ems 2013 presentation

7/28/2019 EMS 2013 Presentation

1/20

"

Historical & Theological Reflectionson the Son of God Translation

Daniel Shinjong Baeq

Ph.D. Student, ICS Program, TIU

Director, P.G. Hiebert Mission Research, TEDS


2/20

Problem in Muslim Evangelism

Mission practitioners among Muslim are well aware that thegreatest area of conflict revolves around the divinity of Jesus

Christ.

In fact, Muslims respect Jesus only as a great prophet-man.Thus introducing Christ as the Son of God and divine Savior,

immediately brings up a forbidding obstacle, an area of

misunderstanding and dispute since the beginning of the earlyChristian-Muslim confrontations (Powell 1993, 32).

Thus, the biggest challenge for Christians in reaching Muslim,has been and continues to be, is to introduce the gospel of Jesus

Christappropriately both to culture and to the Bible.


3/20

Missiological Issue of

Contextualization & Translation

Contextualization - Phil Parshall, Dudley Woodberry, and JohnTravis etc.

The associate director of SIL-Eurasia, Rick Brown, observed thatmissionaries encountered difficulties in evangelizing Muslimswhenever they came across the problematic expression, Son ofGod, in the New Testament.

Brown concluded that it was not a biological-literal meaning, likemany Muslims misunderstood, but rather a theological interpretationto justify the divinity of Jesus as the Messiah. Subsequently,Brown asserted that a semantically equivalent translation isnecessary to convey a correct meaning in the Muslim context (Brown2000; 2005a; 2005b).


4/20

Missiological Issue of Translation

Son of God translation issues has been discussed by theUnited Bible Society translators, Kuiperand Newman(1977, 432438). They also suggested that the Son of Godtranslation in the New Testament is not physical meaning.Therefore, they suggested two recommendations in theArabic Bible translation; changing it with functionalsubstitute like messiah or beloved of God.

Finlay and Lamin Sanneh, however, criticized theirsuggestions because changing of Son of God expressionwill bring more Muslims to doubt the authority of the Bible,and further it is a serious theological problem inChristianity (Finlay and Sanneh 1979, 241244).


5/20

Early Christian Approach

Patriarch John I (f. 639) of the

Syriac Orthodox Church used an

apologeticapproach which seems to

have been developed for answering

the polemic of the Jews to prove the

deity of Jesus(Newman 1993, 8).This approach was, however, not

helpful because the Muslim General

Amir did not know enough about

the Old Testamentto understand or

be convinced by the Patriarchs

answers.

Eventually, the Patriarch limited his

references to passages from the

Torah to find a common ground for

both (Ibid).


6/20


In his study on The Heresies of theIshmaelites, which is a part ofThe

Fount of Knowledge, John of

Damascus (675-752) accurately

described the emergence and the

teachings of the Ishmaelites

(Islam). He was well aware of the

accusationsthe Muslims had about

Christianity and prepared answers

for Christians to refute those

accusations. The main accusations

that John of Damascus responded

to were 1) Jesus as the Son of God,

2) the Christian misinterpretations

and/or corruptions of the Bible, and

3) the idolatry of the Cross(Voorhis

1993, 141).Debates on the Holy Icon


7/20


From the Heresis of Ishmaelites(Voorhis1993, 141)... And they call us

Hetairiastai (Associators) because,

they say we set beside God an associate

when we say that Christ is Son of God

and GodSince you say that Christ is

Word of God and Spirit (of God), howis it that you revile us asHetariastai? For

the Word and the Spirit are not

separated one from the one in whom

they are by nature If the Word isoutside of God, then according to you

God is without reason and without life.And so, fearing to provide an Associate

for God, you have mutilated HimWherefore you speak falsely of us when

you call us Hetariastai; but we call you

Koptai (Mutilators) of God.


8/20


John of Damascus refuted the Muslimaccusation by quoting the Qurn;Qurn states that Jesus is the Word ofGod (kalimah minhu, Wordfrom Him,Surah 3:39; 4:171) and the Spirit ofGod (ruh minhu, Spiritfrom Him, S4:171). Muslims interpreted these

passages to mean that Jesus was acreated being and not God. John ofDamascus argued, however, that ifGod had createdHis Word and Spirit, itwould mean that He had neitherSpirit nor Word before the creation.This would mean that God was not

whole before the creation. Thus, heargued that, since God cannot beimperfect, the Word of God and theSpirit of God must have not beencreated; therefore, also be the essenceof God, and be God.


9/20

MEDIE

VAL

APPROACH

TOISL

AM

Peter the Venerable (1092-1156) wrote a bookon Islam, Summa totius heresis Saracenorum (The

Summary of the Entire Heresies of the Saracens), tobriefly summarize who Muhammad was, how

the Qurn came about, how the Islamic creed

differs etc. He clearly established the basic

points of difference between the two creeds; the

Moslem denies the incarnation, the redemption,and the resurrection of Christ, but accepts the

virgin birth and the ascension. (Kritzeck 1964,

119)

Peter the Venerable not only discussed howIslam differs from the Christian Creed, he madestrong association of Muhammad with the anti-

Christand the source from which the Qurn

and Islamic faith came from.


10/20

MEDIEVAL

A

PPROA

CH

TOISLAM

Peter the Venerable (1092-1156) wrote,

He [Mohammad] acknowledges [that Christwas] the messenger, Word, or Spirit as we do.

He absolutely ridicules [the Christian doctrine]

that he is to be called or believed to be the Son

of God and the beastly man, measuring the

eternal birth of the Son of God in terms of the

likeness of human generation, denies and

derides with every effort at this command that

God could either beget or be

begotten. (Kritzeck 1964, 133)

A Muslim scholar,Ibn Kathirof the fourteenth(or eleventh) century, developed a Muslim

prophetology by which the status of

Muhammad was elevated to the level of biblical

Christology.


11/20

MEDIEVAL

APPROA

CH

TOISLAM

Raymond Lull (1235-1315) persuadedmissionaries to use philosophical reasoning to

explicate Trinity and the biblical Christology(Schmidt 1960, 123).

One of Lulls masterpieces,Ars Magna (The Artof Major, meaning The Great Work), which was

published around 1305, contained graphic

tools, which were called the Lullian Circle, for

dialoging with the Muslims about the Christian

truths, Trinity and Incarnation, by contrasting

and combining multiple concepts. He devised a

combinatory mechanism to explain

metaphysical concepts by combining three ormore concepts (Wildgen 2012).

This is one of the first tools specificallydesigned to reach Muslims.


12/20

Modern Approach to Islam

Christ-centered messagewas the most important thingto Henry Martyn did his

best to witness the doctrines

and authority of the Holy

Scriptures and the divinityof the adorable Redeemer to

the Muslim public (Grierson

1825, 79).

Charles D. Bell, in hiswriting on the life of HenryMartyn, recorded that he

proclaimed the fundamental

principle of Christianity, the

Divinity of the onlybegotten Son of God (Bell

1881, 128).

Henry Martyn (1781-1812)


13/20


Although Martyn facedstrong opposition from theMuslims who heard the

message of Son of God,

he did not stop in one

place but move on toproclaim the gospel of

Jesus Christ.

In one conversation with anIslamic Vizier(Minister ofgovernment in Turkey), his

life was threatened because

of his bold presentation of

the sonship ofChrist (Grierson 1825,

93-94).

Henry Martyn (1781-1812)


14/20


The Moslem Doctrine of God(1905), dealt in detail withthe Islamic doctrine of God

and Muslim Christology

taught by Qurn and the

Islamic traditions. In this

book, he pointed out the falseaccusations of the Trinity;

Father, Son and the Virgin

Mary.

He concluded that the Islamicdoctrine of God without theChrist, Son of God, had three

problems; 1) There is no

Fatherhood of God, 2) The

Moslem idea of God is

conspicuously lacking in theattribute of love, 3) Allah is

not absolutely, unchangeably

and eternally just (Zwemer

1905, 105107).

Samuel Zwemer (1867-1952)


15/20


The Moslem Christ (1912) andclarified for both Christian and

Muslim readers, how theIsa al-

Masih in the Qurn and the

Islamic traditions differed from

the Jesus Christ of the Bible

He identified that the Islamicteachings and traditions deny thebiblical teachings of Christ and

instead promote the status of

Muhammad to the same level as

that of the biblical Jesus.

The best way of Muslimevangelism was topresent the

gospel of Jesus as is recordedin the Bible.

The ultimate task was to let theMuslim feel the burden of hissins, and turn away from

Mohammed and the MoslemChrist to the Living Saviour,the Son of Godrevealed in theGospel, the Lamb of God whotaketh away the sin of theworld. (Zwemer 1912, 192)

Samuel Zwemer (1867-1952)


16/20

The debate on the divinity of Christ has been the center ofthe Christian-Muslim dialogue for the past fourteen

centuries.

More fundamental issues is theological understanding on thenature of God and thegloryof God.

Biological understanding on the Sonship of Christ,however, was not exactly the core of the Qurnic

accusation. Yusuf Ali, who translated and interpreted

meaning of the Qurn in English, precisely pointed out, it

is a derogation from thegloryof Allah to say that Allah

begets sons like a man or an animal. (Ali 1946, 49, italic is

mine) Concern of the holiness of Allah was the primary and

central issue regarding the Sonship of Christ as blasphemy.


17/20

The suggestion and the ramification of changing the Son ofGod into the Messiah of God, Beloved of God, or aMan from God(Indonesian) by the translators will produce

more problems in near future.

Contextualization of a theological expression (form),especially when it overlooks the theological meanings of two

different religions, produces critical miscommunications in

inter-religious dialogue.


18/20

First, and foremost, based on their Scripture (Surah 4:171)and traditions, Muslims already know that Christians confessJesus Christ as the Son of God.

Thus, if the translators were to produce a new versionwithout this phrase, in the long run, it will reinforce theirlong-standing belief about the corruption of the Bible.

Altering the Bible text will raise questions bring not only tothe authority of the Bible, but also to the integrity of the

messenger.


19/20

Secondly, altering the original scripture, text itself, willundermine all the efforts the previous Christians scholars

have poured to defend the authenticity of the Bible against

the Muslim accusation.

While it may be acceptable to interpret the phrase, Son ofGod to mean the Messiah of God, so that the

interpretation is contextualized for the Muslims, it would be aserious mistake to attempt to contextualize the textitself.

Thus, what is needed in the Christian approach to Islam isnotthe contextualization of the Bible text, but the

contextualization of biblical hermeneuticsand ofthe presentationof the gospel.


20/20

Even though translating the Son of God into the Messiahof God may not mean the abandoning of the Christian

Christology in the immediate future, over time, it may incur

problems that may threaten the most foundational

confessions about Gods revelation.

Theology without contextualization is imprudent butcontextualization without theology is detrimental in the

mission field.

ems 2013 presentation

Documents