In the New Testament, the title 'Son of God' is applied to Jesus Christ 37 times although it is not always clear in its exact meaning as it could also mean 'The Messiah'. The angel announced that the Messiah is the Son of God Himself. (Luke,1: 32,35) where the Evangelist took care to distinguish between them by clearly separating the two for giving a higher meaning to 'Son of God' than to the 'Messiah'. Nathaniel called him Son of God (John 1: 49) that need not mean more than the expected 'Messiah'.Similarly, the devils, the Jews and the Apostles use the term to mean 'the Messiah' during Jesus' public ministry. After the resurrection of Jesus, the Apostles understood the full import of the term 'Messiah', especially after the Pentecost with the reception of the Holy Spirit in as far as Jesus was seen both as the Messiah and the Son of God. The one exception in the public ministry may be seen in the confession of Peter (Matthew, 16: 15-16) where Jesus acknowledged the revelation from the Father about the Son , although Peter himself may not have been aware of its full implication at the time. The parallel passages in Mark and Luke have 'Messiah' and 'God's Messiah' respectively (Mark, 8: 29; Luke, 9: 20). As far as the Evangelists were concerned, by the time they recorded it after around 40 years of what took place, Jesus Christ was the Messiah because he was the Son of God and not Son of God because he was the Messiah.
At the baptism of Jesus, the Father testifies that Jesus is His Son in whom He is well pleased (Matthew, 3: 16-17; Mark, 1: 11; Luke, 3: 22). Here again we need not see more than Messiah in the appellation 'Son' as the disciples were not ready to take in the fuller meaning of 'Son of God' at the time although it was implied in it. At the transfiguration the same message is repeated by the Father with a mandate to the Apostles Peter, James and John to listen to His Son (Matthew, 17: 5; Mark, 9: 7; Luke, 9:35). The meaning of the words 'Son of God' here should be understood as a continuation of the meaning conveyed in Peter's confession, as they were by then better equipped to grasp the further revelation about the Son of God not only as the Messiah but also as its source to be fully revealed after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Because the Gospels were written 40 years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and because the Apostles and the other disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, one may think that there is no more doubt about the terms 'Messiah' and 'Son of God'. This would be true only if we completely separate the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith, which we do not accept in our Study because of reasons given in our earlier Posts on those two topics. We should, therefore, take pains to understand the meaning of terms used by the Evangelists the way they understood them and wanted to communicate to their readers. Meaning of terms used will be clear from the intention of the authors, apart from their regular use, that can be discovered by the various methods used by biblical scholars in understanding the texts.A common misconception regarding the meaning as something in the mind of the author apart from the contexts and situations prevalent at the time has been thrashed out by the method of Linguistic Analysis.
The difficulty in understanding the concept of 'Son of God' derives from our experience of the relationship between fathers and sons on earth. It is meant to be taken in all the positive attributes of this relationship when applied to the Son of God, all of which may be summed up in the idea of the intimacy of the relationship. The intimacy intended here in the case of the Son of God is not only on an operational level but also of being of the same Essence that is identified with Existence. In other words, Son of God cannot be anyone other than God Himself. The misunderstanding about the Holy Trinity in Islam, for instance, is due to the unfounded fear that it would compromise the fact that there is only one God. Besides, they fear that begetting of the Son by the Father is something imperfect and unsuitable for God. The term only means that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, like self-reflection in a mirror, introduced in the Council of Nicea in order to thwart the idea of Arius that the Son was the first creature of God. That was also the reason the Church Father Jerome translated the 'monogenes' of the Greek Bible in John 1: 14 as 'unigenitus', meaning 'the only begotten', of his Latin translation (The Vulgate). The fact that the Christians do not believe in three gods but only in one God should prod the seekers of truth to understand the sense in which the only One God is at the same time Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The idea of cause and effect, finiteness, gender, bodily interactions, etc., cannot have any relevance here. For that matter, God the Father may also be called God the Mother as God is Spirit (John, 4: 24). Ultimately, the eternal generation of the Son is said to be from the bosom of God (John, 1: 18) who is united to the Father in the power of the Spirit where the relationship is not something over and above the persons, but is identified with them. In other words, the Spirit is the substance shared by the Father and the Son equally in such a way that all the three are one though distinct in their relationships to one another (Acts, 2: 38-39). Thus there is only one God consisting in one and the same nature within the multiplicity of three persons sharing one and the same Essence that is identified with Existence Itself! Elements of this clarification of the nature of God as one in three are seen in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels, Epistles and Revelation of John the Evangelist.
From the New Testament we may gather how Jesus was specially related to God in a unique manner from his vision that was so natural to him and yet not clear to most people. This vision consisted in his outlook that the ways of the world are diametrically opposed to the ways of God. Such a vision eventually had to undermine the empire of Caesar in favor of the Kingdom of God he preached. Ultimately this Kingdom was to be manifested in his Person over and above what he said and did pointing towards his unique relationship to God to the extent of being the Son of God. The divinity of Jesus is evident from his concern for the Will of God, i.e., His Kingdom, permeating through and through his personality such that God alone could have accomplished what he did. The 'Kingdom' in the first century meant the Roman Empire and the notion of the 'Kingdom of God', the main theme of Jesus' preaching, was able to upset the values of the Caesar's empire by the values cherished by God. (to be cont'd).
At the baptism of Jesus, the Father testifies that Jesus is His Son in whom He is well pleased (Matthew, 3: 16-17; Mark, 1: 11; Luke, 3: 22). Here again we need not see more than Messiah in the appellation 'Son' as the disciples were not ready to take in the fuller meaning of 'Son of God' at the time although it was implied in it. At the transfiguration the same message is repeated by the Father with a mandate to the Apostles Peter, James and John to listen to His Son (Matthew, 17: 5; Mark, 9: 7; Luke, 9:35). The meaning of the words 'Son of God' here should be understood as a continuation of the meaning conveyed in Peter's confession, as they were by then better equipped to grasp the further revelation about the Son of God not only as the Messiah but also as its source to be fully revealed after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Because the Gospels were written 40 years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and because the Apostles and the other disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, one may think that there is no more doubt about the terms 'Messiah' and 'Son of God'. This would be true only if we completely separate the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith, which we do not accept in our Study because of reasons given in our earlier Posts on those two topics. We should, therefore, take pains to understand the meaning of terms used by the Evangelists the way they understood them and wanted to communicate to their readers. Meaning of terms used will be clear from the intention of the authors, apart from their regular use, that can be discovered by the various methods used by biblical scholars in understanding the texts.A common misconception regarding the meaning as something in the mind of the author apart from the contexts and situations prevalent at the time has been thrashed out by the method of Linguistic Analysis.
The difficulty in understanding the concept of 'Son of God' derives from our experience of the relationship between fathers and sons on earth. It is meant to be taken in all the positive attributes of this relationship when applied to the Son of God, all of which may be summed up in the idea of the intimacy of the relationship. The intimacy intended here in the case of the Son of God is not only on an operational level but also of being of the same Essence that is identified with Existence. In other words, Son of God cannot be anyone other than God Himself. The misunderstanding about the Holy Trinity in Islam, for instance, is due to the unfounded fear that it would compromise the fact that there is only one God. Besides, they fear that begetting of the Son by the Father is something imperfect and unsuitable for God. The term only means that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, like self-reflection in a mirror, introduced in the Council of Nicea in order to thwart the idea of Arius that the Son was the first creature of God. That was also the reason the Church Father Jerome translated the 'monogenes' of the Greek Bible in John 1: 14 as 'unigenitus', meaning 'the only begotten', of his Latin translation (The Vulgate). The fact that the Christians do not believe in three gods but only in one God should prod the seekers of truth to understand the sense in which the only One God is at the same time Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The idea of cause and effect, finiteness, gender, bodily interactions, etc., cannot have any relevance here. For that matter, God the Father may also be called God the Mother as God is Spirit (John, 4: 24). Ultimately, the eternal generation of the Son is said to be from the bosom of God (John, 1: 18) who is united to the Father in the power of the Spirit where the relationship is not something over and above the persons, but is identified with them. In other words, the Spirit is the substance shared by the Father and the Son equally in such a way that all the three are one though distinct in their relationships to one another (Acts, 2: 38-39). Thus there is only one God consisting in one and the same nature within the multiplicity of three persons sharing one and the same Essence that is identified with Existence Itself! Elements of this clarification of the nature of God as one in three are seen in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels, Epistles and Revelation of John the Evangelist.
From the New Testament we may gather how Jesus was specially related to God in a unique manner from his vision that was so natural to him and yet not clear to most people. This vision consisted in his outlook that the ways of the world are diametrically opposed to the ways of God. Such a vision eventually had to undermine the empire of Caesar in favor of the Kingdom of God he preached. Ultimately this Kingdom was to be manifested in his Person over and above what he said and did pointing towards his unique relationship to God to the extent of being the Son of God. The divinity of Jesus is evident from his concern for the Will of God, i.e., His Kingdom, permeating through and through his personality such that God alone could have accomplished what he did. The 'Kingdom' in the first century meant the Roman Empire and the notion of the 'Kingdom of God', the main theme of Jesus' preaching, was able to upset the values of the Caesar's empire by the values cherished by God. (to be cont'd).
No comments:
Post a Comment