In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus draws a clear distinction between his relationship with the Father and that of his disciples. He always spoke of 'my Father' and never 'our Father' and the prayer 'Our Father' was to be used by the disciples. Jesus always gave very clear indications of his unique relationship with the Father as against that of all creatures. He meant to say that he was always one with the Father, although distinct by way of his relationship to the Father. Jesus taught the people to think about the identity of the Messiah by challenging the teachers of the Jewish Law to explain Psalm 110: 1 where David calls the Messiah both his son and Lord (Mark, 12: 35-37). Since David was inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing the Psalm, he could not possibly have made a mistake was the point on which the lawyers had to explain the text. If the Messiah was understood in the traditional sense, the explanation would remain unsatisfactory. This was so because the actual understanding of the identity and role of the Messiah was taken as a mere temporal inheritor of the kingdom of David by the Jews of the time. If the Messiah was taken as the eternal inheritor of the Kingdom of God of which the kingdom of David was a mere temporal phenomenon , it would be clear how the Messiah could also be the Lord of David. If the Messiah was to be taken as the Son of God Himself, everything would make sense whereby David could address him both as his son by way of physical descent and his Lord by way of spiritual relationship.We should keep in mind here that both the Gospels according to Mark and Matthew were intent on establishing the point that Jesus was the expected Messiah and therefore when they use the title 'Son of God', it need not mean anything more than the Messiah. The declaration of Mark at the very beginning of his Gospel that Jesus is the Son of God (omitted by some witnesses) need not mean anything more than the expected Messiah. It does not mean that Mark and Matthew did not believe in Jesus as the real Son of God. It was a methodological device by the first two Gospels to introduce the phenomenon of Jesus in familiar and more readily acceptable terms to both the Jews and the Gentiles of the period. This point was taken up by both Luke and John in their Gospels clarifying that the actual Messiah appearing in the person of Jesus Christ was at the same time the very Son of God. The question of the High Priest at the Sanhedrin trial about the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed One was answered by Jesus by reference to the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark 14: 62). The answer was a clear reference to Psalm 110: 1 and Daniel 7: 13 both alluding to the Messiah who was expected by the Jews and much more than the Messiah in its actual realization in Jesus, the Son of God. Its actual realization in him is hinted at by Jesus with his reference to the Son of Man in his answer to the Chief Priest.
The claims made by Jesus about his own identity could not be contained under the mere notion of 'the Messiah', although Matthew's preoccupation was to prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah (Matthew, 7: 21-23; 10: 32; 11: 25-30; 28: 18-20 etc.). Notwithstanding passages in Luke clearly testifying to the special relationship of Jesus to God as his Father (Luke, 2: 49;10: 21-22, etc.), we shall pay special attention to two passages (Luke, 1:32-35; 22:66-71) where Luke purposely separated references to the Messiah and the Son of God from each other. It means that Luke did not want to confuse the two but assign separate meanings to them, whereby the title 'Son of God' assumed a higher meaning than that of the 'Messiah'. According to the biblical scholar Fitzmeyer, the understanding of the Sanhedrin and Luke of the title 'Son of God' is not the same. For the Sanhedrin, it could only mean the Messiah, while Luke meant it as referring to the unique relationship of the Son to God the Father. In this context, we may note here a significant change Luke made to the Centurion's confession that Jesus was Son of God both by Mark (Mark, 15: 39) and by Matthew (Matthew, 27:54). Luke purposely altered the confession of the Centurion to "this man was just" (Luke 23: 47), probably to salvage the real meaning of "Son of God" used by Mark and Matthew given the background of its meaning as applied to the Roman Emperor that was familiar to the Roman Centurion. Since Roman Emperors were considered to be sons of God, the title'Son of God' uttered by a Roman Centurion would not have brought out the real meaning intended to be conveyed by Luke.
In the Gospel according to John, the very first chapter gives a view of Jesus that is meant to govern the meaning of the title 'Son of God' in the rest of the book. The status of Jesus who was the Word made flesh (John, 1: 14) and was himself God by dwelling with God from eternity (John, 1:1) is gradually unfolded as the Son of God who could claim equality with God (John, 5: 17-18; 6: 40; 14: 9; 16: 3; 17: 20-23 etc.). The Epistles of Paul were the first New Testament books written between A. D. 52 and 60 and were earlier than even the Gospels, which were written between A. D. 70 and 100. Paul teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ without any ambiguity (Romans, 1: 3-4; Galatians, 4: 4; Ephesians, 4: 13;Philippians, 2: 6-11; Colosians, 1: 13-20; 2: 9-10; Hebrews, 1: 1-14; 2: 5-9; 5:5, etc.), although he was not a follower of Jesus in his earthly life. According to his own testimony, Paul received what we taught not from any man, but from Jesus Christ through revelation (Galatians, 1: 12). We may see that what Paul taught is in conformity with what the 12 Apostles taught as seen from the Gospels and from the Acts of the Apostles besides the Letters known as the Catholic Epistles.
After having seen the testimony of the Father and of the Son about the divinity of Jesus Christ, it is only natural to ask about the role of the Holy Spirit.The manner in which the Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus Christ as the Son of God is to be seen in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well as in the guidance of the Church till the end of the World. As we shall see in the next two Posts about the Church usage of the title and its present use, where the role of the Holy Spirit is implied, a separate treatment of it may not be necessary.
The claims made by Jesus about his own identity could not be contained under the mere notion of 'the Messiah', although Matthew's preoccupation was to prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah (Matthew, 7: 21-23; 10: 32; 11: 25-30; 28: 18-20 etc.). Notwithstanding passages in Luke clearly testifying to the special relationship of Jesus to God as his Father (Luke, 2: 49;10: 21-22, etc.), we shall pay special attention to two passages (Luke, 1:32-35; 22:66-71) where Luke purposely separated references to the Messiah and the Son of God from each other. It means that Luke did not want to confuse the two but assign separate meanings to them, whereby the title 'Son of God' assumed a higher meaning than that of the 'Messiah'. According to the biblical scholar Fitzmeyer, the understanding of the Sanhedrin and Luke of the title 'Son of God' is not the same. For the Sanhedrin, it could only mean the Messiah, while Luke meant it as referring to the unique relationship of the Son to God the Father. In this context, we may note here a significant change Luke made to the Centurion's confession that Jesus was Son of God both by Mark (Mark, 15: 39) and by Matthew (Matthew, 27:54). Luke purposely altered the confession of the Centurion to "this man was just" (Luke 23: 47), probably to salvage the real meaning of "Son of God" used by Mark and Matthew given the background of its meaning as applied to the Roman Emperor that was familiar to the Roman Centurion. Since Roman Emperors were considered to be sons of God, the title'Son of God' uttered by a Roman Centurion would not have brought out the real meaning intended to be conveyed by Luke.
In the Gospel according to John, the very first chapter gives a view of Jesus that is meant to govern the meaning of the title 'Son of God' in the rest of the book. The status of Jesus who was the Word made flesh (John, 1: 14) and was himself God by dwelling with God from eternity (John, 1:1) is gradually unfolded as the Son of God who could claim equality with God (John, 5: 17-18; 6: 40; 14: 9; 16: 3; 17: 20-23 etc.). The Epistles of Paul were the first New Testament books written between A. D. 52 and 60 and were earlier than even the Gospels, which were written between A. D. 70 and 100. Paul teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ without any ambiguity (Romans, 1: 3-4; Galatians, 4: 4; Ephesians, 4: 13;Philippians, 2: 6-11; Colosians, 1: 13-20; 2: 9-10; Hebrews, 1: 1-14; 2: 5-9; 5:5, etc.), although he was not a follower of Jesus in his earthly life. According to his own testimony, Paul received what we taught not from any man, but from Jesus Christ through revelation (Galatians, 1: 12). We may see that what Paul taught is in conformity with what the 12 Apostles taught as seen from the Gospels and from the Acts of the Apostles besides the Letters known as the Catholic Epistles.
After having seen the testimony of the Father and of the Son about the divinity of Jesus Christ, it is only natural to ask about the role of the Holy Spirit.The manner in which the Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus Christ as the Son of God is to be seen in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well as in the guidance of the Church till the end of the World. As we shall see in the next two Posts about the Church usage of the title and its present use, where the role of the Holy Spirit is implied, a separate treatment of it may not be necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment