suggestion about this? It is almost certainly inadequate but may inspire someone to come up with something much better.
I cannot find a book I used to have by Michael Nazir-Ali, an Anglican bishop from a Muslim background. But in the book he said that there are two words for son, ibn is one and I cannot remember the other. Although both mean ‘son’ one of them conveys the idea exclusively of biological sonship while the other is more flexible. When there is a phrase where we need to say “Son of God” to say something like “ibn Allah not ??? Allah”, which when tranlsated would read Son of God, not son of God.” This might provoke puzzlement in the Muslim rather than immediate rejection and provide a space to explain how we are saying “Son of God”.
There is a precedent for this kind of thing. Ousia and hypostasis meant the same thing before the Trinitarian theologians got hold of them. A possible translation pre 300 AD of one ousia and three hypostases is one essence and three essences, except of course that through this combination the meaning of hypostasis is altered. So what I am suggesting, very tentatively, is that by playing on the two words for Son, we might open minds to meanings other than the grossly physical.
See Vern Poythress’ response to the CT article at:
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/blog/post/bible-translations-for-muslim-readers