Complete Issue SFM April 2010

ST.
FRANCIS
M A G A Z I N E
By Arab Vision & Interserve Vol 6, No 2 | April 2010
..................
296 327 395 403 414
429
430
www.stfrancismagazine.info
..................
FROM THE EDITORS DESK BY REV DR JOHN STRINGER

Dear friends, Thank you for your interest in our magazine; you are looking at issue 6:2 (April 2010). This issue contains articles that are, we think, of importance and of interest for missionaries in the Arab World and for anyone with a role in the Missio Dei in general. We are always glad to welcome new writers especially mission practitioners who work among the Arabs. As the next issue will be on The Trinity and on how to communicate Trinitarian concept with Muslims, we warmly welcome your input: what has worked well for you in communication? What did not work well? If you think you want to write something on this issue, contactusat editor@stfrancismagazine.info.
MayGodblessyouandyourwork! RevDrJohnStringer
i
St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)
THE CRITICAL KINGDOM QUESTION CAN ONE BE IDENTIFIED WITH THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND WITH ISLAM AT THE SAME TIME? (PART 1 OF 2)
By John Span1
And the LORD will be king over all the earth. (Zech 14:9) Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. (Mat 6:10 The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever. (Rev 11:15) .The Sheikh's life revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's rule on earth, this being the clear responsibility of each and every Muslim. So in order to accomplish his life's noble mission of restoring the Khalifah, the Sheikh focused on.
1 Introduction In the December 2009 issue of the St. Francis Magazine, Timothy Herald suggested that the crucial question regarding the insider movement is not whether one can be identified with the Kingdom of God and with Islam at the same time.2 I would like to take his question and rephrase it to read, whether or not one can be identified with the Kingdom of God and Islam at the same time. This paper represents an attempt to answer that question. The limitations of the paper are as follows: a) It cannot do justice to a complete study on the Kingdom from a Biblical theological standpoint, as that is the only way to appreciate the kingdom concept in its development and as it is progressively revealed in the scriptures;3 b) It cannot do justice to the relationship of Christ and culture to the depth as the likes of H. Richard Niebuhr have detailed them;4 c) It can only cover the relationship of church and kingdom in a survey fashion.
John Span is a missionary in West Africa with Christian Reformed World Missions. Timothy Herald, Making Sense of Contextualization: A Guide on Setting Parameters for Church Planters, in St Francis Magazine 5:6 (December 2009), p. 155. 3 This is a methodology developed especially by Geerhardus Vos in his Biblical Theology. See fn 59 for resources by Green, Pratt and Goldsworthy who follow in Vos footsteps. 4 For a brief synopsis see Robert A. Lotzer, On Christ and Culture, see www.covopc.org/Apologetics/On_Christ_and_Culture.html. (2007/9/8)
2 1
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab
296
Biblical scholars could not be more unanimous that the kingdom of God is an important subject in the scriptures. Differing slightly as to its actual importance, some call it the theme of the Bible5, a (perhaps the) central focus of his [Jesus] teaching6, or one of the principle themes of scripture.7 Thus it is a concept whose weightiness has been recognized by writers of the Hebrew Testament, the New Testament and the early and present-day church. The concept of the kingdom has not gone un-noticed by many groups with Christian titles, including ministries of healing, political activists, ecologically sensitive Christians, missiologists and certain proponents of the emerging church and insider movements (IM). The positive aspects of the comprehensiveness of the kingdom in touching all of life - the power of the kingdom to confront evil and the hope generated by an invincible rule whose consummation already affects the life of the redeemed - have shown benefits in the contemporary Body of Christ. At the same time, slogans to the effect of, Up with the kingdom, down with the church and religion and If the kingdom is what God is about, then God might be involved in other faiths, are not unheard of. This brings us to the question that was posed earlier, whether one can be identified with the Kingdom of God and with Islam at the same time? Since the same question has been asked in various ways it is incumbent on us to clarify the exact sense of the question. Secondly, one must consider the kingdom of God as it is Biblically defined, especially using the history of re-
Goldsworthy, The Kingdom of God and the Old Testament, on http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/golds1.htm (2010/1/14). Also Walther Eichrodt who states: That which binds together indivisibly the two realms of the Old and New Testament---different in externals though they may beis the irruption of the Kingship of God into this world and its establishment here. Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker Vol 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), p. 26. 6 R. T. France, Kingdom of God, in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), p. 420. Also Donald E. Gowan, "Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven", in Donald E. Gowan ed., The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), p. 273. 7 R. B. Gaffin Jr, Kingdom of God, in Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1988), p. 367. Gaffin also likens the covenant to the constitution or polity of the kingdom. Using Andreas Kostenbergers criterion for a central theme, Christopher Little, however, questions whether too much is being made about the Kingdom of God, in Christian Mission Today are we on a Slippery Slope: My Response, International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 25:2 (Summer 2008), p. 89. See www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/25_2_PDFs/My%20response.pdf.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab 297
5
demption perspective.8 Three word pictures and a model proposed by Palmer Robertson will be used. The Islamic concept of the kingdom will also be explored. Finally, trends in the recent history of missions to Muslims, including IM, as they interface with the kingdom of God motif will be examined. The second part of this paper [at a later date] will propose the use of principles from the consummated kingdom of Rev 21-22 as a grid to examine mission strategy to Muslims. 2 What is being asked? The same basic question has been asked in at least four slightly different ways: a) Can one be identified with the Kingdom of God and with Islam at the same time b) In order for Muslims to enter the Kingdom of God, do they have to leave their own social identity and culture to become (cultural) Christians?9 c) Can one be a Muslim and a follower of Jesus?10 d) Is it possible to find salvation in Jesus Christ and to be a faithful Muslim?11 3 Assumptions in understanding question 1: First, one must ascertain whether the kingdom being referred to is the Islamic mamlaka, the eternal kingdom of YHWH, or the mediatorial reign of Christ. Each of these terms will need to be defined. For the moment we will assume it is the latter, and that it has the same sense as being a follower of Jesus [as per 3 above] or finding salvation in Christ, [as per 4 above]. When
I do not claim originality here, as Miles uses a similar approach. Todd Miles, A kingdom without a king? Evaluating the kingdom ethic(s) of the emerging church, in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 12 No 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 88-103. 9 [parenthesis in original]. This is a question that Leith and Andrea Gray suggest is being asked by missiologists. Leith Gray and Andrea Gray, Fruitful Practices: What Does the Research Suggest? Paradigms and Praxis Part II: Why Are Some Workers Changing Paradigms? in International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 26:2 (Summer 2009), p. 68. 10 Editorial introduction to Joseph Cummings, Muslim Followers of Jesus? The Global Conversation, Christianity Today, (December 2009). See http://www.christianitytoday.com/globalconversation/december2009/index.html (2009/12/08). Paul Gordon Chandler entitled his article in a similar way: Can a Muslim Be a Follower of Christ?, in Mission Frontiers, (July/August 2008), pp. 11-14. 11 Ibid. Online video.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 298
8
statements made by a number of proponents of IM are examined later on in this study, however, this distinction will prove to be less than self-evident. Secondly, the meaning of being identified with needs to be examined. For the purposes of this paper we will assume that this means giving their allegiance to Websters Dictionary states: to identify is to conceive as united (as in spirit, outlook, or principle) (groups that are identified with conservation).12 Thirdly, entry standards and demands of each kingdom will need to be examined as per question 2. Lastly, we will assume that being identified as a Muslim or with Islam or being a Muslim or being a faithful Muslim means that one keeps the social/religious/cultural/legal identity as a Muslim, or to use the words of Phil Parshall, The communicator is saying he or she is totally within the Islamic ummah.13 In short, we will assume that this means that one is identified as a citizen in the Kingdom of Allah of Islam. 4 What is the Biblical view of the Kingdom of God? If there ever was a subject over which authors have wrestled for definition it is this one. Peter Leithart gives wise counsel that one must take care to make a distinction between the dictionary definitions of the word for kingdom and the concept of the kingdom.14 Robert Recker gives some sage advice as well. He observes:
though the phrase kingdom of God has God and his saving activity as its primary referent, it may be viewed from a number of perspectives and thus carry a varied load of meaning. Fundamentally, it may be viewed from "above" or from "below," from the "here and now" to the "then and there." Thus each individual
12 Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary., Includes Index., Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003). 13 This quote comes from a larger discussion as to identity of Christians of Muslim background and Parshall states: Most C5ers, however, are strongly opposed to MBBs calling themselves anything other than just Muslim. To me this not only causes confusion, but it is deceitful. No matter how much one does linguistic interpretation with the word Muslim, the bottom line is what the receptor community is receiving. In this case, the average Muslim's understanding is that the communicator is saying he or she is totally within the Islamic ummah. Phil Parshall, Muslim Evangelism: Contemporary Approaches to Contextualization (Waynesboro, Ga: Gabriel Pub, 2003), p. 72. 14 Peter Leithart, The Kingdom of God, on http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/leithartkingdomofgod.htm. (2010/1/20) R.T. France, for example, would suggest that the concept of the kingdom is God implementing his eternal sovereignty in the affairs of his world, p. 422.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision
299
occurrence of the phrase in the New Testament must be examined in its own context to determine its particular meaning. This also holds true for multiple usages in the same biblical book.15
Anthony Hoekema, author of The Bible and the Future, and no stranger to definitions of the kingdom, states that Jesus gave no definition of the kingdom, and one must proceed inductively.16 George Eldon Ladd who published more material on the kingdom of God than most showed that this is a subject that resists easy classification. In a nuanced fashion he considered the concepts of the kingdom in the New Testament and arrived at the conclusion that:
The Kingdom is a present reality (Mat 12:28), and yet it is a future blessing (I Cor 15:50). It is an inner spiritual redemptive blessing (Rom 14:17) which can be experienced only by way of the new birth (John 3:3), and yet it will have to do with the government of the nations of the world (Rev 11:15). The Kingdom is a realm into which men enter now (Matt. 21:31), and yet it is a realm into which they will enter tomorrow (Mat 8:11). It is at the same time a gift of God which will be bestowed by God in the future (Luke 12:32) and yet which must be received in the present (Mark 10:15). Obviously no simple explanation can do justice to such a rich but diverse variety of teaching.17
It is clear to all that any definition of kingdom must include the nature of its king, the exercise of his rule, its authority, its origin, the duration and nature of its dominion, its constitution and its ethics, its expansion and its goals and its subjects. a) Its origin and destination is of God and of his beloved Son
For from him and through him and to him are all things. (Romans 11.36)
As we observed in a previous paper covering the concept of householdof [oikos], the two letter word of plays a critical role. This genitive tells us that this is a kingdom that tells us about God - in the objective sense - or in the subjective sense it is the kingdom that God brings or owns. Both are critical for a fully orbed understanding. In the objective or wide sense, the kingdom tells us about God who is King by virtue of being the sovereign Creator. It is this sovereign Creator who se-
Robert Recker, The redemptive focus of the Kingdom of God, in Calvin Theological Journal, 14 No 2 (November 1979), p. 185. 16 Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 44. 17 George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 18.
15
lected humans to rule on his behalf on the earth (Gen 1:28) as his vice-regents [alternate spelling: vice-gerents]. The history of redemption shows us that a second Adam, who could rule in perfect justice and righteousness, had to replace the first who committed an act of treason against the King. Thus Jesus fulfills the Old Testament longings for a kingly son of David who will perfectly execute the role of bringing Gods will in heaven to be manifested on earthyour kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. In the subjective sense, then, we see that God in Christ is bringing in his kingdom. It is the redemptive motif of the kingdom and should be seen in a narrower sense than the above general rule as Creator/King. Jesus, as the perfect image of Godto use an ANE (Ancient Near East) term - who like the kings of that region were said to be perfect manifestations of the gods in heaven and were to see that through their royal power the decrees of the gods would be done on earth, came to embody Gods will on earth. Yet Jesus power was anything but political; his path to being mocked as the King of the Jews and eventually to his exaltation as the King of kings and Lord of lords would show the true source of the right to ruleas we will see the kingdom defined. b) It may be described by three word-pictures: In an attempt to synthesize some of Scriptures rich but diverse variety of teaching, as Ladd referred it, on the kingdom, I would propose three images drawn from the scripture. As much as these might be seen as an excursus, they will prove vital in giving an answer from the whole of Scripture to the question of kingdom identification. A household. In 1962 Sverre Aalen published an article entitled "Reign" and "house" in the Kingdom of God in the gospels.18 There he argued that the kingdom is to be understood as a community, a house, an area where the goods of salvation are available and received. A household is like a kingdom in miniature. It has a king (father as household head), princess and princes (sons and daughters), a constitution (house rules), the royal fortune (household property), a royal inheritance (inheritance), a dynasty (the family tree) and even a royal feast (family meal). The meals are a foretaste of a great banquet when all of the subjects of this Head of the family will eat with Him. The meals are also a way of recalling the sacrifice and victorious exploits of the
18 Sverre Aalen, "Reign and house in the Kingdom of God in the gospels, in New Testament Studies, 8 No 3 (April 1962), pp. 215-240.
301
Older Brother. Aalen concludes: The kingdom is the place where salvation is received. It is the state of salvation and deliverance. This place is the house of God.19 This is not a static household, but grows as the king adopts more and more children and integrates them into the royal family. In the oikos article of the St. Francis Magazine, February 2010, we observed that scripture took the idea of biological kinship and largely overshadowed it with spiritual kinship. This is also true of the kingdom idea. The physical household of Jacob, became a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19), a theme picked up in I Peter 2:19 to be extended to those in the household of God. A walled city/garden J.C. ONeill suggests that the kingdom should be seen as a walled town or city in which God is the effective and unchallenged sovereign.20 Already in Ezekiel we read of a city whose name is THE LORD IS THERE. (48:35) God in Christ has his royal palace in the center of it.21 The walls of the city are the line of demarcation between those who are inside of it and those who are outside. The gate is the only viable entrance. Jesus describes it as narrow. He also says: "Truly, truly I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber". (John 10:1) As well, Christ told the disciples that he was giving the church the keys of the kingdom (Mat 16; 18,19) or the keys to the city. The Apocalypse (21:2,10) shows this image of the new with heavenly origin, pure and beautiful, bride-like holy city, in which Gods presence dwells, but outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood (Rev 22:15). The New Jerusalem can be compared with a new Eden. The original garden or sacred sanctuary was called a garden (gan), whose Hebrew root word denotes enclose, fence, or protect. Both the old and the new Edens have humans who are designated as priests/rulers, trees, a river, an enclosure, fullness of life and productivity, and above all the presence of God. Both might be called the Kings garden. According to Peter J. Gentry, the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word (gan) in Gen 2:8-17 into Greek, using a Per-
Ibid., p. 232. Recall the similar image of City of God/city of man in Augustine. 21 J.C. O'Neill, The Kingdom of God, in Novum Testamentum 35, 2 (1993), pp. 133-4. See 1 Chron 17:14; 2 Chron 1:18, 2:11; Dan 5:12-13; Gal 4:26; Phil 3:20; Heb 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:14; Rev 3:12; 21:2, 10.
20 19
302
sian loan word for a walled pleasure garden. This equates roughly with the English word paradise.22 One cannot help but see that the Apocalypse is a dj vu of Genesis 1-2. It has been suggested that any discussion of kingdom should start at the end, i.e. this city of the New Jerusalem, the New Eden, and work backwards from it. That way, rather than imposing contemporary ideas of how this kingdom might or might not work, the final and finished product should be imposed on the contemporary scene. Some have called this inaugurated eschatology. This will be the content of our subsequent paper. Note how Steve Baugh defines the kingdom by the way it will end:
The kingdom of God proper is the fully consummated new heavens and new earth inhabited by the redeemed resurrected saints in glory and incorruptibility where the Triune God including the incarnate Son triumphantly rules supreme.23
Michael Horton uses the refreshing language of gardening to describe how the end has started to influence the present:
The kingdom is the in-breaking of Christ's new world by the Spirit's re-creation. It is the age to come shooting forth fruit-laden branches of the heavenly Tree of Life into this present age.24
As with the oikos concept, this metaphor changes from a physical to a spiritual reality. In the garden of Eden a physical sacred space was primary. This concept continued through the Old Testament with the children of Israel and their physical land being set apart as sacred to God. In the New Testament Jesus, however, embodies sacred space and so the Body of Christ becomes His spiritual temple. Only in the new heavens and the new earth does the fusion of the physical and spiritual sacred space come to fruition. An embassy/ambassadors Found on foreign soil, an embassy functions to represent the country of its origin. It has ambassadors who dutifully and willingly represent the head of
See Peter J. Gentry, Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image, in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 12 No 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 37-39. Also see Gordon J. Wenham, Vol 1, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), p. 61, where he refers to the Persian loan word as a royal park. 23 Steve Baugh, The Kingdom of God in the New Testament, in Christ, Kingdom and Culture Seminar (Westminster California Seminary, January 21st, 2010), see http://netfilehost.com/wscal/Conferences/2010/baughdl.mp4 (2010/2/1). 24 Michael Horton, Mysteries of God and Means of Grace, in Modern Reformation Vol 6 No 3 (May/June 1997).
22
State in its proclamation and actions. (c.f. 2 Cor 5:20) They are on a mission for the head of state. Their authoritative royal proclamation might be as such:
Jesus will soon be invading with His armies and will overthrow his enemies and all injustice with the breath of His mouth. But He is offering pardon in advance of His invasion to all those who receive Him (John 1:12, 13). Those who have joined themselves to Him now before He invades will be considered His ally and He will raise them up to be co-heirs with Christ as sons. The alternative is to be under the wrath of the king. We herald this announcement: that the True King is on the throne and he'll be invading. The gospel is not merely an invitation it is a command to all those going their own ways. Will you heed the command? Jesus is Lord, repent and believe.25
But this is no ordinary embassy. Most embassies have a picture of the head of state, but in this one He is present.26 George B. Caird also extends the embassy motif to a spiritual empire motif where he observes that in the letter to the Philippians, for instance, Paul pictures the world as an empire over which Christ rules de jure [= rightfully; by right], though not yet de facto [= in fact]. Each local church is a colony of heaven, its members enjoying full citizenship of the heavenly city (cf. Gal 4:26; Eph 2:19), but charged with the responsibility of bringing the world to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ.27 Additionally, an author like Anthony Gwyther points out that when the Roman empire described itself, it always used the term imperium or the Greek term basileia. The political connotations are obvious. He goes on to suggest that the purpose of the book of Revelation was to show that there was a much superior empire to the one in which the seven churches lived their day-to-day life, and it called Christians to decide on their loyalties between the two empires.28 Caird adds one interesting observation that might inform the question at hand. Rather than the surrounding context, in our case Islam, driving the shape of what Christians should look like, Caird suggests that for the Philippians the reverse would be true. He states:
25 Bill Wilder, What is the Gospel? www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/whatisgospel.html (2010/2/1). 26 Darrell L. Guder and Lois Barrett, Missional Church: A Theological Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1998), p. 102. 27 George Bradford Caird, Pauls Letters from Prison: Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon in the Revised Standard Version (Oxford: University Press, 1976), p. 148. 28 Anthony R. Gwyther, New Jerusalem versus Babylon: Reading the Book of Revelation as the Text of a Circle of Counter-Imperial Christian Communities in the First Century Roman Empire, (D.Phil Diss: Griffith University, 1999), p. xvi.
304
Neither the Roman colonist nor the Christian depended for the meaning, character and purpose of his life on the ethos of his alien environment, nor did he allow that environment to determine the quality of his behavior.
To summarize, the three word pictures above contain ideas of community, sacred space, exclusivity, Divine presence, loyalty and expansion. These show that the Biblical kingdom idea has wide reaching effects. 5 Biblical Terminology In the Hebrew Scriptures, a number of words that are in the semantic domain of power/reign/realm use the Semitic m-l-k root. This can be seen in the Hebrew words for kingdom (mmlk) and synonyms like malkt, along with the Aramaic malk (found multiple times in the book of Daniel).29 Additionally, the one who has supreme authority, whether in heaven or in an earthly realm, is known as mlk and his act of ruling is mlk. Thus Isaiah could say, I have seen the King (mlk) the LORD [implying his covenant keeping name] of hosts [all of the heavenly armies.] (Isaiah 6:5) Most often, as G. Dalman and many others since then have pointed out, the OT words for kingdom as well as the Greek basileia stress the abstract and dynamic, that is, sovereignty or royal rule. 30 Ladd suggests that Websters term archaic is the meaning of kingdom which actually conforms best to the Biblical meaning, namely: "The rank, quality, state, or attributes of a king; royal authority; dominion; monarchy; kingship." He also suggests that the more modern definition, "A state or monarchy the head of which is a king; dominion; realm" is farther from the Biblical definition.31 Leon Morris definition underscores the same: It points us to God as doing something, as actively ruling, rather than to an area or a group of people over whom he is
29 Principally in Chronicles, Psalms and Daniel. See Martin Selman, The kingdom of God in the Old Testament, in Tyndale Bulletin, 40 No 2 (November 1989), pp. 161-183. 30 Dennis C. Duling, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, in Word & World, 2 No 2 (Spring 1982), p. 123, shows that C.H. Dodd who coined the term realized eschatology agreed with the German Semitic scholar, G. Dalman, that the meaning of the Hebrew term "kingdom" (malkuth) was not a territorial term, but meant "reign" or "sovereignty," and thus the Reign of God was the activity of God's ruling as King. O. Camponovo further added that in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan , malkuth always refers to the dynamic sense of ruling; in other words God has displayed his kingly power", cited by Joel Marcus, Entering into the kingly power of God, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 107 No 4 (December 1988), p. 664, fn. 9. 31 Ladd, Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 19.
305
sovereign. The kingdom is something that happens rather than something that exists.32 Both of these authors suggest that the sense of realm, a territorial kingdom, which could be referred to as a piece of turf is secondary. Logically, however, a king requires a place to exercise his sovereignty. It is questionable whether one should pit the two senses against each other. As in the consummated kingdom, the King rules a specific place, namely, the new heavens and the new earth, and does so with his people. In both Testaments the kingdom concept is intimately linked to the person of the King himself. In the Old Testament this is manifested in the universal rule of God as King, and the more specific rule of God in Israel as the King of Zion. In the New Testament we still see universal aspect, along with Jesus as the embodiment of the perfect ruler on Davids throne. In both Testaments the kingdom of God stands in direct opposition to earthly kingdoms and will eventually displace them. 6 The Kingdom of God in Islam In order to make an apples to apples comparison in answering the question if one can be identified with the Kingdom of God and with Islam at the same time, it will be important to define the Islamic understanding of being identified with its kingdom. Continuities and discontinuities with the Biblical kingdom will be demonstrated. As in the Hebrew Testament, the Quran makes ample use of the m-l-k root. For example: And do they not look into the Kingdom (malakt) of the heavens and the earth and all things that Allah has created? (Surah 7:185 trans. Sher Ali c.f. 6:75; 23:88; 36:83); To Allah belongs the Kingdom/realm (al-mulk) of the heavens and earth. (Surah 2:107, 3:189 etc.) The Quran calls him Master/Owner (al-Malik) of the kingdom in 3:26 and King/Sovereign (al-Malik) in 20:114; 23:116; 59:23. Thus one of the 99 names of Allah is Malik al Mulk or 'The Owner of All Sovereignty', literally 'king of the realm'. Even pilgrims on the Hajj recite: Here we are [Allah]! There is none like you. Praise and benefit belong to you as well as the Reign (al-mulk); there is none like you!33
32 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), p. 53. 33 Jacques Jomier, The Kingdom of God in Islam and its comparison with Christianity, in Communio, 13 No 3 (Fall 1986), p. 268.
306
According to Dudley Woodbury, the term mamlaka or kingdom was used for Allahs power over creation, and later was used to denote areas of Islamic rule known as the mamlakat al-Islam or simply al-mamlaka. He showed that in more recent times Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt coined the term hakimiyyat Allah (the rule/kingdom of God) and called it the only legitimate framework within which humans may be governed.34 Allahs kingdom is manifested on earth in the Dr al-islm or the Household of Islam. Just as Mohammed conquered physical territories, so the Allahs rule must be extended by conquest over any and all people and areas not yet under Shariia law. These constitute the realm or household of war, namely the Dr al-harb. Rick Brown describes the goal of Islam via worldwide conquest:
The whole world should be brought into submission to Islam, and eventually to a common Islamic culture and a common language, classical Arabic, but this will not be completed until Christ returns and kills all who refuse to submit to Islam.35
Successful life in this religio-political kingdom is determined by compliance with the laws of the Quran and Hadiths as they are observed by its subjects, collectively known as the Ummah. It has been observed that Islam rightly practiced (dn) requires the conflation of religion and culture and thus it is, as Brown noted, monolithic in its designs.36 In this law/works based kingdom, Islamic culture as practiced is necessarily religious and homoge34 J. Dudley Woodbury, "The Kingdom of God in Islam and in the Gospel", in The World of Islam - Resources for Understanding (2000,2006 Global Mapping International, CD ver. 2) n.p. and also J. Dudley Woodberry, The kingdom of God in Islam and the Gospel, in Anabaptists meeting Muslims (Waterloo, ON ; Scottsdale, PA : Herald Pr, 2005). The word is transliterated elsewhere as: hkimyah. 35 Rick Brown, Muslim Worldviews and the Bible: Bridges and Barriers, Part II: Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Age to Come, God and Mankind, in IJFM, 23:2 (Summer 2006), pp. 5455. 36 Dn [anglicized deen] defined: In the official newsletter of the UK Muslim Youth League, the editors state: "The Prophet gave mankind the idea of an all embracing Deen. The Prophet did not give mankind a religion but the Deen of Islam. If he had given a religion then there would have been spiritual guidance from the religion of Islam and secular guidance from other sources. The Prophet managed to combine both secularism and politics in an all-embracing Deen. In the West, the Church deals with religion and the secular guidelines come from the state. Religion only deals with the life hereafter, acts of faith, spiritual rituals, worship and morality. Deen deals with religion, law, culture, civilisation, politics, economics, international affairs, war and peace, individual to international, these are all dealt with in the Deen of Islam." Do you know this man? in The Revival (July/August 1998). See http://web.archive.org/web/20060707224354/http:/www.mrc.org.uk/salvation.htm (2010/3/3)
307
nous worldwide. It is not unlike life in the Roman Empire, where cultural and religious practices were one and the same. 7 Observations relative to the two kingdoms: Globally, there is much terminology that is common to both. Yet there is radical discontinuity as well. Kingship: The king of the Quran is Allah. Biblically, 'Yahweh is a great king over all gods' (Ps 95:3). The king of the mediatorial kingdom is Jesus. Subjects: The subjects of Allah are referred to as his slaves (abd-Allah) who have a servile relationship with their despot King.37 The subjects of King Jesus are known to him as friends, brothers, adopted sons and daughters, a new people and as willing slaves. Point of entry: One has a wide door of personal volition and effort, the other a narrow door of forsaking all self-righteousness, becoming like a little child and having a new nature infused by divine initiative and effort which enable human response. Goal orientation: Both kingdoms have domination as their objective. George Eldon Ladd suggests that the Biblical goal is the judgment of the wicked and the subjugation of every hostile power [and] the salvation of the righteous and the redemption of a fallen creation from the burden of evil.38 The Islamic vision is an ummah without frontiers. How they reach their goals are vastly different: one by spiritual conquest via a cross, and the other by political conquest via the ways of war (da`wa). Of the contemporary Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (1941-1989) it was said: The Sheikh's life revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's rule on earth, this being the clear responsibility of each and every Muslim. So in order to accomplish his life's noble mission of restoring the Khalifah, the Sheikh focused on Jihad (the armed struggle to establish Islam).39 Recall that Blaise Pascal
So say two former Muslims: Mosab Hassan Yousef , Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices (Carol Stream, Ill. Tyndale House, 2010); Wafa Sultan, A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out against the Evils of Islam (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009). 38 George Eldon Ladd, "Kingdom of God", in Geoffrey William Bromiley (ed), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia K -P. Vol 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 24. 39 From the powerpoint presentation, The Global Caliphate, www.disciplenations.org/uploads/fu/yh/.../1.5_The_Global_Caliphate.ppt (2010,2,22)
37
(1623-1662) in his Penses said: Muhammad chose the way of human success, Jesus Christ that of human defeat." Community: In the Biblical kingdom, it is the redeemed new people of God. In the Quranic view, it is the Ummah or Community of the Believers" or Islamic nations. Christianity espouses a unity of diversity with many tribes, ethnic groups and nations in one kingdom. Islam, however, espouses uniformitye.g Arabic language, which is unity without diversity. Loyalty and exclusivity: "Indeed, the (only) Deen in the sight of Allah is Islam" (Surah A'al Imran 3:19). If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14.26). I the LORD am a jealous God (Ex 20:5). Both consider treason as punishable by death. Local culture: Whereas Islam seeks to impose its own culture on existent ones, Christianity recognizes local cultural distinctives and sets out to transform them, not subjugate them [this point is noted by Brown as well]. It has the room to be expressed differently in different cultures. Look at what Lamin Sanneh, a West-African and former Muslim, said about Christianity and African culture: "Christianity answered this historical challenge [for someone strong enough to address the realities of the spirit world] by a reorientation of the worldview... People sensed in their hearts that Jesus did not mock their respect for the sacred nor their clamor for an invincible Savior, and so they beat their sacred drums for him until the stars skipped and danced in the skies... Christianity helped Africans to become renewed Africans, not re-made Europeans." 40 Synopsis: The common kingdom terminology of Christianity and Islam might lure one into thinking that there is more continuity than meets the eye. Some of the following quotes attest to this fact. They have a direct bearing on the assertion that one can be identified with the Kingdom of God and Islam simultaneously.
citing, The Striving Sheik: Abdullah Azzam, 14th issue of Nida'ul Islam magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), July-September 1996. 40 Lamin O. Sanneh Whose Religion Is Christianity?: The Gospel Beyond the West. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 43.
8 A sampling of recent (1977-2009) views of the kingdom and outreach to Muslims These quotes are arranged chronologically and are designed to show that the concept of the kingdom of God has been carefully considered in Muslim missiology. Trends to observe are: a) The power, comprehensive nature and themes of submission of the kingdom b) The motif of the Kingdom recognized as useful in evangelism efforts c) The increasing trend to pit the kingdom of God against Christianity/the church/or religion and the pitting of kingdom against creeds or theological propositions d) The increasing number of voices that appear to have no problem with remaining in the Kingdom of God and Islam simultaneously with appeals to identity and results e) Islam is viewed more and more as a precursor or having much in common with Christianity A. [1979] Bruce Nicholls stated that the biblical concept of the kingdom of God "effectively meets both the religious and cultural needs of the Muslim and offers a comprehensive response" to Muslim ideology.41 B. [1986] Jacques Jomier published an in-depth study called, The Kingdom of God in Islam and its comparison with Christianity, and suggest that Islam asks, Why await a future kingdom if God is all-powerful and has given the necessary means to man from now on? He continues, The efforts of the Moslem are directed towards exercising Moslem law, which, for him, contains all that man and human society need.42 C. [1993] Sam Schlorff, who saw much potential for the use of the motif of the kingdom of God in apologetics, also suggested that, It must be made clear that the church is not out to "Christianize" the world in the same sense that Muslims are out to Islamize the world. The kingdom of God is eschatological in nature; it cannot be established by human effort.43
Bruce J. Nicholls, "New Theological Approaches in Muslim Evangelism", in Don McCurry (ed), The Gospel and Islam (Monrovia, CA: MARC. 1979), p. 156. 42 Jomier, p. 271. 43 Samuel P. Schlorff, Muslim Ideology and Christian Apologetics, in Missiology, 21 No 2 (April 1993), pp. 173-185.
41
D. [1994] Rick Love observed that, More than 3/4 of the Muslim world are Folk Muslims. Church planting among them must be based upon the theology of the kingdom of God that involves power, truth and cultural encounters.44 E. [1997] Fouad Accad related the story of Hassan who met some Muslims who had trusted Christ. He noticed that they talked about being in the kingdom of God rather than referring to their change as joining a religion. Emotional labels like Christian, church, and baptism were avoided, since they were considered politically loaded terms.45 F. [2000] Travis and Workman conclude that, Ascent to perfect theological propositions is not the apex of the coming kingdom that Jesus proclaimed, and hope that, Meanwhile, MBBs like Soleh who stay in their community may be used of God to usher millions of Muslims into His Kingdom. 46 G. [2004] Harley Talman recommended that other models for presenting the gospel should be explored. Presenting the concept of the kingdom of God has proved fruitful with some. An in-depth study could include its nature or meaning (the rule of God), its importance, greatness, characteristics, entrance requirements, demands, king and citizens, mysteries, aspects (present & future), etc. A major advantage of this approach is that it relates well to a fundamental Islamic concept of submissionin this case to God and His appointed agent who mediates his rule. Also, we are calling Muslims to enter into Gods kingdom, not change religions. Citizens of the kingdom include those of Christian, Muslim and even Jewish backgrounds. Furthermore, the kingdom of God is an Islamic concept, but little is known about it, as it appears only a very few times in the Quran. Hence, the topic is an item of curiosity to the Muslim.47
Rick Love, Church Planting Among Folk Muslims, in International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol 11:2 (April 1994), p. 87. 45 Fouad Elias Accad, Building Bridges: Christianity and Islam (Colorado Springs, Colo: NavPress, 1997), p. 37. 46 John Travis, Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations, in International Journal of Frontier Missions Vol. 17:1 (Spring 2000), p. 59 - a. Also cited by Mark S. Williams, High Spectrum Contextualization Journal of Asian Mission 5:1 (2003), p. 88. 47 Harley Talman, Islam, Once a Hopeless Frontier, Now? Comprehensive Contextualization, in International Journal of Frontier Missions 21:1 (Spring 2004), p. 7.
44
H. [2005] J. Dudley Woodbury published, The kingdom of God in Islam and the Gospel.48 He used the respective lives of Jesus and Muhammed to sketch out areas of continuity and discontinuity in Christians and Islam thinking. Divergence in the types of signs or miracles, the Suffering Servant versus the military political option, and the supernatural power and glory versus a human messenger, was noted. Woodberry concludes that in the tasks of proclamation and ministry the heralds of the gospel Kingdom and the qur'anic Kingdom share much. In the military and political route they part company. I. [2005] Kim Gustafson, at the Denver ISFM meetings presented the kingdom of God as a more biblical and effective paradigm of mission than Christianity. He offered his kingdom circles as a practical and productive tool for presenting the central message of scripture, especially in light of the obstacles presented by traditional paradigms of conversion. Mark Harling reported that Participants departed Denver convinced of the need for more biblical and theological study, as well as more case studies, to further develop our thinking on the kingdom of God (vs. Christianity) [sic] and Insider movements.49 J. [2006] Rick Brown compared and contrasted various elements of Islamic and Christian doctrine, under the headings, The Kingdom of God and the Church and the Dar al Islam and the Ummah. In his list of items, also called door-openers or points of appeal that would be attractive to Muslims, once they understood them, he includes: The portrait of Jesus Himself: His kindness, devotion, wisdom, power, and ongoing reign as Savior and King; The high standard of interpersonal relations described in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.50 K. [2007] Rebecca Lewis asserted, The new spiritual identity of believing families in insider movements is in being followers of Jesus Christ and members of His global kingdom, not necessarily in being affiliated with or accepted by the institutional forms of Christianity that are associated with traditionally Christian cultures. They retain their temporal identity in their natural socio-religious community, while living transformed lives due to their faith in
Woodbury, "The Kingdom of God in Islam and in the Gospel". Reported by Mack Harling, ISFM News, International Journal of Frontier Missions,(2005), p. 134. See www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/22_4_PDFs/134%20ISFM.pdf. 50 Rick Brown, Muslim Worldviews and the Bible: Bridges and Barriers, Part 1: God and Mankind, in IJFM, 23:1 (Spring 2006), p. 7 and 23:2 (Summer 2006).
49 48
312
Christ. Movement is defined as Any situation where the Kingdom of God is growing rapidly without dependence on direct outside involvement.51 L. [2007] Basil Grafas examined John Ridgeways, The Movement of the Gospel in New Testament Times With Special Reference to Insider Movements, and found that the concepts of the kingdom of God were artificially wrenched apart from concepts such as church. He observed: In order to prove that the gospel does not depend on physical structures and organization, and especially not religion, he [Ridgeway] concentrates on kingdom as the fundamental paradigm for the believer in the world.52 M. [2008] Nabil Jabbur affirmed, The Muslim does not have to change his shape and identity in order to enter the kingdom of God. He can enter directly into the wide gate of the kingdom, rather than through our narrow gate of twenty centuries of Christian identity and tradition. As we saw with the stories of Cornelius and Naaman, they did not need to change their shape and become squares in order to enter the kingdom of God.53 N. [2009] At the Common Ground Consultation at Atlanta in January 2009, and repeated at a smaller meeting in August 2009 at Christ the Rock Community Church in Menasha, Wisconsin [later referred to as Wisconsin], reported on by Douglas Pirkey, ideas about the kingdom were presented.54 These ideas were not unlike those presented by Rebecca Lewis in her 2009 article entitled, Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community. Each presenter used a single diagram to denote the kingdom of God, and each showed that Islam either intersected or was antecedent to entry into the kingdom of God. Lewis and the others showed that entry into the
Rebecca Lewis, Insider Movements: The Conversation Continues - Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities, in International Journal of Frontier Missiology. 24:2 (Summer 2007), p. 76, fn. 1. 52 Basil Grafas, Evaluation of Scriptural Support for Insider Movements: Critique of John Ridgeways The Movement of the Gospel in New Testament Times With Special Reference to Insider Movements, in St Francis Magazine 4:2 (March 2007), p. 5. 53 Nabil Jabbur, The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross: Insights from an Arab Christian (Colorado Springs, CO: NAV Press, 2008), pp. 240-241. 54 Douglas Pirkey, Refutation of the Teaching at the Common Ground (C5) Conference held at Christ the Rock Community Church,[13 October 2009], on http://www.shoutsofjoyministries.com/contextualization/Common_Ground_Conf_Refutation.s html (2010/1/9).
51
kingdom of God can happen equally through Judaism, Christianity and nonChristian religions.55
Douglas Pirkey reported the speaker as saying:

Our goal in the morning, we lay out a foundation for the Kingdom of God. We become really clear about what we are doing when we are trying to talk about our faith or sharing our faith: that it's the message of the Kingdom of God, that we're not interested in any Muslim converting to Christianity because that wasn't Jesus way and it was an old message.
Pirkeys facsimile of his seminars diagram is close to Lewis. Jay Smith interviewed leaders of the Common Ground Consultation in Atlanta, and their view of the kingdom was as follows:
Kingdom of God: This is the central theme and message of Jesus Christ in the New Testament; the good news of the kingdom of God. Our commitment is to bring an unencumbered, pure gospel to Muslims. All men seek it first and enter it without any reference to a religious form or denominational creed. The rule and
Rebecca Lewis, Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community, in International Journal of Frontier Missiology 26:1 (Spring 2009), p. 18. Her comments on the diagram are as follows:[The figure] shows the situation we face today. Over the centuries, Christianity has become a socio-religious system encompassing much more than simply faith in Christ. It involves various cultural traditions, religious forms, and ethnic or political associations. While many people who call themselves Christians have truly believed in Christ and entered the Kingdom of God (F), others have not, though they may attend church (G). The Acts 15 question is still relevant today: Must people with a distinctly non-Christian (especially nonWestern) identity go through the socio-religious systems of Christianity in order to become part of Gods Kingdom (H)? Or can they enter the Kingdom of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone and gain a new spiritual identity while retaining their own community and socio-religious identity (I)?
55
reign of God is broader than religious labels. Salvation is through Christ and entering his kingdom, and not through the joining of a particular religion.56
The relationship was diagrammed as follows:
9 Preliminary reflections The importance of the Kingdom of God in interacting with Muslims is a theme common to all of the above voices. A number have identified kingdom language as a possible communication tool. Additionally, as we noted earlier, some underscore that the positive aspects of the comprehensiveness of the kingdom in touching all of life, the power of the kingdom to confront evil, and the hope generated by an invincible rule whose consummation already affects the life of the redeemed, have a powerful appeal for work in the Muslim world. A number of worrisome statements and assertions have been made, however, either directly or between the lines. These will be investigated more closely, as they have a great deal of bearing on the question that was asked at the beginning, namely: Whether one can be identified with the Kingdom of God and with Islam at the same time. It is my contention that IM is doing the worldwide Body of Christ a disservice in its almost free-wheeling use of theological terms like the Kingdom. It seems to be moving in the direction of liberalism, whose theological bent was captured by H. Richard Niebuhr when he said, A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of Christ without a cross.57 Prior to doing that, I would like to introduce another authors kingdom circles which unfortunately do not intersect with the kingdom circles previ56 J. Smith, An Assessment of the Insiders Principle Paradigms, in St Francis Magazine, 5:4 (August 2009), p. 39. 57 H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1937, 1988), p. 193.
315
ously mentioned. That is Palmer Robertsons alternative model. Robertson has provided the Body of Christ a tool to help the church of Christ, defined as the elect of the Father; the redeemed of the Son; and the renewed of the Holy Spirit to understand its nature and mission.58 He does this by investigating three senses in which the relationship of the church and kingdom can be understood. He describes the conservative model as one where the church delimits the kingdom, with a Sunday Christian mentality. Then he describes the liberal model in which the church envelopes the kingdom and which, he says, dilutes the effectiveness of the church as it has no limits on what it should and could be doing directly. Then he sketches out what he calls his Reformational/transformational model in which the church is an impetus for the kingdom and which understands it possibilities and its limits. This is the model that will be closely examined.
This pictorial diagram shows what has been called elsewhere the broad and narrow senses of the kingdom of God along with the location of the church within them. Robertson calls the broad sense the Eternal Kingdom of God, and the narrow sense the Messianic Kingdom. Others have called Christs kingdom the mediatorial kingdom, the inaugurated kingdom, or the particular kingdom. In the broad sense God the Father as Creator/King of the Ages is stressed, and all items in the universe fall under his dominion. This would include items that fall under Gods kingly and kindly benevolence to his creatures which some call areas of common grace where traces of the imago
58 Palmer Robertson, Toward a Reformational View of Total Christian Involvement, parts 1 and 2, see http://www.ouruf.org/d/cvt_involvement1.pdf; (first accessed 2006/9/12) http://www.ouruf.org/d/cvt_involvement2.pdf.
316
Dei or image of God can still be seen, rather like a temple in ruins which still shows some traces of its former glory. Robertson then sketches out the kingdom of Satan whose extent and duration is under the control of the Eternal Kingdom. Any jurisdiction in opposition to Gods rule, including the religions of the world with their systematized treason against the Rightful Ruler, is included here. This would include Islam. It is the Holy Spirit who actualizes and extends the rule of God in the hearts and lives of the Gods former enemies under Satans control, by creating a new nature in them (read regeneration); by making the Word come alive and enabling them to enter the Messianic Kingdom of Christ. The Messianic Kingdom defined by Robertson as that realm in time and history in which the sovereignty of God actively operates to overthrow evil is portrayed as being dynamic. It is shown by the lines of movement that indicate that progressively the kingdom of Satan is being pushed back in all areas of life, due to the finished cross work of Christ. This model is derived from passages like Dan 7, the Lords Prayer, and those below:
Then comes the end when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign, until he has put all enemies under His feet [] and then God will be all in all. (I Cor 15:24, 25, 28.) The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever. (Rev 11:15)
With some care, as well, Robertson would suggest with Rev 11:15 that the total eclipse of the kingdom of Satan will only occur with the consummation of the kingdom, namely at Christs second return. Robertson is careful not to equate the church with the Messianic Kingdom, but follows the likes of Herman Ridderbos, who sees the church [ekklesia] as a subset of the kingdom [basileia]. Ridderbos states:
Logically the basileia ranks first, and not the ekklesia. [The basileia] represents the all-embracing perspective, it denotes the consummation of all history, brings both grace and judgment, has cosmic dimensions, fills time and eternity. The ekklesia in all this is the people who in this great drama have been placed on the side of God in Christ by virtue of the divine election and covenant. It is a community of those who await the salvation of the basileia. Insofar as the basileia is already a present reality, the ekklesia is also the place where the gifts and powers of the basileia are granted and received. It is, further, the gathering of those who, as the instruments of the basileia, are called upon to make profession
of Jesus as the Christ, to obey his commandments, to perform the missionary task of the preaching of the gospel throughout the world.59
The model is also careful not to make the job of the institutional church the expansion of the kingdom in all realms of society, but leaves that to citizens of Christs kingdom to do so. In no way shape or form does Robertson pit the kingdom against the church, but sees the unique and vital role of each. He would affirm the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church of the creeds of historic Christianity. He might even go as far as to join Cyprian and Calvin who said, He who would have God as his Father, must have the church as his mother. An area that is assumed by Robertson, but should be delineated in more detail is the entry standards into the kingdom. I will make a small excursus here. Excursus: Entry standards and demands of the Kingdom Gowan observes that Jesus spent more time on qualifications for citizenship in the kingdom than actually describing it.60 He uses four categories to delineate Jesus kingdom standards, namely: righteousness, reversal of fortune, willingness to risk everything, and radical change.61 Jesus took a politically charged term and infused a completely new meaning into it. The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel. (Mk 1:15; Mat 4:17)62 This royal order instructs those rebels outside to realize that they have given allegiance to a usurper of the throne, namely Satan, and to accept the gracious Kings offer of amnesty for this offense.63 They must come in willing submission to a new set of rules, and a childlike faith is a prerequisite (Mat 18:3; Mk 10:14 par.)64. This King demands complete allegiance (Mk 12:2930 par.), detests lip service or casual mention of his name (Mat 7:2123). This King is a jealous king and right59 Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), p. 354. 60 Gowan, "Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven", p. 276. 61 Ibid. 62 Miles (p. 11) notes: The use of the word fulfilled indicates that Jesus believed his kingdom was the answer to well-known expectations based on past promises. 63 Caragounis (p. 425) comments: In this regard the concept of the kingdom of God is parallel with the Johannine concept of eternal life and the Pauline concept of salvation. 64 Marcus (p. 673) paraphrases Mark 10.15 as "Unless you receive God's kingly power with an acknowledgment of total dependence, in the manner that a little child receives everything from its parent's hand, you will never have a share in it."
318
fully can demand that there is no looking back once one has entered the kingdom. Jesus said, anyone who has put his hand on the plow and looks back is not considered suitable to be one of his subjects (Luke 9:62). This king has the right to make any demand, whether that be marriage and family (Mat 19:12) or possessions (Mk 10:2127 par.) and suggests that if something gets in the way of showing allegiance, it would be best to surgically remove the impediment, whether an eye or a hand (Mk 9:47 par.). The King is a generous king and promises benefits for this allegiance and promises up to a hundredfold reward for the losses suffered on His behalf. (Mark 10:2931) Due to the exacting standards of the kingdom, entrance into it is portrayed as a very narrow gate (Mat 7:1314), and it is those who are destitute of all hope in themselves and who are persecuted for their allegiance (first and last Beatitude) who will receive it. Jesus showed that this kingdom was of incomparable value and, through the parables of the treasure and pearl, demonstrated that no price was too great to enter it (Mt 13:4446). Entry into the kingdom and into eternal life are virtually synonymous. "To inherit eternal life" (Mk. 10:17) equates with,"To inherit the kingdom prepared for you [by God]" (Mat 25:34). Just after the rich young man asks, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mk. 10:17), Jesus ties the question to entry into the kingdom: "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God." The standards of entry, as in the walled city wordpicture above, are fixed by the sovereign of that city. 10 Comparison and Contrast with the IM material: With a fuller understanding of the Biblical and Islamic views of the kingdom of God, we will now examine, especially, the recent IM statements as to the commonality of the kingdoms. Conflated kingdoms: Lewis, Wisconsin, the Common Ground Conference in Atlanta, all show the Kingdom of God as one large circle. The smaller circle of the Messianic kingdom of Christ which is growing dynamically throughout history as in the Robertson model above is not shown. Thus, these representatives of IM conflate the broad and the narrow senses of the kingdom described above. We have observed that non-Christian religions intersect with the kingdom of God in a broad sense, but not in the narrow sense. Darkness and light: The intersection of the circles of Islam and the Kingdom of God would lead one to believe that IM fails to appreciate the cosmic battle that began with the first treason by Adam and Eve. It talks about spiritual
319
warfare, but fails to appreciate that Islam is a form of systematized treason, which falls under the power of the evil one.65 Logically, the antithesis between the two kingdoms is downplayed or completely eliminated.66 Compare this with Paul who shows this contrast in Col 1:13 He has rescued us who were captives to the tyranny of a dark and evil power by transferring/transporting us into the kingdom [under the rulership] of the Son he loves.67 Might Pauls comparison of two groups of people in the book of Philippians contribute to answering the question of belonging to two kingdoms simultaneously? Paul comparison of his opponents and true Christian believers68 Opponents Pauline Christians Their , colony, Their is in heaven (cf. 1:27). citizenship, is here in this world. Their minds are earth- Their minds are fixed on heaven, from where bound since the earth is the they eagerly expect the savior to come. limit of their mental horizon. They expect perfection They yearn for the future, at which time perfecnow by keeping the law. tion will be achieved. They stand as enemies of They own Christ as crucified Lord and see him the crucified Christ. as sovereign over the universe. They will find their end to They may be straining now, morally struggling be destruction, however to attain, but their goal will be so full of richness ecstatic and glorious their that nothing can compare with it. Their weak
Satan is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), the world ruler (Eph 6:12), the ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:1), the ruler of this age ( Rom. 7:1) and according to 1 John 5:19, the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 66 For example Accad, Building Bridges: Christianity and Islam, p. 4: As I have studied the Quran for thirty years, Ive found it overwhelmingly pro-Christ, pro-Christian, and pro-Bible. 67 Peter OBrien illustrates this rescue operation: Like a mighty king who was able to remove peoples from their ancestral homes and to transplant them (; the same verb is used by Josephus [Ant.. 9.235] of Tiglath-pilesers removal of the Transjordanian tribes to his own kingdom). Peter T. O'Brien, Vol 44, Word Biblical Commentary:Colossians-Philemon (Word Biblical Commentary, Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), p. 27. 68 Gerald F. Hawthorne, Vol. 43, Word Biblical Commentary:Philippians (Word Biblical Commentary, Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2004), pp. 230.
65
present may be.
mortal bodies will be transformed and made like Christs resplendent body.
Do this and live: The kingdom in Islam is completely law-based as in the above table. It says, Do this and you will live, and this leads to an incipient self-righteousness. The kingdom of God smashes all self-righteous effort with standards in the Beatitudes that no one can accomplish in their own strength. The kingdom of God depends on what theologians call an alien righteousness, i.e. not our own. Might the conflation of kingdom of God and Islam, as is being proposed by IM, lead to a works-righteousness that has the seeds of treason built right into it?69 The forgotten Hebrew Testament: The Old Testament antecedents for the kingdom seem to be forgotten by IM. Most statements start with, Jesus.. Green, Pratt, Goldsworthy and Gaffins contributions serve as helpful correctives.70 Their emphasis on a unified Biblical theology keeps them from shopping for proof-texts. IM would do well to learn from them. A knowledge problem? An assumption made by Brown is that the underlying problem with Muslims with regard to the kingdom is a lack of knowledge. When properly understood so he says, then Muslims will be attracted to the King. Brown fails to see that the underlying problem is moral and not informational. Talman, as well, falls into the same dilemma. He suggests that Muslims will like the idea of submission. On this point both authors show a non-Biblical anthropology. Scripture is clear that all who are dead in their trespasses are hostile to the King and love their rebellion. He needs to give them a new nature prior to their submission to Him. Welcome to the wide path: When one reads suggestions that one does not need to change shape, identity, or religion to enter the kingdom of God
69 See also Samuel P. Schlorff, Theological and Apologetical Dimensions of Muslim Evangelism, in Westminster Theological Journal, 42 No 2 (Spring 1980), pp. 335-366. 70 See Douglas J. Greens and Richard Pratts valuable lectures on the concept of the kingdom in the Old Testament. (Available online) Douglas J. Green, Israel's Enemies Under David's Foot: The OT and the Kingdom of God, (Delivered 2003-01-01) http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/ww039_copyright.mp3; Richard L. Pratt, Jr., The Kingdom of God, http://media.thirdmill.org/KOT2.mov (2010/15/01); Graeme Goldsworthy, Kingdom of God, in Alexander T. Desmond and Brian S. Rosner (eds), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001). Graeme Goldsworthy, The Kingdom of God and the Old Testament, see www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/golds1.htm;
321
as Muslims, one wonders if the need for a completely new nature, by regeneration by the Holy Spirit as Jesus suggested to Nicodemus, is a requirement. Rather than following the can not or no one statements of Jesus, the door seems to be thrown open widely.71 This fails to take into account the pervasive corruption of the human heart, its deadness in its sin, and its critical need for regeneration. Jesus and Pauls statements to the effect of a new nature being the qualification for entry into the kingdom seem all but forgotten. Jesus said...unless you are born again, and Paul saidflesh and blood cannot enter this kingdom (1 Cor 4:20). Is this the wide door that Jabbur refers to? Intersecting circles? Drawings from the Atlanta Common Ground and by Lewis suggest that Islam intersects with the Kingdom of God. From an Islamic viewpoint this is correct, and could be used to send a message that Islam is much more benign with respect to Christianity than it actually is. From the point of view of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, this is false. Ultimate goals: Does IM understand the radically different goals of the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Islam? In the short term, according to Abd al-Masih,The aim of Islam is to establish a state religion, which means Islam needs a religious state. Only when Islam becomes a state, is Islam fully developedand shari'ia law is established.72 As we noted, Rick Brown shows the longer term goal of Islam: The whole world should be brought into submission to Islam... In the yet longer term, a sensual paradise is promised to a select few followers of Allah. Compare this human centered agenda with the Biblical fact that God in Christ breaks into history and He [the covenant keeping God] will reign forever and ever with His blood-bought people in the new Eden. Up with the kingdom, down with the church. As much as IM rightfully worries about the barnacles of Christendom, it pits the kingdom against the church or Christianity. This is especially true to the statements made by Jabbur, Accad, Lewis, Gustafson and reported by Jay Smith. Grafas attributed this more to an anti-institutional bent than Biblical scholarship. The Robertson model seems to have a greater appreciation for the legitimate role of the church as the impetus of the kingdom. Jay Smith, as well, takes exception to
No one can.enter the Kingdom.come to me unless (John 6.44). Abd al-Masih, The Development of Islam in the Last Century (1996) grace-and-truth.org/AM-TheDevelopmentOfIslamInTheLastCentury-Lecture.htm (2010/02/09).
72 71
322
the fact that the visible church [is represented] as being as ungodly, as unbiblical, and equally distant from the Kingdom of God as Islam is, or the followers of any other major religion.73 Pirkey worries that the church and Islam are set on equal terms. New is better? If the conference represented by Pirkey is any indication, then IM is not afraid of theological novelty when it comes to the kingdom. Might this be a logical result of Travis (2000) pendulum swing statement that pits the reality of the kingdom against theological precision? Might this also be due to an a-historical bias of IM? The theology of the kingdom has been debated strongly in the history of the Christian church with very positive results. One thinks of nuanced and Biblical accurate terms like inaugurated eschatology, the now and not yet emphasis of the kingdom, the every square inch is mine says Christ aspect of the kingdom, and the irruption of the kingdom. Realistic idealism: The now and not yet motif of the Kingdom puts its hopes for a final and perfect realization in the Christians sights, but helps one to live only with foretastes in this present broken world. This makes for realistic idealism. Yet when statements are made that it is possible using the kingdom motif, to herald a pure, gospel unencumbered (Common Ground Conference Atlanta, 2009), and that this same motif will be a panacea in light of the obstacles presented by traditional paradigms of conversion (Gustafson, 2005), one is struck by this wide-eyed idealism, with a not so hidden dismissiveness of former efforts. With similar idealism Lewis defines a movement [and certainly includes the insider movement] as, Any situation where the Kingdom of God is growing rapidly without dependence on direct outside involvement. (Lewis, 2009). This seems more the stuff of heaven than earth where God has chosen, especially, to use his church and the means of grace within it to extend the reach of his kingdom. Politically loaded terms: Accad reported that a number of terms common to Christianity were not used as they were said to be politically loaded. Yet the term kingdom is promoted. Accad seems to overlook the fact that more and more recent New Testament scholars are observing that the kingdom of God was a politically loaded term. It was used in the context of another kingdom, namely the Roman empire, and to greater or lesser degrees suggested an element of subversion to the Roman imperium. It was this subversion that engendered persecution.
73
Smith, pp. 40-41.

323
Exclusive no more: The question posed by Lewis or can they enter the Kingdom of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone and gain a new spiritual identity. is as orthodox as it comes. Yet the words Christ alone also used by the Reformers is discounted by the phrase while retaining their own community and socio-religious identity. This almost seems to be a have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario. The exclusive nature of the kingdom is diminished under the rubric of socio-religious identity. Culture and religion: IM, as quotes by Accad, Jabbur and Lewis would indicate, seems to operate under an assumption that in Islam one can separate religious and cultural expressions. This has been shown to be false by the descriptions of the kingdom in Islam. Consequently, one must ask, So, if a Muslim becomes a Christian, how in the world can they divest cultural practices from their religious content, when the practice itself IS the religious content?74 Theology and sociology: The question, In order for Muslims to enter the Kingdom of God, do they have to leave their own social identity and culture to become (cultural) [sic] Christians? sets up a false dichotomy. It almost implies that the call to becoming a Christian involves peeling off ones Arabic/African/Chinese skin and putting on a Christian skin. Surely, this has been suggested over history, but Biblically we know that Christians are called to be in the world and not find their ultimate social identity in it. The above question is asked largely in a sociological way. Would it not be much more useful to ask it in a theological way, namely "How does one satisfy the King's entry requirements for his realm? and "How does one continue to be a devoted subject while living on this earth?" Synopsis: We have seen that an understanding of the continuity and discontinuity of the concept of the kingdom of God in the Bible and Islam is critical to understanding the question before us. Yet, a number of recent voices have answered the question in the affirmative. Unfortunately, they tend to have a view of the kingdom of God that starts with phrases by Jesus. It is vital to see that Jesus took Old Testament Jewish expectations of the Kingdom and radically re-defined them. He stated in effect that neither Jewish culture nor Jewish religious forms, not even Jewish family ties, were sufficient for the new reality. As King Jesus, he has the crown rights to set any and all standards for those coming under dominion.
74
E-mail correspond by P.V.B with author (February 13, 2010).

324
Thus we have identified a weakness in considering the Old Testament antecedents for the kingdom. Equally challenging, is to work backwards from the consummation of the kingdom and analyze whether those standards are being applied to present kingdom citizens. IMs wide door would suggest not. This wide door will likely turn the ideal of IM to transform Islam from the inside out by kingdom Muslims into a Niebuhrs category which he called the Christ of culture. This is where Christ and Christianity accommodate to Islams values, so that they are identified with each other, making the two indistinguishable. The Palmer Robertson model serves to highlight the broad and narrow aspects of the kingdom, and to place the church in proper perspective. Its kingdom circles challenge other portrayals of the same. Whereas IM considers itself radical, one wonders if its demands are really as radical as the Kings demands. Can it follow the Kings injunction about putting ones hand to the plow, the apostles injunction that one enters the kingdom through many tribulations? and the radical otherliness of the kingdom in the Apocalypse? Might it be looking to paraphrase Todd Miles, A kingdom without the King?75 Williams and Pirkey fear that it may be making a kingdom of its own design, and not of Gods design. 11 Conclusion The question posed was, Can one be identified with the Kingdom of God and Islam at the same time? We conclude with three responses: a) Yes. If the kingdom of God is defined as the mamlaka (i.e. dominion of Allah) in the Islamic sense, then yes it is logical that one can be in this kingdom and remain a Muslim. b) Yes. If the kingdom of God is the broad sense of the global rule of the universe by YHWH the Creator prior to the consummation of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, then yes, by virtue of being a human, anyone including a Muslim can be in this kingdom. Any human not in Christ, however, is at the
A king without a kingdom, or a kingdom without a king, have been two polar opposites described by Todd Miles that the modern-day church seems to gravitate towards. The first, when taken to an extreme says, Just give me Jesus and take me away from this hell-bound earth to heaven, and the second taken to an extreme says, We can make heaven down here and Jesus is our good example. Todd Miles, A kingdom without a king? Evaluating the kingdom ethic(s) of the emerging church, in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 12 No 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 88-103.
75
325
same time, according to Scripture, a citizen of the kingdom of Satan and under the wrath of God. c) No. If the kingdom of God is the mediatorial/redemptive kingdom of Christ then we assert that one cannot be identified with Christ and with Islam at the same time. Recall Col 1:13. Murray Harris paraphrases this text:
Believers have been rescued from the gloomy domain and tyrannical rule of Satan [read also Islam] by being transplanted as free colonists into the kingdom and peaceable sovereignty of Christ, to become citizens in the realm of light.76
When the question is rephrased slightly, the issue becomes clearer: Can one be a patriotic citizen of the kingdom of God, and a patriotic citizen of the kingdom of Islam? Both demand absolute loyalty. Both have aspirations for universal conquest. Each predicts the demise of the other. Yet there is one King of Kings and Lord of Lords and by the Fathers rescue plan he has taken prisoners of war of his love and brought them to his kingdom. Why waver between two opinions? If He is Lord, serve Him - only. We close with Samuel Zwemers prayer about the consummated kingdom and Muslims:
Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, who hast made of one blood all nations and hast promised that many shall come from the East and sit down with Abraham in thy kingdom: We pray for thy prodigal children in Muslim lands who are still afar off, that they may be brought nigh by the blood of Christ. Look upon them in pity, because they are ignorant of thy truth. Take away pride of intellect and blindness of heart, and reveal to them the surpassing beauty and power of thy Son Jesus Christ. Convince them of their sin in rejecting the atonement of the only Savior. Give moral courage to those who love thee, that they may boldly confess thy name.77
Murray J. Harris, Colossians & Philemon, in the Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Series [EGGNT] (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), p. 36. 77 Samuel M. Zwemer, Islam and the Cross: Selections from "The Apostle to Islam", Roger S. Greenway (ed), (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), pp. 153-154.
76
326
JESUS IS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD

By David Abernathy1 1 Introduction In recent decades there has been a trend among missionary Bible translators working among Muslim people groups to avoid the use of the phrase Son of God in translations of the New Testament. This is because of the negative and often extreme reaction of many Muslims toward that phrase. The Quran severely anathematizes anyone who would dare to say that Jesus is the Son of God, guaranteeing that they will go to hell, and possibly even cause the earth and heavens to shake (Quran 4:165, 5:18, 6:101, 9:30, 19:35, 8892, 17:111, and 23:91). Muslims have traditionally taught that the phrase Son of God can only mean that Christians believe that God would have produced offspring by a physical union with a human woman. In some parts of the world, at least, it seems nearly impossible to convince devout Muslims that any other meaning is even possible, thus pre-empting any possible understanding to the contrary. The presence of the offending term could prevent the translated text from ever getting a hearing in these places. Much less would it transform the thinking of the readers, unless a significant change in understanding can be brought about through a deep move of the Holy Spirit working through evangelists, radio broadcasts, witnessing Christians, and other means. Missionary Bible translators have long operated under the premise that if the reading audience gets little meaning, no meaning, or wrong meaning from a passage, then the wording of the passage must be altered in order to solve the problem. Consequently, some translators have opted to use different wording for Son of God in order to avoid the wrong meaning many Muslims might attach to the phrase. Justification for this is based in part on the idea that Son of God is a metaphor and, as such, a suitable equivalent can be found as a substitute. Because the Quran does use the terms Messiah (al Masih) and Word to refer to Jesus, some translators, wanting to avoid the reaction that the prohibited term Son of God causes, have chosen to use ei-
1David Abernathy has worked in Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria. Most of his time is spent in the US doing exegetical research, but he travels to Nigeria several times a year where he serves as a consultant in translation workshops. He has also taught Hebrew, Greek, biblical exegesis and sociolinguistics in Kenya.
327
ther Messiah or Word in place of Son of God. The problem that immediately presents itself, even to non-scholars, if the offending phrase Son of God is removed, is that historic Christian understanding has always held that the phrase Son of God means that Jesus actually is Gods Son, and has been for all eternity. This is true in the fields of scholarly theology and exegesis as well as in preaching and worship. Changing the phrase to Messiah or Word or anything else fails to communicate the reality of this eternal Father-Son relationship. 2 The meaning of the term Son of God 2.1 Metaphorical or metaphysical? One of the arguments some use for substituting different wording for Son of God is that the term is considered a metaphor. As such, it can be altered to communicate the same intended meaning, whatever the meaning of the metaphor is determined to be for the context. The rationale behind this is that since Jesus does not have a divine mother, he cannot literally be the Son of God. Thus, it is assumed that the only other option is that he is Son only in some metaphorical sense. That is, if the sonship is not literal/physical it can only be metaphorical. No third category is recognized. But when talking about the persons of the Trinity there is a third possible category, and that is the metaphysical. Christs sonship is a metaphysical and essential2 sonship that is eternal and real; it is the essence of who he is eternally (Carson 1991: 162; 1984: 109, 345; Schnackenberg 1995: 310; Harris 1992: 87; Guthrie 1981: 313; Marshall in Michel 1986: 646; Vos 1953: 193; Morris 1981: 13). As St. Hilary of Poitiers put it, He is the the onlybegotten, perfect, eternal Son of the unbegotten, perfect, eternal Father (Hilary, De Trinitate 3.3). The statement that God sent his Son means that Jesus was already the Son of God when he was sent; that is, Jesus is the Son of God in an eternal sense. For explicit statements regarding Christs eternal preexistence as the Son, see Carson 1991: 111; Cranfield 1955: 58, 1975: 382; Lenski 1936: 37; Hodge 1886: 252, 1878: 334, 1872-73: I, cha.6, sec. 6, C,1,3; Hendriksen 1981: 42; Harrison 1976: 14, 87; Giles 2006: 7, 309, 311; Bloesch 1978: 128; France 1985: 96; Moo 1996: 4849, 478480; Murray 1968: 280; 1982: 6970; Schreiner 1998: 38, 402; Fitzmyer 1993: 484485;
Some scholars use the term ontological, but this term can have philosophical meaning that touches on issues not discussed here, so I have avoided it except where citing those scholars who specifically use it (e.g., Carson, Erickson, Blomberg, Torrance, OCollins, Frame).
2
Stott 1994: 4850, 219; Ridderbos 1975: 69, 77; Ladd 1974: 160; Fung 1988: 182; Bruce 1982: 195; 1986: 157; 1977: 199; Garland 1999: 377; George 1994: 301; Burton 1977: 217; W. Lane 1991: 12, 26; Charles 1990: 174; A. Lane 1982: 275276; Morris 1988: 302; Sanday and Headlam 1971: 8, 192; Godet 1969: 298, 329; Verseput 1987: 540, 545; BeasleyMurray 1987: lxxxii, 51; Harris 1992: 87, 101; Schenk 1997: 99; Oberholtzer 1988; 84; Meier 1985: 179, 188; Marshall in Michel 1986: 645, 646; Stern 1992: 21; Bauer 1992: 775; Burke 1984: 1034; Guthrie 1981: 314, 316, 317; Bavinck 1977: 305, 307; Grudem 1994: 547; Hughes 1977: 37, 5556; Miller 1988: 6; Stein 1992: 87; Vos 1953: 162163; Geisler 2003: 291; Geldenhuys 1977: 77, 147; Sproul 1986: 42; Vanhoozer 2000: 67; Walvoord 1969: 38, 41; Erickson 1991: 232, 2009: 135; D. Kelly 2008: 132; OCollins 1999: 62; Frame 2002: 710, 660-61. For additional, though less explicit support, see also Akin 2001: 183; Blomberg 1992; 417; Watts 1990: 84; W. Mounce 2006: 669; Kstenberger 2004: 500; Tasker 1960: 189; Hurtado 1993: 900, 902; Mller 1993: 710; Yarbrough 2008: 189, 278; Balchin 1982: 213; Warfield 1916: 371. This is only a partial listing of scholars who acknowledge the eternal and metaphysical nature of Christs divine sonship; it could be much longer. The church has always understood Christs sonship in this way. This goes far beyond a metaphorical understanding. If it were a matter of metaphor, it would be a comparison derived from a more basic reality, which in this case would be human relationships. Human relationships would be the starting point, and the divine relationships would be described in terms of the human. This implies that God is somewhat at a loss for ways to describe aspects of his being, and can only draw from human experiences to do so. But we should think of it exactly in reverse. Just as a computer hard drive must be formatted before data can be written to it, so also the human experience and personality has been stamped with certain patterns that enable us to conceptualize important aspects of the essential nature of God. God has made us in such a way that we can know him truly, though not completely. He has established means whereby we can learn about his eternal nature and intra-Trinitarian relations: it has to do with the very pattern in which we are made, as persons created in his image. The Father-Son relation is an eternal pattern, inherent in the very nature of the persons of the Trinity, and is one that he has built into our own human experience in order to teach us something about himself. In Ephesians 3:1415 (NIV) Paul says, I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. What Paul is saying, though without elaborating on it further, is that earthly fatherhood has its origin in God himself. Most of the confessions of faith of the ReforSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 329
mation assert that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, as do many of the ancient creeds of the church. Most of the doctrinal statements of those mission organizations, Christian academic institutions, or denominational church bodies that are conservative enough to have a doctrinal statement will assert in one form or another that God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then fatherhood and sonship are an eternal aspect of their relationship, so God is Father eternally, and Jesus is Son eternally. 2.2 Metaphor, archetype, and inherent sonship Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck said that when we refer to God as Father we are not using a metaphor, as though fatherhood is primarily an attribute of humanity, pertaining to God only in a secondary or derived sense. Rather, he says, the relation is reversed: God is Father in the real and complete sense of the term.3 His fatherhood pertains to his very eternal essence, and fatherhood on earth is but a dim reflection or shadow of Gods eternal fatherhood. The eternal character of Gods fatherhood then implies the eternal character of Christs divine sonship (Bavinck 1977: 305, 307; Murray 1982: 66). Human fatherhood and sonship are, by comparison, only faint copies of the eternal Father-Son relation between God the Father and God the Son (Tenney 1981: 196). The nouns Father and Son have their proper Biblical meaning only in relation to the other; that is, the Father is called that as the Father of the Son, who is the Son of the Father (Jenson 2004: 204; Murray 1982: 66).4 In regard to Jesus revelation of himself as being one with the Father in John 10:30, Bauckham comments:
The terms Father and Son entail each other. The Father is called Father only because Jesus is his Son, and Jesus is called Son only because he is the Son of his divine Father. Each is essential to the identity of the other. So to say that Jesus and the Father are one is to say that the unique divine identity comprises the relationship in which the Father is who he is only in relation to the Son and vice versa. (Bauckham 2008: 106)
Athanasius, commenting on Eph 3:15, said, God does not make man his pattern, but rather, since God alone is properly and truly Father, we men are called fathers of our own children, for of him every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named (Contra Arianos 1.23). 4 Calvin likewise, citing Augustine, says that Christ is called God with respect to himself, but Son with respect to the Father; the Father is called God with respect to himself, but Father with respect to the Son (Institutes I, xiii, 19).
3
Consequently, only God is father in the fullest sense; he was the first father. Bavinck goes on to conclude that whoever refuses to honor God as Father shows more disrespect toward him than the one who does not acknowledge him as creator. D. Kelly says that it is significant that both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed mention the fatherhood of God before speaking of him as creator; that is, he was always Father, but he was not always creator (D. Kelly 2008: 449). This understanding of Gods eternal fatherhood is nothing new; Athanasius elaborated this point in the fourth century in his fourth discourse against the Arians.5 So instead of seeing Son of God as a metaphor drawn from human experiences and relations, we should understand the phrase in terms of a prototype or archetype. This is an original pattern rooted in Gods eternal nature that was stamped upon humanity at the time of creation, giving humankind many, though not all, of those features of Christs own sonship (which, for humans, would include daughtership as well). This original Father-Son relationship is the basis upon which our own understanding and experience of human father-son relationships are based. So the divine fatherhood and sonship are not conceptual constructs that have their origin in human relations and experiences; human experience of fatherhood and sonship (that is, the parent-child relation) derives from the eternal pattern of relations in the Trinity. God has so made us that everyone experiences what it means to be a son or daughter, and most people experience what it means to be a parent. Our psychological hard drives are formatted to understand intuitively certain aspects of Gods eternal being. We also see the concept of archetypes used in the epistle to the Hebrews in which the writer says that the earthly tabernacle was a copy that corresponded to a heavenly reality (Heb 9:11, 23). Likewise, he says that Melchizedek, as a priest and king, is like the Son of God. He is not using the Jewish tabernacle as a pattern, saying that heavenly realities are similar in certain ways, or taking Melchizedek as a pattern and saying that Jesus ministry is like his in certain ways; he is doing exactly the reverse. The earthly tabernacle and the earthly priest-king Melchizedek display certain similarities to the eternal heavenly realities. Perhaps one more observation would be in order concerning the question of Son of God being a metaphor, and the frequency with which particular metaphors are used in the Bible. We have already said that the Father-Son
5 Athanasius said, It belongs to the Godhead alone that the Father is properly father, and the Son properly Son, and in them, and them only, does it hold that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son. (Against the Arians: Discourse Four, Ch. VI, section 21. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.i.iv.html).
331
relation has its roots in Gods eternal nature, and has been imprinted upon humanity to enable us to understand essential truth about God. It is also true that the Father-Son-Son of God conceptual cluster, which occurs several hundred times in the New Testament, has far more frequency and a much more widespread distribution than is normal for Biblical metaphors. The Biblical authors dont tell us that Christs sonship is a metaphor; they describe it as though it were a fact.6 Hence we dont need to assume that the term Son of God must be metaphorical, and the only possible alternative to understanding it in a literal/physical sense. There is an eternal and metaphysical sense in which Jesus is the divine Son, the Son of God, and this is how the church has always understood it. 2.3 Divine sonship as prototype for humans becoming Gods sons and daughters Numerous scholars comment on the fact that it is Christs essential sonship that is the avenue to human beings gaining a similar status as sons and daughters of God. The mission of Gods Son was to bring others into the status of a relationship with God as his children (Ladd 1974: 458). It is Jesus uncreated, natural, eternal sonship that makes all the other sons of God possible (Bloesch 1978: 126).7 Hurtado notes that in Pauls view Gods purpose in sending his Son was that we might become sons by adoption (1993:905906; see also OCollins 1999: 62). In Romans 8:29 and Gal. 4:46 Paul shows that it is through the work of the preexistent Son whom God sent into the world to die for us that we can be adopted as Gods sons (Marshall 1980: 778; Erickson 1991: 35). The Son leads other sons to salvation as well as to the inheritance that is inherent in sonship, both his and theirs (Schenk 1997: 98, 102). This means that Jesus, as the divine Son whose sonship is not derived from another, is the prototype and the agent of granting others the right to be Gods sons as well; the sonship of Christians is derived from his own sonship and patterned after it (Hurtado 1993: 905906; Schenk 1997: 99), and the pattern of that sonship is essentially obedience (Bauer 1992: 774). Jesus mediates for them a new relationship with God, bringing them into the same intimate relationship with God whereby they may call him Abba (Marshall 1967: 90;
This is also true of the sonship of believers. 1 John 3:1 (NIV) says, How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! 7 Calvin notes that although God was never Father to either angels or men, but only with regard to his only begotten son, he nevertheless enables sinful men to become Gods sons by free adoption through Christ, who is the son of God by nature, and who by his eternal generation always possessed sonship (Institutes II, xiv, 5).
6
Blomberg 1997: 405). Through him, the Son of God, every believer is accepted in him as a child of God and can call his Father their Father as well (Geldenhuys 1977: 130). Staniloae says that The revelation of the Trinity, occasioned by the incarnation and earthly activity of the Son, has no other purpose than to draw us after grace, to draw us through the Holy Spirit into the filial relationship the Son has with the Father, which he characterizes as a relationship of eternal love and communion (Staniloae 1994: 249, cited in Kelly 2008: 261). That new relationship is essentially one of love. D. Kelly says that through the incarnation the Son of God revealed the heart of God to the human race and, on their behalf and in their place, gave the perfect filial responses required by God so that they could know the Father as the Son knows him (D. Kelly 2008: 178). Bruce characterizes the process this way: The Son and the Father exist together in an eternal relationship of reciprocal love, and all those who are united to the Son through believing in him are welcomed into this relationship: the Father of Jesus becomes their Father too (Bruce 1986: 167). In other words, our own union with God depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son (Sanday and Headlam 1971: 389; see also Vos 1953: 200201). Hughes says that Christs exaltation and enthronement in heaven mark the completion of his redeeming mission to our world. However, at the same time it is a begetting in and with him of our fallen humanity in the sense of the regeneration and rehabilitation of humankind. Christs sonship is now our sonship, his inheritance is now our inheritance, his exaltation is now our exaltation (Hughes 1977: 55-56). In fact, the Sons appointment at the ascension as heir of all things in Heb. 1:2 is best understood as the culmination of what had been Gods plan all along. This plan of the Sons relation to humankind was a plan formed before creation began, touching on everything about them, including their origin, history, and destiny (Miller 1988: 6). In other words, the salvation that believers have been granted, as part of Gods eternal plan in which they become his own sons and daughters, was brought about through the perfect Son, whose sonship now becomes a model of their own. 2.4 The nature of Christs eternal sonship Understanding Christs sonship, as the church has always done, as an eternal sonship naturally leads to the question of what sonship would mean in the eternal sense. Unfortunately, it is much easier to describe Jesus divine sonship in terms of his rule over creation or of his earthly life and mission, beSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 333
cause that is the reality in which we exist, than to describe his eternal sonship. In fact, much of Pauls discussion of Christs divine sonship could be said to focus on soteriology, that is, on his role as savior (Marshall in Michel 1986: 643644; Marshall 1980: 778; Fee 1987: 45 fn 48). The exalted Christology of Col. 1:1520 begins with hos estin, who is, referring to the phrase his dear son in the previous sentence, and spells out what his sonship means as Lord over all created things. Likewise, the exalted Christology of the first chapter of Hebrews is an elaboration on his Son in 1:2. But even this chapter speaks mostly of the Son in terms of his rule over his creation and his full representation of God toward all creation. On the other hand, the Bible says little about the eternal preexistent relation of the persons of the Trinity one toward another, prior to and without reference to anyone or anything else. These things are by their nature very difficult for us to conceive of or talk about. But we do know some things. The Bible does reveal God as triune, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the members of the Trinity is deity; each is eternal; each is personal. The relationships of the persons toward one another are therefore eternal, and they are characterized by love (1 John 4:8).8 Importantly, the relationship of two of those persons is a Father-Son relation. In his high priestly prayer in John 17 Jesus describes that relationship between himself and the Father in terms of a glory that was given by the Father to the Son, and which consists of their oneness with one another (17:22). It is described also in terms of the Fathers love for him prior to the creation of the world (17:24). The term sonship used with reference to Jesus expresses a unity of nature, unique intimacy and close fellowship between him and the Father (Tenney 1981: 196). Jesus also said in John 5:27 and 6:57 that his life derives from the living Father who sent him. This could possibly be seen as referring to his incarnation, his earthly existence.9 However, the overall context may actually incline the other way. As Carson says, it seems to be saying that in some sense, even in his pre-incarnate eternal existence, his life is derived from the Father; just as God has life-in-himself as a divine attribute, so also he granted that divine attribute to the Son, and did so in an eternal sense, not just as a function of the messianic mission. Consequently these verses have been used as support for the concept of the eternal generation of the Son (Carson 1991: 257; see also
8 Erickson describes the Trinity as a society or complex of persons within which love binds and unites each of the persons with each of the others so closely that they are actually one (Erickson 2000: 58). 9 See for example, Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part One, Chapter VI, sec. 6B.
334
Kstenberger 2004:189; Morris 1995: 28283).10 Herein we may see part of the rationale for the statement by the creeds and confessions that Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father. While it is by no means clear what eternal begetting might mean, the assertion that he is begotten communicates that in some sense the relationship is a Father-Son relationship, and that in some sense the Son derives his eternal existence from the Father, but the fact that the begetting is eternal makes it clear that he has no origin or creation, that he never began to be.11 Two of the ecumenical creeds assert that he is eternally begotten of the Father, as do various confessions of the Reformation, including the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 and the Westminster Confession. In addition, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Lutheran Formula of Concord all profess Christs eternal sonship. As we said before, almost any denominational church body, Bible college or seminary, or mission agency conservative enough to have a doctrinal statement will have in their statement something to the effect that God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.12 Some church bodies will affirm allegiance to the Ecumenical Creeds. So, if God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Father-Son relationship is an eternal one, and not primarily a designation of Jesus messianic mission as Christ, savior, or savior-king.
See also Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity 2.11, Augustines Homilies in John, Tractate19.11. For a synopsis of the philosophical and theological difficulties involved with the idea of eternal begetting or generation, see Erickson 2009: 179-184, 251. Erickson says that the concept lacks biblical warrant and does not make sense philosophically, and should be eliminated from theological discussions of the Trinity (2009: 251). He points out that Calvin refrains from delving into the idea of eternal begetting, considering the idea foolish and of little profit (Institutes I, xiii, 29). In his systematic theology Grudem recommends discontinuing the use of the language of eternal begetting of the Son for contemporary theological formulations (Grudem 1994: 1234). Frame, on the other hand, is willing to retain the term eternal generation but admits that it is difficult to say that it means anything more than that the Father is eternally Father and the Son eternally Son, which Erickson, Grudem, and Calvin also affirm (Frame 2002: 712-714). 12 This would include Wycliffe Bible Translators US, UK, Canada, and International, SIM, New Tribes Mission, and the Lausanne Covenant statement of faith, to which various evangelical groups subscribe.
11 10
335
3 The historical development of christological and Trinitarian doctrine 3.1 The creeds, the Trinity, and the Son At the very end of the gospel of Matthew Jesus gives his apostles their marching orders, using an aorist imperative: they are to make disciples of all nations. Then using two present participles in an imperatival sense he tells them what that consists of: baptizing and teaching them everything he had taught them. As for baptism, it was to be in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the only place in Scripture where a member of the Trinity speaks objectively to name the persons of the Trinity, and for good reason it has become the normative Trinitarian formula. In the book of Acts there seem to be variations in the baptismal formula, but it is not known whether that is a matter of abbreviation on Lukes part for literary reasons, or, more likely, that the formula had not been standardized yet. In any event, in the Didache, which is a church manual of instruction written toward the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century, the formula given for baptism was the same as that expressed in Mat 28:19: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even today that formula is used, not only in the west, with Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, but also in the east, with Orthodox, Coptic, Maronite, Roman Catholic, and other communions. In other words, the use of that Trinitarian formula is almost universal, and always has been. Early Christian writers told their readers that it would be by the regula veritatis (the rule of truth or rule of faith) that they would be able to recognize the true Church that alone could lead them to a saving knowledge of God. This regula veritatis was in fact the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Mat 28:19. This threefold formula was useful not only as a symbol for entrance into the household of faith, but it also served as a safeguard for orthodox belief against the alternative teachings of heretics within the Church (D. Kelly 2008: 427). Kelly comments that this prime baptismal formula has served as the heart of the basic Trinitarian theology of the Christian Church from the beginning of its life and mission to the world (D. Kelly 2008: 451). It was the use of the baptismal formula in Mt. 28:19 that ultimately gave us the creeds.13 This was true both in the western, Latin tradition, culminating in the Apostles Creed, but also in the east, culminating in the Nicene13 See D. Kelly (2008: 42733), for further elaboration of how the trinitarian formula of Mt. 28:19 was used as the core of Christian teaching, the regula veritatis, by Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Cyprian, Dionysisus of Alexandria, and Novatian.
336
Constantinopolitan creed (J. N. D. Kelly 1972: 8991, 96, 121), which grew out of various other creedal traditions, such as the Caesarean creed and others. It is natural that creeds would arise out of the most primitive form of baptismal confessions because candidates for baptism had to be catechized and had to be able to profess the faith into which they were being baptized (J. N. D. Kelly 1972, 206; Schaff http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html). In the early third century Hippolytus records a baptismal interrogation that included a three-fold profession of faith, corresponding to the three persons of the Trinity (Martin 1964: 61). The creeds stated, but did not elaborate on, the doctrine of the Trinity as well as the doctrine of Christs nature. With regard to the idea that the creeds evolved from Pauls statement about one Godone Lord in 1 Cor 8:6, J. N. D. Kelly says that many early creeds show the influence of it, but many others are entirely free from it, and it is probably not the nucleus of the developed confessions. The Lords Trinitarian baptismal command was the creative model on which the baptismal questions, and so baptismal creeds, were constructed. Where hints of the Pauline text occur we may suspect that they were imposed as an inspired after-thought upon material much more primitive (J. N. D. Kelly 1972: 203204). The creeds not only tell us how the early church conceived of and named the Trinity; they also tell us something about how people understood who Christ was. The old Roman creed, which is the predecessor of the Apostles Creed, seems to clearly imply that Christ was the Son of God and that as the only-begotten, he pre-existed as Son (J. N. D. Kelly 1972: 148). This creed also has as its nucleus the command given by Christ to the apostles in Mt. 28:19. In the formula Father, Son, and Holy Spirit we have the heart of the Christian gospel: God, who is a Father, revealed himself in history through one who was at the same time both God and man, and who continues to operate in the lives of those who follow him by his Spirit. In this is the uniqueness of Christianity (Latourette 1997: 135). Some ancient creeds used Word instead of Son, such as that of St. Macarius, or the creed developed by the heretic Arius in his bid to be reinstated into the church. But creeds that had Son of God or only begotten Son of God were more common. Some that contained the phrase only begotten Son of God were the creeds of Jerusalem (third and fourth century), the Alexandrian creed (early fourth century), and the creed of Mopsuestia (late fourth century). The creed of Antioch (early third century), and the Apostolic Constitution of Syria (late fourth century) say only begotten Son. The reconstructed prototype of the Eastern creeds says: And in one Lord JeSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 337
sus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages (J. N. D. Kelly 1972: 197). The Caesarean Creed, dated in the early fourth century and being an immediate predecessor to the Nicene formula, described Jesus Christ both as the Word of God as well as the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father before all ages. Because of the Arin controversy, the part about his being the Word of God was dropped from the Nicene Creed. But very little about the Nicene creed was new; it contained no abrupt changes from the long creedal traditions that preceded it (J. N. D. Kelly 1972: 205). 3.2 The Word, the Son, and Marcellus During the first three centuries after the apostolic era many of the early church fathers made considerable use of the term Logos in their writing and thinking. This was natural, given the ties they had with Greek philosophical tradition, and the natural tie that the term had with those traditions. Yet they also continued to use the term Son of God or Son liberally in their writings. We can see this in the works of Justin Martyr (Apology), Clement of Rome (Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 9), Athenagorus (Plea, chapters 10, 24), Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 20), The Martyrdom of Polycarp (chapter 14), Irenaeas (Against Heresies, chapter 3), and others (see Richardson 1970). Yet it is important to realize that, while they could speak freely and often about Christ as the Word or Logos, what made that sensible and workable, as opposed to a philosophical abstraction, was that they also fully conceived of him as the eternal Son. But when that concept is removed, problems crop up, eventually leading to a serious christological deficiency, as happened in the case of the otherwise orthodox Marcellus of Ancyra. Marcellus lived during the theologically turbulent fourth century when the debates with the Arians were raging, along with other battles between East and West that were less doctrinal than personal, cultural and political. Marcellus was one of the more respected and influential theologians of his day, and was a signer of the Nicene canons. However, he never promoted the Nicene creed for reasons we shall soon see. Unfortunately Marcellus most enduring legacy came from reaction to his teaching that prior to the incarnation Jesus existed as Logos but not as Son, which catalyzed the development of Trinitarian dogma. Many interpreted his views as a new variation of the old modalist heresy. His ideas also gave additional fuel to the speculations of the Arians, though not intentionally. His views were rejected in the twentysix anathemas of the First Sirmian Creed in 351, mainly because of how he applied his analogy of mind and word to the Logos, and because of the diffiSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 338
culty of conceiving how a word could have an eternal existence. Then Marcellus himself was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (Toom 2007: 97), and a year later at a council called in Rome by Pope Damasus. One of the twenty-four anathemas from that council stated that if anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal, he is a heretic.14 The crux of his error had to do with how he conceived of the eternal Logos in distinction from the Son of God. For him, the Logos was eternal, but did not become the Son of God until the incarnation, meaning that he did not acknowledge Christ as a personal, preincarnate Son (H. Brown 1984: 121), which is one of the reasons for which he balked at promoting the Nicene creed (Toom 2007: 99). Of course, the notion of self-sacrifice inherent in the idea that God gave his son is robbed of force if that sonship is regarded as beginning with the incarnation (Vos 1953: 221). But Marcellus had reasoned that the Logos existed as Word, but not as a hypostasis, which was what the theologians of the day called a personal entity. But to proceed on the presupposition that Christ was eternal Logos without also seeing him as eternal Son leads naturally to the question of how such an entity can exist, not only as a person, but as anything real at all. A word exists only potentially in the mind until you say it, but then once it is said, ceases to exist except as a memory. That is, without the concept of a fully personal and eternal Son relating to a fully personal and eternal Father in an eternal Father-Son relationship, the inevitable conclusion will be, or appear to be, a form of modalism or adoptionism both of which had already been condemned as heresies. In fairness to Marcellus we must say that he was not fully a modalist or an adoptionist in the original sense of those terms, but in the end we must also agree with the conclusion of the council of Constantinople that a son-less Trinity is conceptually and theologically unworkable, since it is difficult to conceive in what way a Logos would be personal. It should also be apparent that the idea of the Son not existing eternally as Son is inconsistent with the broad witness of the New Testament as well, especially Johns gospel. The following century saw the council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, which dealt further with the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, in the one person. This was the last major council that dealt with Trinitarian and christological issues. For the most part, christological and Trinitarian
John Calvin, dealing with a similar error taught by Servetus and others, says that Jesus did not become Son of God at the incarnation, but is so by virtue of his deity and eternal essence (Institutes II, xiv, 6).
14
doctrine was now defined, though many of the same heresies would continue to recur throughout history. The Chalcedonian creed, like several others before it, affirmed that Christ is God the Word but, like all others before it, primarily described Christ using the term Son, which is its most common as well as the first descriptor used of him. It also affirms the Son as onlybegotten (or unique monogene) and as begotten before all ages of the Father, which is essentially the same as what the Nicene Creed and most other eastern creeds before it had said. So with regard to affirming Christs eternal and personal sonship there was nothing new in the Chalcedonian creed. 3.3 Summarizing Trinitarian doctrine at Toledo The eleventh Council of Toledo was held in 675 in Spain. In it the council drew together and restated what had been articulated in earlier ecumenical councils concerning the Trinity, and also carried out some other administrative business. It was a small council, with only seventeen bishops in attendance, and did not have a significant impact on church theology or practice. What significance it does have may lie in the fact that the bishops, well aware of the advance of Islam through North Africa and with the near certainty that the Islamic invasion would soon sweep through the Iberian peninsula as well, articulated a clear Trinitarian statement. Their statement, which was made with the Islamic unitarianism fully in mind, is the same as what the church had always confessed. They said: The Father is eternal, and the Son is also eternal. If he was always Father, he always had a Son, whose Father he was, and therefore we confess that the Son was born from the Father without beginning (Hardon, http://www.therealpresence.org/archives). In other words, they saw Christs sonship as eternal and metaphysical. Christian orthodoxy has seen it this way ever since, just as it always had from the beginning of church history. One interesting variant on communicating the idea of the Trinity, if not of conceptualizing it, arose as the Muslim advance swept through the Christian world. In dialogue, at least, with Muslims, Christians would sometimes speak of the Trinity as God, his Word, and his Spirit, avoiding the contentious matter of Father-Son language that is so odious to Muslims. An example of this occurred in 781 when the Nestorian patriarch Timothy I of Adiabene was invited by Mahdi, the caliph, to debate theology. The debate lasted for three days, with neither side being a clear winner. Timothy was able to avoid irritating the caliph and others over the issue of Christs sonship by saying that as a man he was born of a virgin, but from God he was born as light is from the sun, or as a word is from the soul. He also likened the Trinity to a three deSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 340
narii gold coin which is one in its material, but three in the number of denarii, but then also admitted the limitations of drawing parallels between physical and spiritual things (Moffatt 1998: 349-352). This was wise, because the trajectory on which he was moving was taking him toward sub-Trinitarian positions (such as modalism) that had already been defined as heresies by previous councils. In fact, any illustration of the Trinity will be heretical for the simple reason that the Trinity is unique, and nothing else anywhere corresponds to it.15 Timothy described the Trinity in the language referred to above, as God, his Word, and his Spirit, terms which are not offensive to Muslims. Nor is this description offensive to Christians, provided it is not the primary way we talk about the Trinity because each of the terms does apply to the persons of the Trinity when spoken of individually. But when used as a Trinitarian formula it is readily apparent that the most essential element, which is the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, is missing. This is an element that has always been at the heart of our understanding of the Trinity. Speaking of the Trinity as Timothy did brings us back to the problem Marcellus faced: how a Word could be a person, eternally existing and exercising personal relationships with the other two members of the Trinity. Christians can easily conceive of the Word as an eternal person due to the fact that they know him primarily as eternal Son, so the conceptual problem does not arise for them. But without the Father-Son relation at the center, the Trinity would be something other than what Christians have always understood it to be. For all intents and purposes, it is not the biblical Trinity.16
15 Timothys most difficult question was not about Christs sonship or the Trinity; it was whether or not Muhammad was a prophet of God. To that question he replied that Muhammad had turned people from idolatry and urged them to live righteously, which is what prophets do, so he should be respected as a prophet. In this he was being more diplomatic than faithful to Christian truth, because Muhammads doctrine about God, the Trinity, the fall of man, the sinful human nature, the deity of Christ, his atoning sacrifice, his resurrection, justification by faith, and various other crucial issues are fundamentally incompatible with historic Christian orthodoxy. Muslim background believers and expatriates working in the Muslim world often find this one of the most difficult challenges they have to deal with, since criticism of Muhammad is viewed as a capital offense within Islam. In my view, Timothys response to the caliphs question is not a good option for the reasons just described, but, there is really no easy answer to the caliphs question that will satisfy both the Muslim and Christian belief systems. 16 Even today some have described the Trinity as God, his Word, and his Spirit, with the second and third being emanations from the first, and with no interpersonal relationships between the three members. This is a form of modalism. It also does not explain why Jesus could say that the Father loved him before the foundation of the world (Jn 17:24).
341
4 Son of God in Biblical theology 4.1 The Messiah as the Son of God We may ask at what point in time believers of the first century came to understand the implications of the messianic sonship. To what degree had preChristian Jewish theology applied the title Son or Son of God to the Messiah? If they did, in what sense did they understand him to be that? And was the use of the term by early Christians in continuity with existing Jewish belief, or did it represent a fundamental discontinuity, a dramatic shift from existing Jewish belief? It is unclear how widely the term Son of God was known or used in preChristian Judaism. Kstenberger (2004: 84) says that Son of God was a messianic title in Jesus day. Collins describes several fragmentary texts from Qumran, 4Q246 and 4Q174 (known as the Florilegium) that use the title Son of God. There is some question about the interpretation of 4Q174, but it appears to associate the term Son of God with the expected Messiah, as 4Q246 does more clearly. He concludes that it should not be surprising that the Davidic Messiah could come to be called Son of God, though he admits that the relevance of the Qumran text to early Christianity is complex (Collins 1993: 3538). In evaluating the Qumran evidence Guthrie admits that it is slight, but suggests that Son of God was beginning to be used in a messianic sense (Guthrie 1981: 302303). Marshall (in Michel 1986: 637) concludes that attention was being paid in Judaism to Gods fatherly relationship to the Messiah as his Son, as described in 2 Sam 7:14.17 France (1985: 240) likewise believes that there is some evidence in first century Judaism for the idea of the Messiah as Son of God (see also Nolland 1989: 163). Bock interprets the data from Qumran to indicate that the title Son of the Most High in Luke 1:32 would be natural for a Jewish setting, and that it gives some indication of describing a regal figure (Bock 1994a: 14). Bauer agrees that the idea of the Messiah as Son of God was not totally foreign to Palestinian Judaism. He believes that the Messiah was not primarily understood in those terms because the Jewish people did not use the phrase itself as a typical messianic designation. He notes that there is a near total absence in the literature of Palestinian Judaism of a connection between messi-
A first-century Jewish text known as 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) chapter 14, line 18, has God speaking of the Messiah, who is preexistent in heaven, as my son. 4 Ezra is difficult to interpret, since it is a composite drawn from both Jewish and Christian authors, and apparently was also apparently edited subsequent to the first century. It is hard to know in what way this passage may or may not have been influenced by Christian beliefs. See Barrett 1987: 318-320.
17
anic expectations and the title Son of God (1992: 770771). According to Moo, the rabbis did not use Son as a messianic title (1996: 45, fn 27; see also Newman and Stine 1988: 82). Hurtado agrees, saying that there is no unambiguous evidence that the title Son of God was used as a messianic title. It is also difficult to say just how widely messianic expectations included the idea of divine sonship (1993: 901; see also Ellis 1974: 263). Longenecker (1970: 95, 97) agrees with Reginald Fuller (1996: 10511052) that the phrase Son of God was just beginning to be used as a title for the Messiah in preChristian Judaism, and that the Qumran texts indicate that at least some people were beginning to apply the idea of sonship to the Davidic Messiah. Consequently, the title was available for early Christians to use as they tried to understand who Jesus was. Keener likewise says that in at least some circles the term Son of God was being used to interpret 2 Sam 7:14 with reference to the Davidic Messiah, but that it was not a common designation for the Messiah in that era (Keener 2003: 295296; see also Ladd 1974: 161). It is also important to consider the relative significance of the evidence from Qumran. While these texts from the intertestamental period do provide insight into first century Jewish understandings, especially regarding how they may have interpreted Old Testament texts, we must recognize that these intertestamental texts are relatively few in number and some of them are fragmentary. Therefore, there is a limit to how far we should go in revising our understanding of canonical texts or christological terms in light of them. As Moo comments, the most important factor in interpreting the meaning of the term Son of God is Jesus own understanding and teaching about his unique relationship to the Father (Moo 1996: 45 fn 27). It would be an understatement to say that through his teaching and works of power Jesus revolutionized many of the ideas and understandings that his disciples had held prior to their knowing him, and especially in light of his resurrection. B. B. Warfield asserts that in fact the doctrine of a superhuman Messiah was native to Judaism even before the beginning of the Christian era (1916: 377; see also Collins and Yarbro Collins 2008: xxiv). He agrees with Hermann Gunkel that the Christology of the New Testament was simply the Christology of the pre-Christian Judaism before it. He who reads the Old Testament, however cursorily, will not escape a sense, however dim, that he is brought into contact in it with a Messiah who is more than human in the fundamental basis of his being, and in whose coming Jehovah visits his people in
343
some more than representative sense (1916: 392).18 He also points out that the messianic hope was at the heart of Israelite religion throughout the ages, and that the prophets themselves attribute a divine nature and ascribe divine functions to the Messiah (1916: 405). This is not to say that messianic ideas were necessarily uniform or that various strands of messianic belief were even held in a coherent and consistent way within the thinking of any group. But the various strands of belief certainly came together. They were fulfilled in Christ in a way that no one was prepared to comprehend fully until after the resurrection, but which was consistent with Scripture and not inconsistent with much of Jewish belief and general expectation. The notable exception was the expectation of deliverance from political and military oppression. While there was little development of any form of Trinitarian doctrine prior to the resurrection of Christ, the idea that the Christ was the preexistent Son of God and of divine status himself was not an insurmountable obstacle to the minds of many Jewish people who knew and believed their own Scriptures.19 As Watts has said, the early Christians claimed that Jesus was the fulfillment of all such expectations no matter how diverse (1990: 85). 4.2 Four senses of Christs divine sonship Geerhardus Vos has outlined four different senses in which the designation Son of God is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. These four aspects are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact integrally related to one another. One is the moral and religious sense in which Jesus lived as an obedient Son of God in terms of his perfect faith and character (Vos 1953: 141142). When Jesus says that the peacemakers will be called sons of God, he is speaking of this moral and religious sense of sonship. But in a greater way, Jesus proves himself to be Gods Son by the way he lived, showing Gods character and nature and being obedient to him as a faithful son. Commentary on this aspect of sonship pervades the exegetical literature, especially with regard to Jesus temptation in the wilderness where the real issue was not whether Jesus was the Son of God, but what kind of Son he would be.
It is worth noting that in the gospel accounts and Acts, mostthe majority of the time whenthat human beings refer to Jesus as the Son of God it occurs in the context of something supernatural that has happened (John 1: 48-49; Mat 14:32-33; 27:54), or a supernatural revelation (Mat 17-18; John 1:33-34; Acts 9:20), or where someone hopes that something supernatural will happen (John 11:25-27), or as a challenge to do something supernatural (Mat 27:43-43). 19 Some have said that there was an incipient pre-Christian Trinitarian understanding involving God, his Wisdom, and his Spirit, but to what degree this belief was held among first century Jews is unclear.
18
A second sense of Jesus divine sonship that Vos defines is the nativistic sense spoken of in Luke 1:32, 35 in which the birth of Jesus, who will occupy the messianic throne of his father David, is not on the basis of human paternity, but is by divine action.20 Some interpreters focus primarily on this aspect, especially with regard to Lukes gospel (Green 1995: 5556; see also Talbert 2002: 20, 49, and Van Bruggen, 1999: 142150, who see the divine sonship entirely in the nativistic sense), De Kuiper and Newman indicate that this is the meaning of Son of God in Matthew and Luke (1977: 433). In Lukes gospel the nativistic aspect of Jesus divine sonship is tied to the genealogy which is traced all the way to Adam, who is also said to be a son of God in the sense that his existence was directly due to the action of God, and not of human parentage. A third sense of sonship is the messianic sonship. A few scholars, particularly those who are not conservative, view this as the primary meaning, or even the only meaning of the term Son of God in the gospels, especially the Synoptics. They interpret it as being an adoptive sonship in keeping with Ps 2, Isa 42:1, or 2 Sam 14:7. De Kuiper and Newman understand this adoptive sense to be the meaning of the term in Marks gospel (1977: 433; see also Yarbro Collins 1999: 393408). Most conservative interpreters view the messianic sonship as being based on the fourth sense, the eternal sense, which is discussed below. Because the Messiah must act as an absolute representative of God and is promised dominion over the ends of the earth (both in Psalm 2 and in Revelation), only a Son in the highest sense can adequately fulfill the messianic office, Vos says, because a world ruler in such a comprehensive sense as the Old Testament prophecies describe him needs to be super-human (Vos 1953: 190, 192). Christs messianic sonship expresses his eternal sonship in a definite historical situation. Vos says that the primary meaning of Son of God is the pre-temporal and eternal relationship of the second person of the Trinity to the first, as Son to a Father. This is a sonship existing from all eternity past, before the foundation of the world, and which would exist even if the world had never been created. This, he says, is what is primarily meant by the statement, This is my Son, given by the voice from heaven at Christs baptism and at his transfiguration, though the other aspects of sonship are necessarily included as well, albeit in a subsidiary sense. Vos calls this eternal sonship the Trinitarian
This is not to say that the angels statement about Jesus sonship is to be limited only to the nativistic aspect. All aspects of his sonship are interrelated. The angel, of course, as a supernatural being, knows of the eternal aspect of Jesus sonship.
20
sense. Ladd, who follows Vos four-aspect paradigm for Christs sonship, calls it the theological sense (1974: 160). 4.3 Eternal sonship the basis of messianic ministry As Vos comments, it is this eternal sonship that qualifies the Son for the messianic sonship, which is simply the eternal sonship expressed in history. Only a Son in the highest possible sense could fulfill such an office, particularly in view of the fact that it involves inheriting Gods rule over the world, and such a world ruler must of necessity be superhuman, as was mentioned above (Vos 1953: 190192). It is crucial here not to make the mistake of assuming that divine sonship is equivalent to being the Messiah; far more is involved. It is the eternal sonship that is the basis for the messianic sonship (Vos 1953: 190; Verseput 1987: 538, 548; Murray 1982: 68; Ladd 1974: 163166; Marshall 1967: 99; Longenecker 1970: 9596, 1994: 484485; Stein 1992: 84; Ridderbos 1975: 69; Liefeld 1984: 831; Lenski 1936: 35; W. Lane 1974: 5758; Nolland 1989: 166; Bruce 1983: 55; OCollins 1999: 46). That is, Jesus is the Christ by virtue of being the Son of God; he is not the Son of God because he is the Christ. Being the Son of God means more than being the Messiah; the two are not the same (Moo 1996: 45 fn 27; Nolland 1989: 163-64, 2005: 158; Bock 1994b: 108; Schnackenberg 1995: 310, 312; Kstenberger 2004: 582; Cranfield 1955: 62; Turner 2008: 404; France 2002: 50; Godet 1969: 298, 329; Keener 2003: 296297; Edwards 2002: 15; Gundry 1993: 974; Ellis 1974: 159). 5 Son of God in the New Testament 5.1 Son of God Christology in the epistle to the Hebrews21 The overall theme of the epistle to the Hebrews is stated in the very beginning (1:2), which is that God has spoken to us through his Son. From this one basic assertion flow all the exhortations which follow throughout the epistle. The author begins with basic doctrinal assertions about the Son of God, which is the subject matter of the entire first chapter, and especially the first five verses. The first four verses, which comprise one sentence in the Greek text, represent one of the highest Christologies in the New Testament and form the heart of the Christology of this epistle. The designation Son of God domi-
21 Much of the material in this and the following two sub-sections is excerpted from an article I published in Davar/Logos journal in 2004.
346
nates the Christology of the epistle (Charles 1990: 175). It occurs with reference to Jesus no less than thirteen times. This christological emphasis is not unlike that in other New Testament books. Christology was of paramount importance to first century Christians, and was not the exclusive interest of later councils. The importance of Christology is shown not only in statements made about Christ, but also in the fact that many of those statements are found in the introductory paragraphs of the New Testament books in which they occur. In Col 1:13ff Paul says that the Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Col 1:1517 NIV). This is not drastically different from the assertions of Hebrews 1. Likewise the synoptic gospels leave no question in their opening chapters that Jesus is more than a mere man or a good prophet. In Mark 1:1 he is the Son of God.22 Early in Matthew, Jesus is a descendant of David, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and called Immanuel, God with us (1:20, 23). As Gundry says, although in late Judaism the term Son of God may have meant no more than the Messiah adopted by God as his vice-regent, in Matthews narrative the account of the virgin birth and the title Immanuel, convey a stronger connotation: the Son of God is essential deity (Gundry 1982: 330). In Luke Jesus is likewise presented as being born of a virgin, with the explanation given by the angel at the annunciation that he would be the Son of the Most High and the Son of God (1:32, 35). Clearly, the writers of scripture felt it very important to make clear from the outset that Jesus was more than a man: he was the Son of God, the agent of creation, God in the flesh. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews does not depart from this practice, and it is not unreasonable to say that he consciously follows a pattern of the New Testament era in which the writers make bold and clear assertions about the Son as a foundation for all that is to follow. He begins with a high christological statement about the Son, and then proceeds to describe how the Son is superior in every way to the major figures in Jewish religion, as well as to all its religious institutions. In other words, the status of the exalted, divine Son of God is the leverage by which the writer urges the readers not to revert to outmoded Jewish religious forms.
22
Some manuscripts omit the Son of God. UBS includes it with a C rating.
347
5.2 Psalm 2 and the theology of sonship in Hebrews The New Testament refers to Ps 2 more than any other, next to Ps 110, as a proof-text for Christs messianic role. Therefore, we should give serious thought as to how the sonship of Ps 2 corresponds to Christs sonship, and how the New Testament authors apply the passage in their discussions of that sonship. It is worthy of notice that the New Testament does not use the begetting terminology of this passage to refer either to Jesus preexistence or to his birth (Watts 1990: 82). Paul uses Ps 2:7 in his address to the Jewish congregation in the synagogue at Psidian Antioch in Acts 13 to announce Christs victory over death as the basis for the gospel as demonstrated by the fact of his being raised from the dead. That is, in New Testament preaching and exegesis, the today of today I have begotten you is not a reference to Christs preexistence (Watts 1990: 82), but to his resurrection (Hagner 1983:32; De Silva 1994: 42; Hughes 1977: 54; Guthrie 1983: 73). Paul says, What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: You are my son; today I have become your Father (Acts 13:33 NIV). Although in Rom 1:34 he does not elaborate on the concept to our total satisfaction, it seems evident that he is portraying Christ as the descendent of David who has been appointed (horisthentos) Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection from the dead (Moo 1996: 48; Schreiner 1998: 42; Cranfield 1975: 62; Fossum 1992: 134).23 Heb 1:35 takes the same line of thought; in discussing the exaltation and enthronement of the Son (whom he has already designated as deity by virtue of being the creator of the universe), the writer cites Ps 2:7 as the proof that Christ has the name that is higher than that of any angel, and no doubt that name or designation is Son of God (Schenk 1997: 93). This is confirmed by how he uses Ps 2:7 to establish the superiority of Christs priesthood in 5:9 where he says that it was after Christ was made perfect (i.e., by his exaltation) that he became the source of eternal salvation. This is also suggested, though not proven, by the statement in 7:16 that he became a priest on the basis of an indestructible life, a probable reference to the resurrection. 5.3 Ps 2 and the theology of sonship in other parts of the New Testament No doubt Paul had Ps 2 in mind as he wrote Rom 1:35. This speaks of the Son of God becoming the son of David through the incarnation (1:3), then be-
English versions translate horisthentos variously: declared (NIV, NRSV) designated (NJB), shown (NLT, TEV), or proved (ISV), but this word is not used in this sense anywhere else in the NT. Appointed is the normal usage and should be retained.
23
ing appointed the Son-of-God-in-power through the resurrection (1:4), and whom Paul was calling the Gentiles to obey (1:5).24 That is, just as his physical existence as son of David in 1:3 has an historical beginning, so also his enthronement in heaven as the descendant of David who became the Son-ofGod-in-power with due emphasis on the phrase in power has an historical beginning, which is the resurrection. The eternal son, who alone was qualified to be the true messianic Son of God, was born of a virgin as a descendant of David, lived a pure and holy life as Gods child as no one else could, was crucified, resurrected, and exalted, and was appointed Son-of-Godin-power.25 He who always was the Son became, in a new and comprehensive sense, the Son enthroned, with all authority in heaven and earth given to him (Mat 28:18). From that position of authority he commands the evangelization of the nations and invites them to take refuge in him lest he destroy them with the iron rod of judgment. That the apostles and the New Testament church were willing to say that there was a sense in which Jesus became the Son of God through the exaltation does not imply that he was not considered the Son of God prior to the exaltation, as although being Son in Heb 5:8 makes clear.26 Thus the today of the begetting refers not to the presumed eternal begetting of the Son of God, as Augustine understood it, but to the day of his resurrection, ascension and exaltation to the right hand of the Father (Hughes 1977: 54). The exaltation to Gods right hand then becomes the moment in salvation history when Christ is enthroned as Son in the inheritance of his royal office (Schenk 1997: 99). As F. F. Bruce says, he who was the Son of God from everlasting entered into the full exercise of all the prerogatives implied by his sonship when, after his suffering had proved the completeness of his obedience, he was raised to the fathers right hand (1964: 13). It was the title of Son as Davidic heir that was conferred at his exaltation, even though he has always been the eternal Son of God and in full possession of deity (Oberholtzer 1988: 84). Although the author clearly understands that Jesus is the preexistent Son of God,
Garlington (1994: 290) comments that Satans temptation of Christ in the wilderness to bow down to him, in order to possess all the kingdoms of the world, was a direct assault on his right as the Davidic Son to command the obedience of the nations (Gen 49:10; Num 24:17-24; Ps 2:8). Garlington also develops the idea that in the temptation in the wilderness the Son of God recapitulated the trials and failures in the wilderness of Israel as Gods Son. 25 In a similar vein, Augustine said, While remaining God, he who made man took manhood. That is, he became what he never was while remaining what he always had been (Homilies in John, Tractate 17.7). 26 Ellingworth (1993: 114) notes that the author may not have distinguished the exaltation from the resurrection.
24
the incarnation, passion and exaltation brought him into a new dimension in the experience of sonship, such that the enthronement becomes the occasion at which the title Son was conferred upon him (W. Lane 1991: 26). The eternal Son of God, who had become a man, was now the exalted human Messiah, enthroned eternally as the messianic Son of God in keeping with the glory of his preexistent eternal sonship. 5.4 Son of God in the Gospels The Church did not come to an understanding of Christs deity and of the Trinity by a process of slow evolution, as some critical scholars are inclined to think; it began in the New Testament era itself and with the writers of the New Testament, especially the writers of the gospels. The titles Son and Son of God, and Jesus self-revelation connected with them, are at the heart of the evangelists understanding of his deity and of the Trinity. A. N. S. Lane has said that the church developed its understanding of the Trinity through Gods actions for our salvation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Church came to know the second person of the Trinity as Son because of the relation Jesus the man enjoyed as Son to the Father. Since Gods revelation of himself in history is true to his real being, the church was then able to draw conclusions about Gods eternal being as Trinity through what they saw manifested among them in history. The New Testament writers came to believe in the deity of Christ, Lane says, and then were able to draw reasonable conclusions about him as preexistent divine Son, and thus begin to think in terms of the Trinity. That is, the starting point for Christology was the historic Christ; they then worked from Christology to Trinity, not the other way around (A. N. S. Lane 1982: 275276). With this Torrance agrees, saying, The incarnational and saving self-revelation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit was traced back to what God is enhypostatically and coinherently in himself, in his own eternal being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Torrance 1991: 199, cited in D. Kelly 2008: 450). Even from the beginning the church did not hesitate to use the title Son of God to indicate the supreme place occupied by Jesus (Ladd 1974: 168). Turner believes that a divine Christology developed even in the earliest days of the post-resurrection church, and especially because of what they concluded on the basis of the resurrection. He says that, although Jesus clearly revealed himself as someone with a unique relationship of sonship to God, it was not so clear that he was God the Son at least not at first. But once he was recognized as God the Son, his own statements could be understood as having claimed exactly that. The primary stimulus that brought about that
change in the disciples understanding was the resurrection, which enabled them even in the period prior to his ascension to recognize his divinity, as Thomas did when he confessed Jesus as Lord and God (John 20:31) or as the disciples did when they worshipped him on the mountain in Galilee (Mat 28:17) (Turner 1982: 173, 190). In commenting on Mat 28:19 Blomberg also cites the resurrection as being the event that caused the eternal aspect of Jesus sonship to become apparent. He says that after the resurrection the term Son of God begins to be used in a way similar to how it is used in later Trinitarian formulas, in an ontological sense, showing equality with deity, in which the Son is Gods ontological equal and one part of the Godhead itself (Blomberg 1997: 408).27 We should not underestimate the significance of Jesus divine sonship in the gospel accounts; it is of paramount importance. Marshall calls it the supreme category of interpretation of the person of Jesus in the gospels, one in which the category of his messiahship occupies a subordinate place (Marshall 1967: 99). Bauer goes so far as to say that Son of God may be not only the foremost category in each of the gospels, but possibly the most significant christological title in the entire New Testament (Bauer 1992: 769). It is likewise for Longenecker, who comments that, just as Jesus filial consciousness undergirded all he did, so also the evangelists had a lively consciousness of Jesus unique sonship, a consciousness that served as the foundational conviction for all they wrote. The synoptic evangelists, he notes, edited and arranged their material, each in his own way, to try to communicate to their readers the importance of Jesus sonship. It was as if to say, To understand Jesus, one must see his divine sonship as basic to all that he did! (Longenecker 1994: 476, 484485). Regarding the pervasive interpretive importance of the term Son of God Schnackenburg points out that, just as Son of God stands at the center of Pauls christological statements (e.g., Gal 1:16, 2:20, 4:4; Rom 1:34, 8:2, 32), so also it pervades the gospels: from the gospel of Mark, where the picture of Jesus is suffused with the divine sonship, to
In reality, all the major Christian doctrines are interdependent; to have an adequate doctrine of salvation, there must be an adequate Christology, which in turn presses for a satisfactory special theology of the Trinity (H. Brown 1984: 150-152). Murray agrees with this assessment, and says that a faith and confession that is not conditioned by the faith of God as Trinity, and by the intra-divine and intrinsic relations involved in Jesus identity as the eternal Son, does not provide the Christology the biblical revelation demands. The true Christology is one that has its starting point and finds its basis in Christs intrinsic sonship and therefore in its Trinitarian correlatives (1982: 80).
27
351
the gospel of John, where the concept of the Son of God is a theme running throughout. He concludes that it was in the title Son of God, that the early church found an enduring way to express the deepest essence of who Jesus is and what is his significance for us (Schnackenburg 1995: 310, 312). It is also worthwhile to point out that in addition to the large number of allusions to Jesus sonship there are in the NT (and in all but two of the NT books), it appears at the most critical moments in his life and ministry: the annunciation, his baptism, the temptation, the only account of his boyhood (in the temple), the transfiguration, his high priestly prayer, and his crucifixion. 5.4.1 Interpreting the gospel authors intended meaning of Son of God Before delving into the use of the term Son of God in the gospels we should first mention that interpreting this term, or any other term, involves interpreting meaning on multiple levels. What a speaker in the gospel account means by Son of God is not necessarily what Matthew intended to communicate, or expected his readers to understand. A variety of players in the drama use the term soldiers, disciples, the high priest, God, Satan, demons, angels, and even Jesus himself. What one person means is not necessarily what another means. It can be a politically charged term; for some, it is an epithet used for mockery (Mat 27:40). For others, it has an entirely different tone: it can be a focus of worship (Mat 14:33) or of fear and awe (Mat 27:54). With supernatural beings, it takes on other dimensions: it expresses deep affection on the part of God the Father (Mat 3:17; 17:5); it provokes terror on the part of the demons (Mark 3:11), and it becomes the focal point of temptation for Satan (Mat 4:3ff).28 Our interpretive task is to determine how the gospel writer intended it to be understood by his audience, and although we may know little about the reading audience, nevertheless it is a task which we can effectively carry out by evaluating and drawing conclusions from the literary clues in the gospel account itself. The authors of the four gospels did not write the story in the normal sense of creating it, as with fiction. Rather, they served more or less as gatekeepers, choosing what material to bring into the account, then choosing how to arrange it and how to shape its final form. The gospel accounts, while conveying real events and dialogues, are shaped by the evan-
In Matthews gospel, all of Satans temptations of Jesus revolve around him being the Son of God. The temptation in the desert follows the Fathers attesting at the baptism that Jesus is his Son, and focuses on what that means. Immediately after Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Satan speaks through him to try to divert Jesus from the road to the cross, and Jesus issues a sharp rebuke. The last clear temptation comes through the mockery of the high priest, telling him to come down from the cross if he is indeed Gods Son.
28
gelists literary purposes. Therefore, to determine the meaning of the terms Son of God and the Son in the gospels, we primarily focus on what each evangelist is intending to communicate to his reading audience.29 Obviously, by the time of the writing of the gospels, the evangelists and their audiences knew a lot more about Jesus than the people in the gospel events did at the time those events were transpiring. In the case of the nativity stories, it had been no less than sixty years since the events had occurred; in the case of most of the rest of the events in the gospel accounts it had been at least thirty years, if not more. The events of Jesus life, what he taught, the miracles he did, and especially the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, augmented by serious theological reflection in the light of those factors over three or more decades, precipitated dramatic changes in how people understood Jesus and the titles used to describe him. We cannot limit our understanding of the terms Son of God and the Son to what first century Jews might have thought prior to the incarnation, or even during the story itself. One of the themes that runs throughout the gospels is the idea that Jesus was not understood, even by his closest friends, until after the resurrection and, more importantly, in light of it. It changed everything, including what they understood by the term Son of God. 5.4.2 Son of God and the Son in Matthews gospel In Matthews gospel, as in all the gospels, Jesus usually refers to himself by the cryptic title Son of Man, probably to avoid having the crowds draw conclusions about his mission and intentions. This would have created a politically charged situation that would detract from his real mission. We dont find Jesus using the term Son of God of himself in the synoptic gospels. However, he does refer to himself as the Son in three key contexts (11:27, 24:36, and 28:19) and, as Erickson says, when Jesus uses the simple term the Son in the synoptics, he does so in contexts which strongly suggest that it is God the Father to whom he is the Son (Erickson 1991: 20; see also Erickson 2009: 116). Two of those, 11:27 and 28:19, are of central importance for understanding Jesus own consciousness of what his divine sonship meant.30 As
While the gospel writers had a particular audience in mind as they wrote, we should also bear in mind that they knew, and hoped, that many other people whom they did not know would also read it, potentially including some from outside the main social, ethnic, and religious parameters of the audiences they were primarily addressing. 30 Commenting on Mat 11:27 and Luke 10:22, T. F. Torrance notes that the bishops meeting at Nicaea were convinced that the relation of the Father to the Son and of the Son to the Father constitutes the basic ontological relationship or reciprocity in the Godhead in which all the lanSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 353
29
we can see from the obvious juxtaposition of the two terms in Mat 11:27 the Son, as elsewhere, obviously corresponds to the Father, who is God, and consequently means Son of God (Blomberg 1992: 432; Carson 1984: 345; Hagner 1993: 319; France 1982: 27; Ladd 1974: 164; so also for the parallel passage in Luke 10:22: Nolland 1993: 573; Ellis 1974: 158159; Marshall 1978: 437; Bock 1996: 10111012; Green 1997: 422; Liefeld 1984: 940; see also Erickson 2009: 116). For the use of the Son for Son of God in other contexts see Gundry: 1993 704795; Garland 2003: 712; Yarbrough 2008: 189; Fossum 1992: 136.31 Our interpretive task with Matthews gospel is to look beyond what the term Son of God may have meant in the immediate communication situation in which it occurred and determine how Matthew intends it to be understood in the overall context of his account. Verseput (1987: 532) tells us that the title Son of God is programmatic for Matthews gospel, meaning that it is the key motif for understanding Matthews literary and theological purpose. Of course, Matthew and his reading audience already have in common the understanding that Jesus is the Son of God (1987: 537), so it is not hard for his readers to follow where Matthew is taking the story line. Carson agrees, saying that as Matthews readers move through the text of the gospel, they know things that people of Jesus day did not know, since many christological truths were only understood after the resurrection and exaltation; they can now see the deeper truths that even those involved in the events in the gospel account who confessed Jesus as the Son of God could not have understood. Carson says that what those people who confessed Jesus as Son of God meant by it may have been no more than Christ. Even the understanding of that title was probably woefully lacking, because it lacked any understanding of the Christ as the Suffering Servant, or of an ontological connection with Deity. Matthews readers, on the other hand, can see the deeper truths that even those in the gospel accounts who confessed Jesus as the Son of God could not have understood (Carson 1982: 111113). If Jesus identity as Son of God is programmatic for Matthews gospel, the way the theme is introduced is through certain questions about Jesus that run throughout the account. In 13:56 the people of his own hometown ask,
guage of the gospel is finally rooted and shapedThat is to say, a mutual relation of knowing and being exists between the Father and the Son in the Godhead (Torrance 1999: 11112, cited in Kelly 2008: 443). In other words, it is in and through the Father Son relationship that God has most clearly revealed himself to us. 31 There is no support in the exegetical literature for the idea that the Son in this or any other context is an abbreviation for Son of Man.
Where did this man get these things? The crowds ask, Can this be the Son of David? (12:23), and later, Who is this? (21:10). In 11:23 John the Baptist asks if Jesus is the one they are waiting for, or is another coming (that is, is a greater one coming, or are you the One). Jesus himself asked the question What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? (22:42). A particularly significant question was that of the disciples the first time Jesus calmed the storm: What sort of man is this? (8:27). Nolland describes this as a category question, not an identity question; that is, what is the nature of this person? And the way Matthew words the question, he says, is designed to guide the reader to what the correct answer would be (Nolland 2005: 372). It is answered, he says, in 14:33 at the second calming of a storm on the lake, where the response of the disciples is to worship him. This builds on the question that was spoken at the first such event: they know that Jesus has acted as only God can act, and that they are in the presence of God, so they worship him saying, Truly, you are the Son of God (Nolland: 2005: 603). Likewise Garland comments that when the disciples confess Jesus as Son of God at the second calming of the storm, they are answering the question raised in 8:27 at the first such event. Then they had asked, Who is this that the wind and the sea obey him? Now they have their answer, which is also the answer to all the questions raised by others in Matthews gospel account, whether by John the Baptist, the crowds, or the people in his hometown (Garland: 2001: 160). Commenting on the passage about the calming of the storm in Mat 14:3233, Blomberg agrees with this assessment. However, he notes that even at that point there is still much that is lacking in the disciples understanding. Nevertheless, however much they understood, Matthew is focusing on the positive aspect of their confession, which is that it is the proper answer to the question of who Jesus is: he is the Son of God (Blomberg 1992: 236). In Matthew then, Son of God has an expanding sense, meaning that as time progresses, people grasp more and more of who and what Jesus is, based on what he says and does (Nolland: 2005: 603). Even Peter, whose confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God in Mat 16:16 stands as what Turner calls one of the christological high points of the gospel, immediately goes on to prove just a few verses later that he still has a lot to learn about Jesus nature and mission. At least he recognized part of the truth; as Turner also notes, if Peters confession is one of the high points, the high priests angry demand has to be the low point (Turner 2008: 404). It is worth noting that for Matthew, whose initial reading audience was Jewish, confessions of Jesus divine sonship by Jesus Jewish disciples and by Peter in particular are found at the mid-point of the account, in
chapters 14 and 16. However, the gospel of Matthew is bookended at the beginning and end of the gospel with professions by Gentiles of Jesus true identity. The magi come at the very beginning, seeking the King of the Jews, that is, the Messiah.32 At the end of the account the centurion and the detachment of soldiers assigned to execute Jesus acknowledge that he is the Son of God. At about the center point we have Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ (the King of Israel) and the Son of God. The two titles of course are not the same, as we have seen earlier. He is the Christ by virtue of having always been the Son of God. However much Peter may or may not fully comprehend what he is saying, Matthew is using Peters profession to make his central point. But it is profession of the non-Jewish soldiers that seems to be the climactic point of the gospel. We might well ask what the soldiers meant when they professed that Jesus was truly Gods Son. Commentators have different views on this. Nolland says that we dont really know what the centurion meant, but what we can say is that he was picking up on what he had heard from those who mocked Jesus. They were claiming that Jesus was a deceiver, but the centurion could see that he was not that; therefore he concludes that Jesus actually must have been whatever he and his followers said he was. Of course for Matthew and his readers, Nolland tells us, the soldiers confession climaxes the gospel account of this one who was affirmed to be the Son of God at his baptism (2005: 12201221). In contrast to the mockery from the high priest and others who, Nolland says, probably meant no more than Messiah by the term Son of God, Matthew sees a fuller though ironic sense in the soldiers confession, which is more than Messiah. Jesus has a special status and relationship with God (2005: 158). Regardless of what the centurion may have understood this to mean, Matthew intends the reader to see the true interpretation of what has happened (France 1985: 402). As Gundry notes, Matthew as well as Mark intended their readers to understand that Jesus was the Son of God (Gundry 1982: 578). A few final remarks about Matthews view of Jesus divine sonship would be in order, particularly relating to Jesus commissioning of his disciples to go into all the world in Mat 28:1820. Although Matthews gospel is addressed primarily to a Jewish audience, we see him return here to a theme with which the gospel began, which is the mission to the Gentile world. In the second chapter of his gospel Matthew relates the arrival of magi, probably Zoroastri-
In discussing the worship offered by the magi, Turner (2008: 81) notes that throughout Matthews gospel Jesus is presented as Son of God, Immanuel, so it is not surprising that Jesus is frequently worshiped as God the Son.
32
ans, to worship him who is born king of the Jews. At the climax of the crucifixion account he tells of the centurion and his detachment of soldiers acknowledging that this Jesus really was Gods Son. Matthew closes his gospel with Jesus charge to go to all the world with the message, together with the assurance that he indeed has all authority in heaven and on earth, and that he will always be with them. His command is, specifically, to disciple all nations, and he summarizes how that is to be done: by baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and then teaching them all that Jesus himself had taught the disciples. This baptismal formula, as we have seen, has been used by the Church from the very earliest days not only for baptism, but for baptismal catechesis, and eventually as a basis for building creedal formulations, eventuating in the ecumenical creeds. Several things are worth noting about that formula. Blomberg comments that the ontological aspect of Jesus sonship becomes apparent after the resurrection, and is especially articulated in Mat 28:19. Of the term Son of God he says that after the resurrection the term is used approximately as in later Trinitarian formulas in which Jesus becomes Son of God in the sense of Gods ontological equal and one part of the Godhead itself (1997: 408). He also says, The singular name followed by the threefold reference to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian formula anywhere in the Gospels (Blomberg 1992: 432). Keener agrees; concerning the Trinitarian formula in Mat 28:19 he says that it places Jesus on the same level as the Father and Spirit. This makes explicit what is implicit in the accounts in Acts that describe people being baptized in Jesus name, which is that Jesus is divine. He also says that it certainly climaxes Matthews emphasis on Jesus deity and authority (Keener 1999: 717; see also Verseput 1987: 541). As Bjork puts it, Matthews Trinitarian baptismal formula is one of the most arresting and important phenomena of primitive Christianity, stunning because of the proclamation that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be worshipped and glorified together as one God, blessed forever. He further notes that this explicit Trinitarian text is also one of the most explicitly missional texts; the divinely initiated mission that prompted the sending of the eternal Son ends with Gods own people being sent (Bjork 1997: 117-119). 5.4.3 Son of God and the Son in Marks gospel Marks gospel is introduced by the words, The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Lane calls this a programmatic confesSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 357
sion for the entire gospel (W. Lane 1974: 576). In other words, Marks gospel is about the Son of God. We see it from the first verse, in the heavenly voice at Jesus baptism, by the terrified imploring of the demons in 3:11 and 5:7, by Gods announcement at the transfiguration in 9:4, and of course by his own executioner, the centurion in 15:39. France comments that the fact that the term Son of God is in the heading of the gospel tells us that it surely means more than just Messiah, which comes just before it. Son of God expresses a divine sonship that Marks readers would already have known about and recognized. It is the center of Marks Christology (France 2002: 50). Edwards believes that Son of God is without question the most important title that Mark uses to refer to Jesus, defined at the beginning of the gospel as well as at its ending, and with the centurions climactic confession. He calls the term the theological keystone of the gospel of Mark (Edwards 2002: 15, 50). Edwards elaborates on this theme, noting that while it is announced that Jesus is Son of God at the beginning of the gospel, as the gospel unfolds we see what kind of Son he is. He is acclaimed as the Son of God by God as well as by demons the light and dark side of the spiritual world. But until his death on the cross no one fully understands what Son of God really means, because it is the cross that is the supreme revelation of what that means. It is in the cross, Edwards says, that God meets humanity, and the cross is thus the birthplace of faith, as it was for the centurion (Edwards 2002: 483). He believes that the centurions confession is meant by Mark in the full Christian sense. The soldier knew what Jesus was accused of by the Jews. The fact that Jesus had been crucified was proof that the centurion was not acclaiming him as a divine man in the pagan sense. Rather, the man was given the ability by divine revelation to have the faith to see that Jesus is the Son of God (Edwards 2002: 480, 481). Whether or not that is true of the centurions confession, Lane says that Mark intends his readers to recognize a truly Christian confession in what the centurion confessed, despite the fact that they are aware that the soldier did not know all that they knew. His confession is a complement to Peters confession that Jesus is the Christ in 8:29, and a climax to the programmatic statement in 1:1. He also sees a correspondence, on the one hand, between the rending of the sky and the proclamation that Jesus is Gods Son in chapter one, and the tearing of the temple veil and the confession that Jesus is the Son of God on the other in 15:38 (W. Lane 1974: 576). As Keener observes, in Mark as in Matthew, the centurions confesysion fulfils the Son of God motif (Keener 1999: 688). We can be sure that, whatever the centurion meant, Jesus divine sonship was at the heart of the message Mark was conveying.
Schnackenburg observes that in Mark the title Son of God is mentioned in the important passages, and especially the centurions confession, where it is the crystallization point for the whole understanding of Jesus. The gospel is framed, he says, by the profession of Jesus as the Son of God. Within the body of the account the demons imploring Jesus in 3:11 and 5:7 show his divine status and power as Son of God.33 And although the title Son of God does not capture all aspects of Marks Christology, it can be considered at the heart of his estimation of who Jesus is (Schnackenburg 1995: 45, 49). Although Son of God can mean no more than Christ to some who use the term such as the high priest (14:61), when it is augmented by the accounts of healing, miracles, exorcisms, powerful teaching, forgiving sins, the supernatural events that accompanied his death, and of course by the resurrection, Mark is using the phrase to prompt thoughts of Jesus divinity in his Roman readers (Gundry 1993: 34). 5.4.4 Son of God and the Son in Lukes gospel When we examine how Luke uses the term Son of God we find some differences from how Matthew and Mark use it. The primary difference is that no human being, other than Jesus himself, acknowledges his divine sonship.34 Luke reports the more abbreviated form of Peters confession of Christ, as does Mark, and reports the centurion only saying that Jesus was a righteous man. Whether or not this is all the centurion meant by the term Son of God as reported in Matthew and Mark is questionable. Luke has attempted to show that the trial itself was a miscarriage of justice, so such a statement would certainly be in keeping with that theme. Moreover, it is nave to think that the centurion and the other soldiers would say only one short sentence about Jesus in view of all that happened. The fact that the highest, and supposedly most dignified leaders in Israel would attend his execution to mock him is certainly unusual. Although Luke does not report this, the centurion may also have known about the incident reported in Johns gospel about what disturbed Pilate that Jesus might actually be more than human. In any event, he definitely saw the three hours of darkness. All those things taken
Wessel comments that in Mark 5:7, when the demon calls Jesus the Son of the Most High God, the title implies that the demon recognized Jesus deity (1984: 657). 34 In Acts only Paul acknowledges Jesus as Son of God, in 9:20. Bock (2007: 365) says that while Pauls use of Son of God in Acts 9:20 has a messianic thrust, it probably means full sonship, given the fact that he had seenof his having seen the glorified Jesus whom Stephen had preached as the Son of Man at Gods right hand just before Stephen died. He notes that Pauls developed understanding of Son of God is shown in Rom 1:3-4, 8:3.
33
together would certainly prompt more than one short sentence on the part of the execution squad. Luke has simply chosen to report only one aspect. However, this does not mean that the title Son of God is unimportant in Luke, or that it only has the connotation of Messiah. Bock says that, at least early in his account, Luke does in fact present Jesus as Son of God in messianic terms. In his early uses of the title Son of God Luke is not seeking to make the deeper christological point about Jesus divinity. Later he will make it clear that his messiahship and sonship have even greater connections, which transcend Jesus earthly sonship ties. He is not just making that point in the early part of the narrative; rather, he lets the reader see who Jesus is one step at a time (Bock 1994a: 125, 439). Stein also sees Jesus divine sonship as being at the heart of Lukes literary and theological purpose; this is to show his readers, who already know about Jesus, that he was Son of God, Christ, and King even before he was born. Jesus sonship is important in Luke; even in the temptation, which focuses on what God had said at the baptism, the temptations are directed at his sonship. That is, it was as Gods Son that he was tempted (Stein 1992: 87, 144, italics mine). Regarding the relation of the term Son of God to Messiah, Nolland says that, when applied to the Messiah, the term Son of God would speak of his exalted status and relationship with God upon which his messianic mission would be based. Jesus sonship involves more and is more fundamental than anything that can be contained in normal messianic categories (Nolland 1989: 164). We may still ask, however, why Luke has abbreviated the confessions of Jesus sonship by Peter and the centurion. I would point out something that I have not seen mentioned in the exegetical literature, yet seems important, which is the possibility that while Luke does bring testimony to Jesus divine sonship into the account, it is always given by supernatural beings: the angel at the annunciation, the voice of God at Jesus baptism, Satan in the wilderness temptation, demons being exorcised (8:28), and the voice of God again at the transfiguration. Why would Luke do this? Ethel Wallis has described the gospel of Luke and Acts as two epistles to Theophilus that have one literary macrostructure. The unifying theme, in terms of rising tensions, peaks and falling tensions, is opposition to Jesus and his ministry (Wallis 1992: 225 251). I have attempted to show elsewhere that within this macrostructure of opposition and conflict in Luke-Acts there is a high correlation between the actions of the Holy Spirit through Jesus (or his apostles) and the work of the world of evil spirits, whether Satan, or demons, or people, who are driven by Satan and the demons, usually expressed in irrational rage and violence (Abernathy 2001: 223236). That is, Jesus own actions, and his actions through
his representatives, are as the Divine Warrior, and the Holy Spirit is directing the battle. This understanding of Lukes literary purpose, if it is correct, would be consistent with his decision to report only supernatural testimony to Jesus divine sonship. The Son of God is the divine warrior in the spiritual plane, and the knowledge that supernatural beings have of the meaning of his sonship will be qualitatively different from the incomplete and partially skewed understanding that humans have or could give witness to. 5.4.5 Son of God and the Son in Johns gospel John has been called the gospel of the Father and the Son, and for good reason. Jesus calls God Father over one hundred times in John alone, and refers to himself or is referred to as Son about thirty times. As Ladd says, in Johns gospel Jesus sonship is the central christological idea. The gospel account is written so that people may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but more than Messiah; he is the Son of God, and as Son of God, he partakes of deity. This Father-Son relation, which is woven throughout the fabric of Johns gospel, is a relationship that is characterized by Jesus being the object of divine love, having an exclusive knowledge of the Father and the power to mediate not only life, but God himself as well (Ladd 1974: 283285). Tenney describes sonship in Johns gospel as expressing close fellowship and intimacy between the Father and Jesus, as well as unity of nature. It is the fact that he shares the Fathers nature that enables him to reveal God (Tenney 1981: 196, 38). On the unity and intimacy between the Father and the Son, Bruce comments that, The relationship which the Father and the Son eternally bear to each other is declared to be a co-inherence or mutual indwelling of love. Jesus is in the Father; the Father is in him. And the purpose of Jesus coming to reveal the Father is that men and women maybe drawn into this divine fellowship of love, dwelling in God as God dwells in them (Bruce 1983: 14). Of the title Son of God in John, Raymond Brown says that it appears that John intends to give the title Son of God a more profound meaning than did others of his day, and certainly the readers of his gospel would have already become accustomed to a more profound meaning. He seems to intend to include a confession of the divinity of Jesus (Brown 1966: 88). Johns purpose, stated in 20:31, is to bring people to believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, which Brown says means more than just Messiah as shown by Thomas confession of Jesus as Lord and God. If Son of God were not more than Messiah, Johns purpose statement would be anticlimactic. He goes on to say that Jesus is the only one who has an absolute right to the title Son of God. Once a person recognizes the Father in him,
he/she can understand what the name and quality of Son are (Brown 1970: 10601061). Morris holds a similar view; concerning Johns purpose statement for the gospel following the account of Thomas confession, John is showing two important things about the content that faith must have: one is that Jesus is the Messiah, and the other is that he is the Son of God. The two terms used together indicate the highest view of the person of Jesus, one that must be seen in light of what Thomas has just said; John saw in Jesus the very incarnation of God (Morris 1995: 756). On the relation of the titles Son of God and Christ in Johns gospel, Kstenberger says that they are close, but are not synonymous. The title Christ related mainly to Jewish messianic expectations. While Son of God has messianic connotations, it goes beyond that to accent Jesus relationship with God as the Son of the Father. He is the sent Son (Kstenberger 2004: 582). Carson agrees, saying that while there is a messianic sense in the title Son of God in John, it also expresses a relationship of oneness and intimacy between Jesus and the Father that is metaphysical and not just messianic (Carson 1991: 162). Likewise with Harris: Thomas confession in John 20:31 necessarily involves belief in his deity. The Son possesses the divine nature, and is God by nature, and that intimate and eternal knowledge of God qualifies him to reveal Gods nature and character (Harris 1992: 102-103). As Harris puts it, whereas the sonship of believers is an adoptive sonship, Christs sonship is essential; both before and after the incarnation he was in complete intimate fellowship with the Father (1992: 87). Bruce takes the same view. He says that the sonship expressed in Jesus role as Messiah was grounded in his eternal sonship (Bruce, 1983: 55). So also does Schnackenburg, who believes that Nathanael and Martha were confessing that Jesus was more than Messiah when they called him Son of God. John, he says, does not see the category of Messiah as being sufficient for expressing who Christ really is for his readers. The confession that Jesus is Son of God surpasses that (Schnackenburg 1995: 310). Jesus divine sonship, in addition to his messiahship and closely connected with it, is the main bearing column of the early Christian confession of Christ (1995: 311-312). It is difficult in fact to escape the connotations of deity in the title Son of God as it is used in the gospel of John. As was already mentioned, Ladd says that as Son of God he partakes of deity (Ladd 1974: 286). Keener also sees more in the title Son of God than a claim to be Messiah; it has at least
362
some implications of deity (Keener 2003: 297).35 Hurtado concurs with this assessment of Johns use of the term, acknowledging that Son of God was Johns preferred way of referring to Jesus as divine, and of heavenly origin, and as Jesus himself used it, was a claim to divinity (Hurtado 1993: 902). Son of God is used to indicate that he is divine in nature (McRay 1996: 411).36 A discussion of Johns use of the Son and Son of God would not be complete without at least some mention of Jesus prayer in John 17. In 1:14 John has already linked glory with the Fathers monogenes (literally, one and only or unique one, but in this case the one and only who came from the Father is obviously the Son). Then in 11:4 he links the restoring of life to Lazarus with the Son being glorified. In 12:23 and 13:31 Jesus says that the Son is about to be glorified, speaking of his own death, but as Johns readers know, it is a death that brings life. Now in John 17 Jesus prays, as the Son to the Father, that the Father will glorify the Son so that the Son would glorify him. The way that will happen, of course, is through his death, but Jesus goes on to speak of it in terms of his giving life to others. Then he speaks of the glory he always had with God, a glory that he asks God to grant to Jesus disciples as well, which is the glory of being one with him and the Father. It is the most intimate and passionate prayer of Jesus in the Bible. As D. Kelly has said, in Christs high priestly prayer his saving work for humanity is expressed in terms of the eternal love and glory between Father and Son that are conveyed from the very heart of the Father to them (2008: 273). It is indisputably a transaction between Father and Son, borne of mutual interests and culminating in mutual glory and a drawing of new sons and daughters into the oneness and glory of the eternal Trinity. 5.5 Christology of the Son of God in the epistles of Paul Paul does not often refer to Jesus Christ as Gods Son. However, the idea is there and it is definitely a concept of central importance for him; he often uses the title in key places in his letters (OCollins 1999: 59). If we were to judge
35 Even Pilate seemed to distinguish between what it might mean for Jesus to be Messiah and what it might mean for him to be Son of God. When Jesus told him that his kingdom was not of this world, Pilate knew that he was no threat. But what did trouble Pilate was the statement that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid than ever, and began to try to release him (John 19:8, 12). 36 Osborne, commenting on Johns use of the term in Revelation, says that it connotes the unique filial relationship between the Father and the Son, but also connotes majesty and divinity (2002: 153). Tasker says simply that in John Son of God means God the Son (1960: 87).
363
only from a statistical standpoint, we could also say that the phrase the righteousness of God was unimportant to him, since it occurs only about ten times, all but two of them in Romans. But it is significant because it occurs in those passages in Romans that state the central theme of the letter. Paul does not often mention the kingdom of God or Jesus in his role as Messiah, but this does not mean they are unimportant to him (Ladd 1974: 449-450). We could also say that the title Word (Logos) as applied to Jesus occurs in only two verses of Johns gospel, once in 1 John and once in Revelation, and never in any clear reference by any other New Testament author. Yet its importance hardly needs to be mentioned, as it has gripped the imagination of Christian theologians, scholars, and preachers throughout the centuries. So, statistical occurrence is not the measure of theological importance. Marshall says it well when he observes that, statistically speaking, the 15 occurrences of the Son of God theme in Paul would seem to make it relatively unimportant (only one tenth of the number of times he calls Jesus Lord). But he goes on to say that Paul uses this title for Jesus when he sums up the content of the gospel and for important statements generally, such as in contexts about Christs relationship with God, and in traditional statements about God sending his preexistent Son into the world to die for us. Marshall also notes that Paul uses the title Son especially to bring out the fact that it is through his work as a Son that believers are adopted as Gods sons (Marshall 1980: 778). As we mentioned earlier, when Paul discusses divine sonship he is usually focusing on soteriology, the Sons role as savior (Marshall in Michel 1986: 643644; Marshall 1980: 778). Fee also remarks that when Paul uses the term Son of God he is thinking primarily of the soteriological significance of the term (Fee 1987: 45 fn 48). Barclay comments: It is to be noted that again and again this statement that Jesus is the Son of God occurs at the very beginning of Pauls letters as if by it he struck what was for him the keynote of the Christian gospel (Barclay 1958: 56). Schnackenberg says that the theme of Jesus as the Son of God stands at the center of Pauls christological statements, such as those in Gal. 1:16, 2:20, 4:4; Rom. 1:3-4, and 8:3, 32 (1995: 312). Ridderbos (1975: 77) goes even further: for Paul, he says, Christs being the Son of God is none other than being God himself. I will not add much to this other than to make a few observations of my own about how Paul uses the term. One is that when he says that God sent his Son it is apparent that he is already Son when he is sent. This appears to be a near universal consensus among conservative scholars (see section 1:1). Secondly, for Paul the fact of God giving up his Son as a sacrifice is the ultiSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 364
mate proof of his divine love. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life (Rom 5:10 NIV). He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? (Rom 8:32 NIV). For Paul, believers are adopted as sons through the eternal Son, and their destiny predetermined by God is to become conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29). And, as noted earlier, Pauls view of Gods intent in sending his Son was that believers might become Gods adopted sons (and daughters) (Hurtado 1993: 905-906). A final brief word would be in order about Pauls exalted Christology in Col 1:15-20. As we mentioned above in section one, the passage begins with hos estin, who is, referring to the phrase his dear son in 1:13, and spells out what his sonship means as Lord over all created things: Christs representation of God as being himself God 15 He is the image of the invisible God 19 In him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell Christs preeminence 15 He is the firstborn of all creation 16 All things have been created for him 17 He himself is before all things 18 He is firstborn from the dead that he might come to have first place in everything Christs governing, sustaining, and reconciling the created order 16 All things in heaven and on earth were created by him and for him. 17 In him all things hold together 20 Through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross Christ as head of the church 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead So despite its relative infrequency of occurrence, the fact that Jesus is Gods Son is at the heart of Pauls theology, just as it is at the heart of his gospel.
365
6 Some final reflections on Jesus divine sonship The author of Hebrews tells us that Gods enduring plan is to bring many sons to glory (Heb 2:10). He goes on to say that Jesus is not ashamed to call believers his brothers because they are from the same one, whether that means from the same Father (NRSV) or family (NIV) (Heb 2:11). There is an organic, familial relation with God that goes to the heart and core of everything. Our hope of glory is to have Christ in us (Col 1:27), and it is Jesus sonship that is our access to glory (John 17:5, 22). Our destiny is to be conformed to the image of Gods Son (Rom 8:29). We are made in Gods image, and the reason we can become conformed to the image of his Son is that we are made according to an archetypal Father-Son pattern that is inherent in the Godhead itself, and which has significance both for our human existence through natural birth as well as for our spiritual existence through spiritual rebirth as Gods children. As C. S. Lewis said in his sermon, The weight of glory, we are on a journey toward home. I believe that if we delight ourselves in the Lord, he will give us the deepest desires of our heart, and our deepest desire in our journey toward home is to live in close, loving relationships which, in our earthly existence, are most deeply experienced in family relationships. God is Father, eternal Father. We who believe in his Son are his sons and daughters, moving toward the glory of eternal oneness with him, in conformity to the character of his Son. To summarize, what could we say is the theological and practical value of the concept of Christs eternal, divine sonship? Here are some of those treasures. Jesus sonship, and his union as Son with the Father, is the avenue of union with God for humankind (see John 17, especially vv.12, 21 22). Jesus grants human beings access to relationship with God similar to that which he himself has: a relationship that is unequivocally expressed by his use of the term Abba, Father, in prayer. Because Jesus is the Son of God, his followers may also become sons of God who can likewise address God as Father. His sonship is the basis of our own sonship (Rom 8:1417) and the basis of our own adoption as Gods children (Gal 4:45). In Christs high priestly prayer his saving work for humanity is expressed in terms of the eternal love and glory between Father and Son that are conveyed from the very heart of the Father to them (D. Kelly 2008: 273).
366
Jesus sonship is the basis of Gods sending the Spirit to his children. The Spirit God sent into their hearts is a spirit of sonship (Rom 8:15) because it is the Spirit of Gods Son (Gal 4:6). Jesus sonship is the basis of his high priestly ministry which provides us access and acceptability with God (Heb 4:14). It is also the basis of his eternal priesthood, in which he continually engages in intercession for his people (Heb 7:2528). It is as the Son that Jesus has full authority to reveal God (Mat 11:27). His sonship also completes Gods revelation which comes through him (Heb 1:12). It is Gods willingness to sacrifice his Son that is the basis for our assurance of the depth of Gods love for us and the permanence of Gods acceptance of us (Rom 8:32; 1 John 4:9-10). Jesus sonship is the basis for granting believers true freedom (John 8:36). It is into the kingdom of Gods dear Son that we have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness, and it is in that Son that we have redemption (Col 1:13-14). It is conformity with the likeness of him as Son that is our eternal destiny (Rom 8:29). It is as the Son that he gives eternal life to whomever he chooses (John 5:21, 6:40). It is Jesus identity as Son that is the basis of his authority to judge; it is what terrified the demons, guaranteeing to them their doom. And it was Jesus sonship that Satan chose to attack in the temptation, indicating that it was the one thing he most wanted to challenge and, if possible, divert and distort into something self-serving (Mat 4:36).
In short, Christs eternal identity as Son of God is at the heart of our faith and is fundamental to our existence as believers. As Murray puts it, John 3:16 implies that the faith by which believers are saved is faith directed to him in his character as the Son, just as it is faith in him as the Son of God by which they live (Gal 2:20). He says further, The rudiment of faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior is that he is the Son of God. His sonship belongs to his identity, and a faith or confession or proclamation that is not conditioned by what he is in this specific character falls short at its center and thereby robs the Savior of the honor that is intrinsically his. (Murray 1982: 6263)
367
APPENDIX ONE NOTES AND QUOTES FROM SCHOLARS ABOUT JESUS DIVINE SONSHIP Bock (1994b: 108): Although in some contexts Luke uses Son of God as another way of saying Jesus is the king or the Christ, ultimately it expresses Jesus unique relationship to God the Father. Brown, Raymond (1970: 1061): Jesus is the only one who has an absolute right to the title Son of God; when someone sees the Father in Jesus, they understand what the name and quality of the Son are. Carson (1984: 109, 345): At his baptism Jesus is presented as Messiah, but also as suffering servant, representative of the people, and the very Son of God in an ontological sense. Carson (1991: 162): In the title Son of God there is a messianic sense, but it also expresses a relationship to God that is metaphysical and not just messianic. Cranfield (1955: 62): Speaking of the voice from God at Jesus baptism, Cranfield says Son of God is not to be explained in terms of messiahship, nor is messiahship the primary category here. Erickson (1991: 232): The term Son of God and the references to preexistence cannot be taken in a general way (that is, as functional but not ontological). They are deeply imbedded in the NTthe passages in the NT that speak of a real incarnation form the organizing principle of the Christology of the NT writers, a Christology that is not just a matter of functionality, but which has its ontological basis in Jesus unique, pre-existent Sonship. Guelich (1989: 34) : My son at Jesus baptism focuses not on a messianic title, but on a filial relationship. Gundry (1993: 974): We should not equate kingship with divine sonship. Guthrie (1981: 313, 317-318): He is essentially a son, and his sonship is an essential relationship that could not be altered by the incarnation. Harris (1992: 87): Christs sonship is essential; both before and after the incarnation he was in complete intimate fellowship with the Father. Kstenberger (2004: 504): Son of God and Christ are closely related, but they are not synonymous. Christ related mainly to Jewish messianic expectations. While Son of God has messianic connotations, it goes beyond that
to accent Jesus relationship with God as the Son of the Father. He is the sent son. Ladd (1974: 283): Jesus sonship is the central christological idea in John. Johns gospel is written that people may believe that Jesus is the messiah, but more than messiah; he is the Son of God. Marshall, cited in Michel (1986: 646): The title Son of God expresses the metaphysical or essential relationship between Jesus and his Father. Moo (1996: 45 fn 27): The use of Son of God Rom. 1:3-4 is not so much messianic as ontological, and means more than Messiah. Morris (1988: 302): In Romans 8:3 where it says God sent his own son, the word own is important, pointing to the close unique relationship between the Father and the Son. God was not sending some remote messenger, but his own son. Whereas believers are sons by grace, he is a Son by nature. Murray (1982: 69): Christs sonship is preexistent, pre-temporal, and transcendent. Nolland (1989: 163): Son and messiah are not the same. Schnackenburg (1995: 310): In Matthews gospel for Peter to confess Jesus as Messiah is not enough; a full confession includes Jesus divine sonship. Son of God goes beyond other confessions. For Nathanael it went beyond king of Israel, the king of salvation; more than that, he was the Son of God. Martha likewise shows that her concept surpasses messianic expectations: he is not just the Messiah, he is the Son of God. Likewise Johns purpose statement goes beyond Jesus just being the Messiah, he is also the Son of God. Jesus divine sonship, in addition to his Messiahship and closely connected with it, is the main bearing column of the early Christian confession of Christ (311). From the gospel of Mark, where the picture of Jesus is suffused with the divine sonship, to the gospel of John, the concept of the Son of God is a theme running throughout (311-312). Son of God also stands at the center of Pauls christological statements (Gal 1:16, 2:20, 4:4; Rom 1:3-4, 8:2, 32). In this title Son of God the early church found an enduring way to express the deepest essence of who Jesus is and his significance for us (312). Eternal divine sonship is the basis for the messianic ministry Bruce, (1983: 55): The sonship expressed in Jesus role as Messiah was grounded in his eternal sonship.
France (2002: 50): Messiah and Son of God are not the same, though some first century Jews saw it that way and interpreted 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7 messianically. But in a heading to the gospel of Mark (1:1) Son of God surely means more than Messiah. It reflects the understanding of Jesus divine sonship that Marks readers would have recognized, and is the center of Marks Christology. Godet (1969: 298, 329): In Rom 8:3, His own son has to mean more than just Messiah. He would not send his own Messiah. Kistemaker (1984: 30): The Son was Son before he was messiah. The Son was present at creation (29). He is eternally begotten (37). Ladd (1974: 163-164, 166): Sonship and messianic status are not synonymous; sonship is prior to his messianic status and is the basis of it. Sonship is more than a filial consciousness; it involves a unique relationship between God and Jesus. Lane, William L. (1974: 57-58): Jesus sonship is more than being messiah. It transcends that, and is to be understood in the highest sense. His sonship is the basis for his messianic mission. Lenski (1936: 35): Sonship is not the same as messiahship, but the basis of it. Jesus sonship is eternal. We cannot say that his sonship starts with his birth or with his exaltation. Both his incarnation, in which he entered a state of humiliation for his saving work, and his exaltation rest on his existence as Son of God from all eternity. Liefeld (1984: 831): Luke sees the messianic vocation as a function of Gods Son, rather than seeing sonship as just an aspect of messiahship. Longenecker (1970: 94-96): We dont need to assume that Son of God and Christ are synonyms. The NT writers were aware of their different connotations. Jesus most basic understanding was his consciousness of his divine sonship, and it was based on that consciousness that he undertook the messianic mission. The disciples on the other hand first understood him as messiah, and based on that were able to conclude that he was the Son of God. Longenecker (1994: 485): Jesus filial consciousness undergirded all of his ministry, and was the base from which he operated as he carried out his messianic calling.
370
Marshall (1967: 99): Jesus is the Messiah because he is the Son of God, not vice versa. Sonship is the supreme category of interpretation of the person of Jesus in the Gospels, and messiahship occupies a subordinate place. The fundamental point of Jesus self-understanding is his filial relationship to God, and it was on the basis of this that he undertook the role of Messiah; he did not conclude that he is the Son of God because he is Messiah (1967: 93). Marshall (1978: 68, 155-156): Messiahship is grounded in divine sonship. Murray (1982: 68): If we think of messianic sonship, this sonship came after the giving mentioned in John 3:16, and was the result of it. He was the Son before he was sent. Nolland (2005: 158): A messianic element is included in his sonship, but even in connection with the Messiah son is not simply another word for messiah: sonship refers to a special status and relationship with God which the Messiah may experience. It is sonship as status and relationship which ties together the different strands involved in identifying Jesus as Son of God. Nolland (1989: 163): Lukes understanding of Jesus sonship cannot be contained in normal messianic categories, as it involves more and is more fundamental. Sonship is the exalted status and relationship with God that is the basis of his messianic rule. OCollins (1999: 46): Even if historically he never called himself the only Son of God, Jesus presented himself as Son (uppercase) and not just as one who was the divinely appointed Messiah and in that sense son (lowercase) of God. He made himself out to be more than just someone chosen and anointed as divine representative to fulfill an eschatological role in and for the kingdom. Implicitly, Jesus claimed an essential, ontological relationship of sonship toward God that provided the grounds for his functions as revealer, lawgiver, forgiver of sins, and agent of the final kingdom. Those functions (his doing) depended on his ontological relationship as Son of God (his being). Ridderbos (1975: 69): God sent his Son, and this sending does not create the sonship, but presupposes it. Paul makes the line of redemptive history go back to Christs preexistence. Turner (2008: 373, 404): The disciples worship Jesus and confess him as Gods Son when they see him do things that only God can do. Jesus status as
Messiah is linked to his divine sonship, but that would imply that there is a distinction. Vos (1953: 190): Jesus role as Messiah is predicated upon the fact of his divine sonship. He is not the Son of God by virtue of being the Messiah; he is Messiah precisely because he is the divine Son, and only someone who is the Son in the highest sense could fulfill the messianic office. His messiahship is based on a prior sonship. Vos (1953: 163): Jesus carries into his messianic life much of the content of his filial life, and yet this does not justify the complete identification of the two relationships. His filial status covers the whole extent of his messianic function, but we cannot say vice versa that his filial status, as to content and dignity, is exhausted by his messiahship so that Son of God would here figure as a mere messianic title. Sonship as archetype or prototype Bavinck (1977: 305, 307): Gods fatherhood is the archetype of human fatherhood, and pertains to his very eternal essence; he is Father in the most real and complete sense of the term. With him fatherhood is a primary attribute, whereas with men it is derived or secondary. Likewise, the sonship of the Son is essential and eternal, because the eternal character of the divine fatherhood implies the eternal character of the divine sonship. Hurtado (1993): Jesus as the divine Son is both the prototype and the agent of granting others the right to be Gods Sons as well; the sonship of the redeemed is patterned after his (1993: 905). The sonship of Christians is derived whereas, Jesus is the original prototype, whose sonship is not derived from another (906). (Here Hurtado is talking about spiritual sonship, but could be logically extended to natural sonship as well.) Sonship the foremost category for understanding Jesus Bauer (1992: 772): Each of the four gospels gives much attention to Jesus divine sonship, and it may be that Son of God is the most pre-eminent christological title. Ladd (1974: 168): In the early church Son of God could be freely used to indicate the supreme place occupied by Jesus.
372
Marshall (1967: 99): In the Gospels sonship is the paramount category by which to interpret who Jesus is and one to which his role as Messiah is subordinate. Marshall (1980: 774): It is in the title Son of God that we find the fullest expression of who Jesus is. Meier (1985: 188): In the epistle to the Hebrews, Son is the title of Jesus which embraces all the rest; all other statements about him are rooted in the idea that he is the Son of God. Murray (1982: 80): A faith and confession that is not conditioned by the faith of God as trinity, and by the intra-divine and intrinsic relations involved in Jesus identity as the eternal Son, does not provide the Christology the biblical revelation demands. The true Christology is one that has its starting point and finds its basis in Christs intrinsic sonship and therefore in its Trinitarian correlatives. Warfield (1916: 371): In Hebrews the exalted name that he inherits is Son, and God and Lord are explications of the content of that one more excellent name. Sonship is associated with deity Bauckham (2008: 265): For Mark the title Son of God indicates Jesus unique relationship to God as one who participates in the divine identity. (2008: 106) The divine identity comprises the relationship in which the Father is who he is only in relation to the Son and vice versa. Bloesch (1978: 126): His sonship is rooted in the fundamental nature as uncreated and eternal. Blomberg (1992): In Mt. 27:54, Matthew sees in the centurions confession further support for Jesus as the unique Son of God, in some way on a par with deity (422). Blomberg contrasts the high priest, who sees Christ and Son of God as synonymous (402), with Peter who grasps Jesus unique relationship with the Father (251). Blomberg (1997: 408): The ontological aspect of Jesus sonship becomes apparent after the resurrection, and is especially articulated in Mat 28:19. Of the term Son of God he says that after the resurrection the term is used approximately as in later Trinitarian formulas in which Jesus becomes Son of God in the sense of Gods ontological equal and one part of the Godhead itSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 373
self. In other words, even in the New Testament, the term Son of God is used in an ontological sense, showing equality with deity. It is not merely a title for the Messiah. Blomberg (1992: 432): On Mat 28:19 Blomberg says, The singular name followed by the threefold reference to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian formula anywhere in the Gospels. Brown, Raymond (1966: 88): It appears John intends to give the title Son of God a more profound meaning than others of his day, and certainly the readers of his gospel would have already become more accustomed to a more profound meaning. He seems to intend to include a confession of the divinity of Jesus. Brown, Raymond (1970): Johns approval of Thomas Lord and God statement shows how John understood Son of God (1061). In John 20:31 he states that his purpose is that people would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and thereby have eternal life in his name. Coming as it does after Thomas confession of Jesus as Lord and God, he would not then state that his purpose in writing was to bring about faith in Jesus only as Messiah. Johns use of Thomas profession that Jesus is Lord and God shows how John understood Son of God (1060). Bruce (1986: 159): As the Son, he is the very expression of the Father, because he shares the essence and nature of that one living and true God. Bruce (1983: 14): The relationship which the Father and the Son eternally bear to each other is declared to be a co-inherence or mutual indwelling of love. Jesus is in the Father; the Father is in him. And the purpose of Jesus coming to reveal the Father is that men and women maybe drawn into this divine fellowship of love, dwelling in God as God dwells in them. Burke in Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984: 1034): The major theological point brought out by Jesus divine sonship is his own divinity. Carson (1984: 109): Christs virginal conception hints at ontological sonship. Ellis (1974: 263): In Luke 22:70, Son of God may have the connotation of deity, since a messianic claim would not carry the charge of blasphemy.
374
Erickson (1991: 231): The scribes and Pharisees did not see Jesus use of the term Son of God and his claim to forgive sin to be a functional claim only, but as blasphemy. Erickson (2009: 116): The Jews saw Jesus self-designation as the Son of God as a claim to deity or equality with God. Erickson (1991: 35): He is uniquely Gods son. He is Gods own son (Rom 8:3, 32), and the Son of his love (Col 1:13). He was not merely a man in history, but a divine person. He pre-existed and was active with the Father in creation (1 Cor 8:6). Erickson (1991: 627): Jesus believed himself to be, and was affirmed by the New Testament writers to be, the Son of God, fully divine in the same sense and to the same degree as God the Father. Frame (2002: 660-61): Clearly, Jesus unique sonship implies his ontological deity. Jesus sonship describes his eternal nature. Grudem (1994: 547): In the NT the title Son of God when applied to Christ strongly affirms his deity as the eternal Son in the Trinity, one equal to God the Father in all his attributes. Gundry (1993: 34): Although Son of God can mean no more than Christ, as with the high priest, Mark uses the phrase to prompt thoughts of divinity in his Roman audience, augmented by the accounts of healing, miracles, exorcisms, powerful teaching, forgiving sins, by the supernatural events that accompanied his death, and of course, by the resurrection. Gundry (1982: 330): Though many Jews may have considered Son of God no more than a purely human messiah, Matthews use of ImmanuelGod with us and the account of the virgin birth demand in Matthew the stronger connotation of essential deity. Harris (1992: 102-103): The Son possesses the divine nature, and is God by nature, and that intimate and eternal knowledge of God qualifies him to reveal Gods nature and character. The acknowledgement that Jesus is Messiah spoken of in John 20:31 necessarily involves belief in his deity. Hendriksen (1973: 178, 215, 216): Jesus is Gods Son in the deepest, Trinitarian sense of the term. He is the Son by eternal generation, fully sharing the divine essence. The Son has been the Son for all eternity.
375
Hendriksen (1981: 473): When Paul speaks of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in Rom 15:6, God emphasizes Christs human nature, but Father focuses on his divine nature, his Trinitarian sonship in which he is on a par with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Hodge (1886: 18): Son designates the divine nature of ChristChrist is called the Son of God because he is consubstantial with the Father, and therefore equal to him in power and glory. The term expresses the relation of the second to the first person in the Trinity, as it exists from eternity. It is therefore, as applied to Christ, not a term of office, nor expressive of any relation assumed in time. He was and is the Eternal Son. Hodge (1872-73: Part One, Chapter VI, sec. 6c): His being the Son of God proves he is God...If sonship implies equality with God, it implies participation of the divine essence. Hurtado (1993: 902): In John the term Son of God was the preferred way of referring to Jesus as divine and of heavenly origin and, as Jesus himself used it, was a claim to divinity. Keener (1999: 716-717): The baptismal formula in Mat 28:19 calling for baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit placed Jesus on the same level with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Biblical and Jewish tradition considered them divine, making explicit what is implicit in the accounts in Acts that describe people being baptized in Jesus name: that is, that Jesus is divine. The implication is that Jesus is divine, which climaxes Matthews emphasis on the deity of Jesus that began with him being called Immanuel in 1:23. Then in footnote 341 Keener says, Jesus divinity is explicit in Lukes theology of baptism in Jesus name. Keener (2003: 297): The term Son of God in Johns gospel means much more than messiah; it has at least some implications of deity. Ladd (1974): As Son of God, he partakes of deity (286). He is Son of God because he is God and partakes of the divine nature (160). Marshall, cited in Michel (1986: 644-46): Since Paul sees Jesus as Gods Son during his earthly life, and that it was as Gods Son that he died, it is apparent he did not give up his divine nature when he assumed human nature. That is, he retained his divine nature on earth as being the Son of God. In Johns Christology the Son is preexistent, and his sonship describes a metaphysical or essential relationship between him and his Father. It is also a relationship
of mutual love and filial obedience. The term Son also expresses that Jesus is the savior, but for John, he is Messiah and savior because of his metaphysical relationship with God. McRay (1996: 411): Son of God is used to indicate that he is divine in nature. Mounce (1991: 160-161): Peters confession that Jesus is the Son of the living God is not just a christological confession. Mounce agrees with Gundry that Son of God connotes essential deity, and a unique and intimate relationship to his heavenly Father. Murray (1982: 71, 77, 79): When Jesus speaks in Mat 11:27 about the knowledge the Father and Son have of one another, he is claiming to have an exclusive and intensive knowledge that only deity can have, and that it is in his identity of Son that he has this knowledge. The title Son is charged with deity and it is that import that gives character to the confession of Jesus as the Son of God. His intrinsic sonship constitutes equality and identity with God. Nolland (2005: 603): When in Mat 14:33 the disciples confess that Jesus is the Son of God and worship him (here it is not just giving obeisance), they know they are in the presence of God, and are encountering God; so they worshipped God in worshipping the Son of God. Osborne (2002: 153): For John the term Son of God in Rev 2:18 emphasizes the unique filial relationship between the Father and the Son, but also connotes majesty and divinity. Ridderbos (1975: 77): For Paul, Christs being the Son of God is none other than being God himself. Tasker (1960: 87): In John, Son of God means God the Son. Tenney (1981: 196, 38): In John sonship expresses the unity of nature, close fellowship, and unique intimacy between Jesus and the Father. Human fatherhood and sonship are only a faint copy of the relation between God the Father and God the Son. As Son of God, sharing the nature of the Father, he is able to reveal God. Turner, David L. (2008: 81): Throughout Matthew, Jesus is presented as the Son of God, Immanuel. Thus it is not surprising that Jesus is frequently worshiped as God the Son.
Wessel (1984: 657): In Mark 5:7 when the demon calls Jesus the Son of the Most High God, the title implies that the demon recognized Jesus deity. Yarborough (2008: 180): In Revelation Son of God refers to Jesus divinity and oneness with God. It is a divine sonship.
378
APPENDIX TWO NICENE, CONSTANTINOPOLITAN, AND CHALCEDONIAN CREEDS

Note: square brackets [ ] indicate the portions of the 325 text that were omitted or moved in 381, and italics indicate what phrases, absent in the 325 text, were added in 381 Nicene Creed AD 325 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
Constantinopolitan Creed AD 381 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (ons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Chalcedonian Creed AD 451

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul
and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Athanasian Creed (Quicumque Vult)

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
380
APPENDIX THREE EXCERPTS FROM DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS

Abstract of principles of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008 (where Robert Stein and Thomas Schreiner teach)
The Trinity: God is revealed to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being. The Mediator: Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is the divinely appointed mediator between God and man.
Southern Baptist doctrinal statement (a.k.a. The Baptist Faith and Message)
God: The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. God the Son: Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Denver Seminary Statement of Faith (where Craig Blomberg teaches) Denver Seminary is committed to the great truths and abiding fundamentals of the Christian faith. Each year trustees, administration and faculty are required to affirm and sign Denver Seminary's doctrinal statement without mental reservation.
THE TRINITY - We believe in one God, Creator and Sustainer of all things, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. JESUS CHRIST - We believe that Jesus Christ is God's eternal Son.
Doctrinal statement of Fuller Theological Seminary

I. God has revealed himself to be the living and true God, perfect in love and righteous in all his ways, one in essence, existing eternally in the three persons of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. V. The only mediator between God and humankind is Christ Jesus our Lord, God's eternal son.
Doctrinal statement of Ridley Theological College in Melbourne, Australia (of which Leon Morris was principal from 1964 to 1979)
As an Anglican evangelical college, we uphold the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, including: The unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in
381
the Godhead. Gods gracious provision of redemption from the guilt, penalty and power of sin only though the sacrificial death, as our representative and substitute, of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God.
Doctrinal Statement of Dallas Theological Seminary (where Darrell Bock teaches)

We believe that the Godhead eternally exists in three personsthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritand that these three are one God, having precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and obedience.
Doctrinal statement of London School of Theology (Max Turner, Peter Cotterell, Donald Guthrie, R. T. France, John Balchin and others have taught there).
We believe that the Lord our God is eternally one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that the Fathers holy love is shown supremely in that he gave Jesus Christ, his only Son, for us We confess Jesus Christ as Lord and God, the eternal Son of the Father.
Trinity International University Statement of Faith (Don Carson and Grant Osborne would hold to this as members of the faculty)
We believe in one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Westminster Seminary holds to the Westminster Confession, and also the system of doctrine confessed in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort). Wycliffe Bible Translators USA
We believe in one God, who exists eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Wycliffe Bible Translators UK

We believe in one God, who exists eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
382
Wycliffe Bible Translators Canada (From statement of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)
There is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Wycliffe International
We believe in one God, who exists eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Statement of Faith for SIM

There is one God who exists eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
New Tribes Mission

We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Lausanne Covenant (to which various evangelical organizations subscribe)

We affirm our belief in the one-eternal God, Creator and Lord of the world, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who governs all things according to the purpose of his will.
383
REFERENCES
Abernathy, David. 2004. God has spoken through his Son: The theology of sonship in Hebrews 1. DavarLogos 3(1):2335. Abernathy, David. 2001. The favorable year of the Lord: the Spirit of the Lord and the Messiah in Luke 4. Bible Bhashyam 27/3 223-236. Akin, Daniel. 2001. 1, 2, 3 John. Vol. 38 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers. Balchin, John. F. 1982. Paul, Wisdom, and Christ. In: Rowdon 1982: 204219. Barclay, William. 1958. The Mind of St. Paul. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Barrett, C. K. 1987. New Testament backgrounds: Selected documents. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Bauckham, Richard. 2008. God crucified and other studies on the New Testaments Christology of divine identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bauer, D. R. 1992. Son of God. In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Bavinck, Herman. 1977. The doctrine of God. Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust. Beasley-Murray, George. 1987. John. Vol. 36 of Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, Publisher. Bjork, David E. 1997. Unfamiliar paths: The challenge of recognizing the work of Christ in strange clothing. Pasadena: William Carey Library. Bloesch, Donald G. 1978. Essentials of evangelical theology, vol 1: God, authority, and salvation. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Blomberg, Craig L. 1997. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman and Holman. Blomberg, Craig L. 1992. Matthew. The New American Commentary, vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman and Holman.
384
Bock, Darrell L. 1994a. Luke. vol. 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Bock, Darrell L. 1994b. A theology of Luke-Acts. In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck, Chicago: Moody Press. 87-166. Bock, Darrell L. 1996. Luke, vol 2: 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Bock, Darrell L. 2007. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Brown, Harold O. J. 1984. Heresies: Heresy and orthodoxy in the history of the Church. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. Brown, Raymond. 1966. The Gospel according to John IXII. Vol. 29 of Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Brown, Raymond. 1970. The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI. Vol. 29A of Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Bruce, F. F. 1964. The epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce, F. F. 1977. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce, F. F. 1982. The epistle to the Galatians: A commentary on the Greek text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce, F. F. 1983. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bruce, F. F. 1986. Jesus: Lord and Savior. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Burke, G. T. 1984. Son of God. In Evangelical dictionary of theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Burton, Ernest De Witt. 1977. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. Carson, D. A. 1982. Christological ambiguities in Matthew. In Rowdon, 97 114.
385
Carson, D. A. 1984. Matthew. Vol. 8 of The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Carson, D. A. 1991. The Gospel according to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Charles, J. Daryl. 1990. The angels, sonship and birthright in the letter to the Hebrews. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:171178. Collins, John J. 1993. A pre-Christian Son of God among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bible Review 9(3):3438. Collins, John J. and Adela Yarbro Collins. 2008. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, human, and angelic messianic figures in biblical and related literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Cranfield, C. E. B. 1955. A study of St. Mark 1:911. Scottish Journal of Theology 8:5363 (cited in Ladd 1974: 164). Cranfield, C. E. B. 1975. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the Romans, vol. 1. The International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. De Kuiper, Arie and Barkley M. Newman Jr. 1977. Jesus, Son of God a translation problem. The Bible Translator 28(4): 432438. De Silva, David A. 1994. Pauls sermon in Antioch of Pisidia. Bibliotheca Sacra 151: 3244. Edwards, James R. 2002. The Gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Ellingworth, Paul. 1993. The epistle to the Hebrews: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ellis, E. Earle. 1974. The Gospel of Luke. The New Century Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Erickson, Millard. 1991. The Word became flesh. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Erickson, Millard. 2000. Making sense of the Trinity: three crucial questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Erickson, Millard. 2009. Whos tampering with the Trinity? An assessment of the subordination debate. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications. Fee, Gordon D. 1987. The first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1993. Romans. The Anchor Bible, ed. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Fossum, Jarl. 1992. Son of God. In Vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Frame, John M. 2002. The doctrine of God. Phillipsburg NJ: P and R Publishing. France, R. T. 1982. The worship of Jesus: A neglected factor in christological debate? In Rowdon 1982: 17-36. France, R. T. 1985. The Gospel according to Matthew: An introduction and commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. France, R. T. 2002. The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fuller, Reginald H. 1996. Son of God. The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Fung, Ronald Y. K. 1988. The epistle to the Galatians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Garland, David. 1999. 2 Corinthians. Vol. 29 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers. Garland, David. 2001. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, Ga: Smyth and Helwys. Garland, David. 2003. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Garlington, Don B. 1994. Jesus, the unique Son of God: Tested and faithful. Bibliotheca Sacra 151: 284308.
387
Geisler, Norman. 2003. Systematic theology: God/Creation, vol. 2. Minneapolis: Bethany House. Geldenhuys , Norval. 1977. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English text with introduction , exposition, and notes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. George, Timothy. 1994. Galatians. Vol. 30 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers. Giles, Kevin. 2006. Jesus and the Father: Modern evangelicals reinvent the doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Godet, F. 1969. Commentary on the epistle to the Romans. Trans. A. Cusin. Rev. and ed. Talbot W. Chambers, 1883. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Green, Joel B. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Green, Joel B. 1995. The theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Guelich, Robert. 1989. Mark 1-8:26. Vol. 34a of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, Publisher. Gundry, Robert H. 1982. Matthew: A commentary on his literary art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gundry, Robert H. 1993. Mark: A commentary on his apology for the cross. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Guthrie, Donald. 1981. New Testament theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Guthrie, Donald. 1983. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson. Hagner, Donald A. 1983. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. Hagner, Donald. 1993. Matthew 113. Vol. 34a of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, Publisher.
388
Hardon, S.J., John A. Catholic doctrine on the Holy Trinity. Inter Mirifica. http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm Harris, Murray J. 1992. Jesus as God: The New Testament use of Theos in reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Harrison, Everett. 1976. Romans. In Romans Through Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hendricksen, William. 1973. Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hendricksen, William. 1981. Exposition of Pauls epistle to the Romans, volume 2, chapters 916. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hodge, Charles. 1872-73. Systematic Theology. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.html Hodge, Charles. 1878. Exposition of the first epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Robert Carter. Hodge, Charles. 1886. Commentary on the epistle to the Romans. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. 1977. A commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hurtado, Larry W. 1993. Son of God. In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Jenson, Robert. 2004. The Trinity in the Bible. Concordia Theological Quarterly. 68(34):195206. Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Keener, Craig S. 2003. The Gospel of John: A commentary, vol. 1. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.
389
Kelly, Douglas F. 2008. Systematic theology, vol 1: Grounded in Holy Scripture and understood in the Light of the Church. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor. Kelly, J. N. D. 1972. Early Christian creeds. Essex, England: Longman/Pearson Education Ltd. Kistemaker, Simon. 1984. Exposition to the epistle to the Hebrews. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Kstenberger, Andreas J. 2004. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Ladd, George Eldon. 1974. A theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lane, A. N. S. 1982. Christology beyond Chalcedon. In Rowdon, 257281. Lane, William L. 1974. The Gospel according to Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lane, William L. 1991. Hebrews 1-8. Vol. 47 of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, Publisher. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. 1997. A history of Christianity, volume 1: To A.D. 1500. Peabody Mass.: Prince Press. Lenski, R. C. H. 1936. The interpretation of St. Pauls epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House. Liefeld, Walter L. 1984. Luke. Vol. 8 of The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Longenecker, Richard N. 1970. The Christology of early Jewish Christianity: Studies in biblical theology, second series, no. 17. London: SCM Press Ltd. Longenecker, Richard N. 1994. The foundational conviction of New Testament Christology: The obedience/faithfulness/sonship of Christ. In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
390
Marshall, I. Howard. 1967. The divine sonship of Jesus. Interpretation 21: 87103. Marshall, I. Howard. 1978. The Gospel of Luke: A commentary on the Greek text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Marshall, I. Howard. 1980. Titles of Jesus Christ. In The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 2, ed. J. D. Douglas. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Martin, Ralph. 1964. Worship in the early Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. McRay, John. 1996. Son of God. In Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Meier, J. P. 1985. Structure and theology in Heb. 1:114. Biblica 66: 168 189. Michel, O. 1986. Son of God. In The New International dictionary of New Testament theology, ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Miller, Neva. 1988. The epistle to the Hebrews: An analytical and exegetical handbook. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Moffatt, Samuel Hugh. 1998. A history of Christianity in Asia, vol. 1: Beginnings to 1500. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Moo, Douglas J. 1996. The epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Morris, Leon. 1981. Hebrews. The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Morris, Leon. 1988. The epistle to the Romans. Pillar New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Morris, Leon. 1995. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Mounce, Robert H. 1991. Matthew. New International Biblical Commentary, ed. H. Ward Gasque. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Mounce, William D., ed. 2006. Mounces complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
391
Mller, Mogens. 1993. Son of God. In The Oxford companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford Press. Murray, John. 1968. The epistle to the Romans: The English text with introduction, exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Murray, John. 1982. Collected writings of John Murray,volume 4: Studies in theology. Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust. Newman, Barclay, and Stine, Philip C. 1988. A translators handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: United Bible Societies. Nolland, John. 1989. Luke 19:20. Vol. 35a of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books. Nolland, John. 1993. Luke 9:21-18:34. Vol. 35b of Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35b, Word Books, Publisher, Dallas, Tx. Nolland, John. 2005. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem. 1988. The eschatological salvation of Hebrews 1:525. Bibliotheca Sacra 145: 8397. OCollins, Gerald. 1999. The tripersonal God: Understanding and interpreting the Trinity. New York: Paulist Press. Osborne, Grant R. 2002. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Richardson, Cyril, trans. and ed. 1970. Early Christian Fathers. N.Y.: The Macmillan Company. Ridderbos, Herman. 1975. Paul: An outline of his theology, trans. John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Rowdon, Harold H. (ed.). 1982. Christ the Lord; Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. 1971. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary. Ed. by S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs. Reprint of 1902 edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
392
Schaff, Philip. 1905. Creeds of Christendom, with a history and critical notes. Vol 2. The Greek and Latin creeds, with translations. The history of creeds. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html. Harper and Row. Schaff, Philip. NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.html Schenk, Kenneth. 1997. Keeping his appointment: Creation and enthronement in Hebrews. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 66: 91117. Schnackenburg, Rudolph. 1995. Jesus in the Gospels: A biblical Christology, trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1998. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. Sproul, R. C. 1986. Who is Jesus? Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers. Staniloae, Dumitru. 1994. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline, Ma. translated by Ioan Ionita and Robert Barringer. Cited in Douglas F. Kelly, 2008, Systematic theology, vol 1: Grounded in Holy Scripture and understood in the Light of the Church. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor. Stein, Robert H. 1992. Luke. Vol. 24 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman Press. Stern, David H. 1992. Jewish New Testament commentary. Clarksville, Md.: Jewish New Testament Publications Inc. Stott, John. 1994. Romans: Gods Good News for the world. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. Talbert, Charles H. 2002. Reading Luke: A literary and theological commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, Inc. Tasker, R. V. G. 1960. The Gospel according to St. John: An introduction and commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Tenney, Merrill C. 1981. The Gospel of John. Vol. 9 of The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed., Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Toom, Tarmo. 2007. Classical Trinitarian theology: A textbook. New York: T. & T. Clark. Torrance, T. F. 1991. The Trinitarian faith. London: T and T Clark. Cited in D. Kelly, 2008.
Torrance, T. F. 1999. Reality and evangelical theology: The realism of Christian revelation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Cited in D. Kelly 2008. Turner, David L. 2008. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker. Turner, M. M. B. 1982. The Spirit of Christ and Christology. In: Rowdon 1982: 168190. Van Bruggen, Jakob. 1999. Jesus the Son of God: the Gospel narratives as message. Grand Rapids: Baker. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 2000. Jesus Christ: Who do we say he is? In This we believe: the good news of Jesus Christ for the world. Eds. John N. Akers, John Armstrong, and John Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Verseput, Donald J. 1987. The role and meaning of the Son of God title in Matthews Gospel. New Testament Studies 33:532556. Vos, Geerhardus. 1953. The self-disclosure of Jesus. Rev. ed. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House. Wallis, Ethel. 1992. The first and second epistles of Luke to Theophilus, Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5/3: 225-251. Walvoord, John F. 1969. Jesus Christ our Lord. Chicago: Moody Press. Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge. 1916. The divine messiah in the Old Testament. Princeton Theological Review 14:369416. Watts, James W. 1990. Psalm 2 in the context of biblical theology. Horizons in Biblical Theology (12):7391. Wessel, Walter. 1984. Mark. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Williamson, Ronald. 198384. The incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews. Expository Times 95: 48. Yarbro Collins, Adela. 1999. Mark and his readers: The Son of God among Jews. Harvard Theological Review 92(4): 393408. Yarbrough, Robert. 2008. 13 John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
394
HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSIDER MOVEMENTS

By Christopher Flint1 1 Introduction
Hegel is popularly reported as saying, The only thing we learn from history is that people learn nothing from history. Discuss some aspect of modern mission policy or practice where Hegels dictum seems true.
When the Apostle John glimpsed the eschatological church,2 he saw both unity and diversity: all the redeemed dressed alike in white robes, yet the cultural diversity of every tribe and people clearly distinguishable; all nations and languages represented, but expressed in one single song of praise. Today, the church on earth proclaims the manifold wisdom of God as she strives to become what one day she shall perfectly be.3 Church history cautions, however, that simultaneously affirming both unity and diversity in the body of Christ is no simple matter. The perennial temptation to emphasize one priority to the detriment of the other has led, sometimes, to uniformity, and other times, to division. Modern missiologists are acutely aware of the mistakes of the colonial days, where imposition of uniformity suppressed indigenous cultures beneath Western traditions. McGavrans strong emphasis on respecting cultural diversity has helped to correct this attitude.4 However, the danger now is of the pendulum swinging too far the other way, with diversity being pushed so emphatically as to risk fragmenting the body of Christ. The modern strategy of insider movements, fundamentally committed to the homogenous unit principle, strikingly exemplifies this tendency. This essay will highlight important lessons from history which modern missiologists, not least those committed to insider movements, frequently
Chris is a 2nd year student on the "Theology and World Mission" course at Oak Hill College, London. He has two years' experience of church ministry and outreach in a Muslim-majority country. 2 Rev 7:9-17. 3 Eph 3:10. 4 Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth (3d ed.; rev. C. Peter Wagner; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990).
1
overlook. It shall be seen that arguments, like those of Ralph Winter, for Christianity-less churches5 cannot claim the support of church history. Indeed, parallels from church history suggest that those following the path of insider movements will run into serious dangers, whilst bypassing the significant blessings afforded by cross-cultural church unity. 2 Does history support Christian-less churches? Winter tries to make the case that Christianity is not the only way to follow Christ, but merely a Western cultural expression of orthodoxy, and can therefore be made redundant.6 Although such sentiments may find ready reception in a mosque, the more historically informed will have no desire to capitulate to Winters redefinition. The origins of Christianity were never linked to Western culture: it was at Syrian Antioch that believers were first called Christians.7 Antioch was the location of historys first recorded international church, where Jewish and Greek believers worshipped together.8 It was in precisely this multicultural milieu, which burst the bounds of a merely Jewish sect, that the name Christian was coined. This word is itself lexically apt, formed by translating the Hebrew word Messiah into Greek, and then adding the Latin -ian suffix.9 From its origins, therefore, Christianity has been a term identifying those united by a common faith in Jesus that transcends cultural divisions. Nor was early Christianity dominated by Western culture. The emphasis in the Acts of the Apostles on the westward expansion of the church is a necessary corollary of Lukes thematic interest in Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles; this focus, however, is not to deny the simultaneous expansion of the church eastward. The Apostle Thomas is widely believed to have taken the Gospel to India,10 and by A.D. 523 Southern India had established a strong Nestorian church.11 Christianity soon reached Arabia: Zwemer records how,
5 Ralph D. Winter, The Largest New Factor in Mission Strategy in the 21st Century, n.p. [cited 17 December 2009], see www.ralphwinter.org/C/view.htm?id=94&section=5&part=3. 6 Winter, Largest New Factor. 7 Acts 11:26. 8 Acts 11:20-21. 9 C.K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles Vol 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), pp. 556557. 10 Steven Gertz, et al., Did You Know? Interesting Facts about Christianity in India, Christian History & Biography 87 (2005), pp. 2-4. 11 John Stewart, Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story of a Church on Fire (Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1928), p. 114.
395
by A.D. 567, Christian Yemen seemed at the dawn of its Golden Age.12 Expansion continued along the Silk Road. According to a Sino-Syriac monument erected in China in the eighth century,13 Nestorian missionaries arrived in China in A.D. 635.14 The following century, they reached Japan.15 Nor should Christianity be equated with Christendom and the crusades. In the thirteenth century, genuine Christianity was faithfully represented not by the crusaders, but by Raymond Lull16 who engaged Islam not by the sword but by intellectual debate.17 Similarly, Thomas Aquinas offered Islam a vigorous defence of the coherence of Christian doctrine in De Rationibus Fidei.18 As then, so now: where Christianity is caricatured and misunderstood, apologetics may sometimes be needed to win a hearing for the Gospel. Nor is Christianity today predominantly Western. By the end of the 20th century the majority of those calling themselves Christians were living neither in the West nor in the East but in the Global South.19 It is they, not we, who will lead global Christianity in the 21st century. Christianity, therefore, is no merely Western phenomenon. Far from being ashamed of our own name,20 we should defend this Biblically sanctioned identity of all who faithfully confess Christ. 3 Warnings from church history
What became of that once great Nestorian church? Stewart blames compromise as a factor contributing to the churchs decline: not perhaps that there was any formal departure from, or denial of, fundamental doctrines, but less emphasis was probably laid on these than their importance demanded.21
12 Samuel Zwemer, Arabia: The Cradle of Islam (Rev. 3d ed.; New York, N.Y.: Fleming H. Revell, 1900), p. 308. 13 Stewart, Nestorian Missionary Enterprise, p. 181. 14 Ibid., p. 172. 15 Ibid., p. 188. 16 E. Allison Peers, Fool of Love: The Life of Ramon Lull (London: S.C.M. Press, 1946). 17 J. Scott Bridger, Raymond Lull: Medieval Theologian, Philosopher, and Missionary to Muslims, St Francis Magazine 5.1 (2009), pp 1-25. 18 Thomas Aquinas, Reasons for the Faith against Muslim Objections (trans. Joseph Kenny), [cited 17 December 2009]. Online: www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/Rationes.htm 19 Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001), p. 4. 20 1 Pet 4:16. 21 Stewart, Nestorian Missionary Enterprise, p. 253.
396
Consequently, under persecution, Christianity was blotted out as with a sponge.22 This being the fate of a once-thriving church, there is little to encourage the hope that a young C5 church will survive over the long term when deliberately aiming to conform as closely as possible to the indigenous culture, even at the expense of occasionally downplaying the Gospels most distinctive claims. The radical contextualisation of C5 gatherings is sometimes advocated as only a transitional step, with more doctrinally healthy churches envisaged to follow later on.23 The history of the Nestorian church, however, suggests a much more sinister trajectory. Zwemer notes striking parallels between Moslem teaching and Nestorian Christianity, particularly the extraordinary stress on the Day of Judgment,24 and contends that the rapid incursions of Islam into Persia, Syria and central Asia must no longer be looked upon as an entirely new set of ideas. The way for its triumph had been prepared from the first through the expansion and then alas, through the failures and decadence of Nestorian Christianity.25 Far from preparing the way for authentic Christianity, might insider movements be in danger of spawning a new religion all the more hardened to Christ? Insider movements frequently encourage converts to retain their public Muslim identity and worship according to Islamic religious traditions. Bill Nikides, drawing on parallels from the European Reformation, has grave doubts about this.26 When 16th century Nicodemites claimed to inwardly be secret Protestants, yet continued attending the Catholic Mass, Calvin exposed this Nicodemite dualism that separated spiritual and physical realities as a repudiation of Gods identity as the creator of the entire universe, spiritual and material.27 Moreover, Calvin argued, Nicodemism dishonoured Christ by a dual breach of integrity: dissimulation (hiding the truth) and simulation (pretending to be something else).28 Missionaries who would themselves adopt an outward Muslim persona risk exposure for treachery. As Stefania Tutino reminds us, the Jesuits who
Ibid., p. 254. See e.g. Abdul Asad, Rethinking the Insider Movement Debate: Global Historical Insights Toward an Appropriate Transitional Model of C5, St Francis Magazine 5.4 (2009), pp. 133159. 24 Samuel M. Zwemer, Foreword, in Stewart, Nestorian Missionary Enterprise, p. viii. 25 Zwemer, Foreword, p. ix. 26 Bill Nikides, John Calvin and Messianic Islam, St Francis Magazine 4.3 (2008), pp. 1-7. 27 Ibid., p. 5. 28 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
23 22
397
tried to reconvert Protestant England were discredited for precisely this strategy: the link between the Jesuits immorality and the practice of equivocation became a rather common trope in English literature in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, from William Shakespeare to John Donne.29 We should expect Muslims to be particularly alert to such deception. The Quran explicitly warns of deceivers who will pretend to follow Islam but secretly do not.30 Our missionary role models, by contrast, should be those like Raymond Lull and Samuel Zwemer who faithfully renounced secret and shameful ways and set forth the truth plainly, thereby commending themselves to every Muslims conscience.31 Indeed, the Quran can, in places, describe such devout Christians in surprisingly positive terms.32 4 Historical benefits of church unity The early British church recognized and greatly benefitted from church unity at the national and international level. Symbolic of this was the Synod of Whitby which, in A.D. 664, brought the British date of Easter into conformity with the wider Catholic church.33 At the Synod of Hertford (A.D. 672), Theodore, whom Bede describes as the first archbishop whom the entire Church of the English obeyed,34 organized the national diocesan structure35 making possible the systematic and widespread evangelization of the country. The people eagerly sought the new-found joys of the kingdom of heaven, and all who wished for instruction in the reading of the Scriptures found teachers ready at hand.36 Moreover, good relations with the church overseas helped preserve doctrinal purity. Alerted to the ravages of Eutychianism within the church of Constantinople, Theodore quickly convened the Synod of Hatfield (A.D. 680) to safeguard the orthodoxy of the British bishops.37
Stefania Tutino, Between Nicodemism and honest dissimulation: the Society of Jesus in England, HR 79.206 (2006), p. 544. 30 See e.g. Al-Baqarah 2:14, as cited in Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam Malik, The Meaning of AlQuran: The Guidance for Mankind (Houston, Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 2005), p. 115. 31 C.f. 2 Cor 4:2. 32 See e.g. Al-Midah 5:82. 33 Henry Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England (London: Book Club Associates, 1977), p. 104. 34 Bede, A History of the English Church and People (trans. Leo Sherley-Price; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), p. 206. 35 Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity, p. 131. 36 Bede, History of the English, p. 206. 37 Ibid., pp. 234-35.
29
Given the wealth of benefits afforded by cross-cultural church unity, it would seem extraordinarily unwise to promote the homogenous unit principle in a way that isolates even further those Christians who, being most likely to suffer state-sponsored persecution for their faith, are in all the greater need of wider church support. 5 Conclusion
Todays fascination with insider movements betrays a profoundly inadequate grasp of church history within modern missiological circles. Church history, past and future, shows that the church at her strongest is neither uniform nor divided, but united and diverse. The unity of Christs diverse worldwide body is imperiled whenever his distinctive Person, work and teachings are downplayed. Return to the cross, however, and Christians will discover that he who is our peace unites us not only to God, but also to each other in one new humanity.38 To be satisfied with anything less than this high vision, writes Don Carson, is to betray the Gospel.39
38 39
C.f. the logic of Ephesians 2. Donald A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2002), 105.
399
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, Thomas. Reasons for the Faith against Muslim Objections. Translated by Joseph Kenny. No pages. Cited 17 December 2009. Online: www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/Rationes.htm Asad, Abdul. Rethinking the Insider Movement Debate: Global Historical Insights Toward an Appropriate Transitional Model of C5. St Francis Magazine 5.4 (2009), pp. 133-159. Barrett, C.K. The Acts of the Apostles. International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Bede. A History of the English Church and People. Translated by Leo Sherley-Price. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. Bridger, J. Scott. Raymond Lull: Medieval Theologian, Philosopher, and Missionary to Muslims. St Francis Magazine 5.1 (2009), pp. 1-25. Carson, Donald A. Love in Hard Places. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2002. Gertz, Steven, Frykenberg, Robert Eric, Harper, Susan Billington and White, Keith J. Did You Know? Interesting Facts about Christianity in India. Christian History & Biography 87 (2005), pp. 2-4. Johnstone, Patrick and Mandryk, Jason. Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001. Malik, Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam. The Meaning of Al-Quran: The Guidance for Mankind. Houston, Tex.: Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 2005. Mayr-Harting, Henry. The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. London: Book Club Associates, 1977. McGavran, Donald A. Understanding Church Growth. 3d ed. Rev. C. Peter Wagner. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Nikides, Bill. John Calvin and Messianic Islam. St Francis Magazine 4.3 (2008), pp. 1-7. Peers, E. Allison. Fool of Love: The Life of Ramon Lull. London: S.C.M. Press,1946.
400
Stewart, John. Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story of a Church on Fire. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1928. Tutino, Stefania. Between Nicodemism and honest dissimulation: the Society of Jesus in England. Historical Research 79.206 (2006), pp. 534553. Winter, Ralph D. The Largest New Factor in Mission Strategy in the 21st Century. No pages. Cited 17 December 2009. Online: www.ralphwinter.org/C/view.htm?id=94&section=5&part=3 Zwemer, Samuel. Arabia: The Cradle of Islam. Rev. 3d ed. New York, N.Y.: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1900. Zwemer, Samuel M. The Way to the Muslim Heart. Pages 55-68 in Islam and the Cross: Selections from The Apostle to Islam. Edited by Roger S. Greenway. Philipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2002. Zwemer, Samuel M. Foreword. Pages vii-ix in John Stewart, Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story of a Church on Fire. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1928.
401
A DISCUSSION OF CONTEXTUALIZATION ISSUES FOR MISSION PERSONNEL WORKING AMONG MUSLIM PEOPLES
n.n. 1 Introduction1 In a period that extended almost a year, this paper was written and revised many times in a process that included multiple reviews and feedback by a committee of nine, an international leadership team, a community of over 200 workers among Muslims and, finally, by the companys Board of Directors. It is offered now to other friends in the prayerful hope that it will be a useful tool and will provide helpful insights for ministry among Muslims. It is not intended as a permanent answer to all the issues addressed, but is a statement of how we understand things currently. We anticipate and will celebrate improvements to it in the years ahead as we minister together. There is obviously much more that could have been said on the subject of contextualization generally, as well as more specifically on contextualization in Muslim contexts. We encourage each reader to engage further with both topics and commend the appendix that is attached to this paper as a good place to start, particularly on the subject of form and meaning. To a large extent the contextualization issues most under debate in ministry to Muslims have to do precisely with those ancient twins. The questions that arise often boil down to what forms are useful and permissible for the sake of maintaining cultural identification and continuity with ones community, without conveying meaning that is not intended and unbiblical. The underlying commitment of this paper is that in all cases the purpose of using or not using particular forms is to minimize misunderstanding and/or unnecessary offense; it is to convey meaning accurately not to ensure that any offence, which the meaning itself might evoke, should be removed. The specific affirmations listed below are expressed with this thought in mind, and with a primary goal of upholding a biblical approach to contextualization.
1This document is a new version of a company specific one previously done, and may at certain points read somewhat awkwardly as a result. Modifications have been made to make possible its wider distribution and use, something requested by a number of ministry friends.
403
2 Where the application of generally accepted contextualization principle has resulted in controversy in the context of ministry among muslim peoples Key Principle: Whatever is biblically permissible and culturally appropriate sets the boundary for what is acceptable in the contextualization of Gospel communication and church practice among any people. The primary source of the differing viewpoints today regarding contextualization in the context of Muslim ministry is the application of this principle. The dividing line is just what is biblically permissible. In years past the lines were drawn quite clearly, but unfortunately they looked far too much like the culture and church practice of the West. As a result, missionary efforts were often limiting Gospel penetration. Too long ignored were the perfectly appropriate and biblically permissible stylistic and cultural patterns that existed among the various Muslim peoples. With the passing of time the wisdom of more thorough contextualization has become almost universally accepted, and the fruitfulness of the shift seems apparent. More believers from Muslim backgrounds exist today than are recorded in the entire prior history of the world. Though some may disagree, it is not unreasonable to assume that at least part of the means God used to achieve this increase is a more contextualized approach to Gospel communication and discipling. The question now with regard to contextualization is, How far is too far? 3 Cautions for discussing the issues Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- roughly interpreted, cause and effect cannot be reversed. Just because a person has been genuinely saved by God, it does not follow logically that the means employed are equally desirable, reproducible, or to be emulated (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar). As it relates to MBBs1, a
Muslim Background Believers (MBBs) is the term most commonly used to describe individuals of Muslim background who have come to faith in Christ, and whose primary identity is as a follower of Christ. It implies being genuinely born again and results in changed belief and life. Newer terms that some prefer are BMBs (Believers of Muslim Background) and CMBs (Christians of Muslim Background). MBs (Muslim Believers) is a narrower term preferred by still others to describe followers of Jesus who also choose to maintain their identity as faithful Muslims. Some like the term MJFs (Muslim Jesus Followers) for this group. For the purposes of this paper we are using MBBs to describe all believers in Jesus Christ as Savior who come from a Muslim background whether or not they continue to identify themselves as Muslims.
large number of conversions doesnt automatically mean that the strategy is biblically warranted, or that it is sustainable. While the views of insiders are essential and of great value, some would say, Only insiders can legitimately weigh in on the conversation about what is appropriate contextualization and application of biblical truth. If this argument were true it would logically follow that no one could disciple anyone coming from a different religious/cultural background. Some seem to argue that the choice is only between extractionism (taking believers out of their culture) or believers in Jesus continuing to remain Muslims. Many others believe and have shown that there is a middle way that communicates cultural respect and adherence to mores, but does not affirm adherence to Islam. The discussion is properly framed as a continuum of positions. 4 Particular issues Issue #1: We praise God for his work of bringing many Muslims to faith in Christ, leading them on fresh paths in their journey of faith. We see or hear descriptions of the varied self-identity and theological beliefs of these brothers and sisters in Christ. Our current response is not intended as a judgment on the path that they are pursuing. Rather, it is a guideline to assist in the discipling of Muslims to become Christ-followers. Issue #2: Cross-cultural workers are people of influence and must realize that they will be asked their views on all kinds of issues, contextualization ones included. It is important that they speak gently but honestly, properly handling the Scriptures, and not leaving the impression that unbiblical practices and beliefs are in fact biblical. This is very different from cross-cultural workers telling Muslim background believers (MBBs) what they must do. MBBs, like all believers, are accountable to God for their own choices and level of obedience. It is important that cross-cultural workers also speak with humility; they need to acknowledge that what has historically seemed biblically clear has sometimes been shown generations later to have been drawn from a very limited selection of Scriptures, and that we have a great deal to learn from our cross-cultural brothers and sisters in Christ. Issue #3: Many MBBs maintain their identity as Muslims early in their conversion and sanctification process; they continue to participate in all that means (in terms of mosque attendance and faith affirmations) while clarifying Gospel faith issues, and as a means to maintain a platform for sharing the
405
Gospel with their friends. This is understandable, but we do not believe that this should be encouraged as a normative and permanent state. Those who choose to remain self-identified as a Muslim2 should be encouraged to communicate verbally and by their actions that their primary identity is as a follower of Jesus Christ. Issue #4: Transitions toward maturity in Christ may take an extended time, but they should always be in the direction of greater understanding of who Christ is as Lord and what He has done. Such transitions may be either individual or community-wide in nature. As believers grow in their sanctification it will be in the direction of greater confidence in the authority of the Bible as Gods inspired Word. Other venerated books may continue to be used as evangelistic tools to point others to the Bible and the revelation of the Messiah that it provides, but the Bible alone will increasingly be recognized as the authoritative source for truth, spiritual growth and instruction. Issue #5: Some MBBs may follow Christ secretly and also continue to identify themselves as Muslims because of certain death or severe persecution if they were to reveal their faith in Christ. We are sympathetic to this circumstance, and see a decision to do so as a matter of personal conscience before the Lord. We embrace these brothers and sisters as part of our family in Christ and pray they would be freed from their situation so they can more openly live as salt and light in their community. Issue #6: Given the intended purpose (as a declaration of common belief) and implied meaning for reciting the shahada (or creed) within the context of the Muslim community we do not believe it is biblically permissible for believers to recite it. We believe that the creed elevates one to the status of a biblical prophet and more. This one contradicts biblical teaching in the divine revelation he conveyed, especially on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This one is also generally viewed by Muslims as the seal of the prophets (the final and most authoritative one), thus raising him to a superior position in his prophetic role to that of the Lord Jesus Christ. While this man was certainly important as an agent of change in Arab and Islamic history, we do not believe he was a prophet of special revelation directly from God, though he communicated some truth.
Some, for example, argue that Muslim means one who submits and thus could technically refer to Christians. In most contexts, however, the term would almost universally be understood as one who follows the teachings of Islam.
Issue #7: It is recognized that the mosque is a unique worship/teaching center for Islam. It is recommended, therefore, that apart from truly exceptional circumstances3 MBBs not be encouraged to continue in the mosque as regular participants beyond a transitional time following their turning to faith in Jesus Christ: it no longer represents his/her spiritual commitment. Other Muslims may also observe the MBBs continued participation in the mosque as deception. At the same time, it is understood that some MBBs will choose to continue in the mosque while they are becoming grounded in their biblical understanding and spiritual discipleship, as well as to avoid societal ostracism. Issue #8: We recognize that legalism is common in Muslim belief and structures with salvation ultimately based upon good works, the adequacy of which is determined by God himself. We do not affirm this and firmly believe that salvation for anyone, including Muslims, comes solely by grace through faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We would agree that anyone who puts trust in him for salvation should be warmly received as brothers and sisters in Christ. Issue #9: We recognize the reality of new believers embarking on a process that will lead them to a fuller understanding of biblical truth. The true change will begin in the heart and true believers will proceed to evaluate and adjust their cultural habits and worldview beliefs as necessary. This will often result in an outward identity that ties them to the surrounding Muslim culture and community in unique ways still seen as authentic members of their culture and community, but different because of their trust in and obedience to Jesus Christ. Their identity should progressively and necessarily include a close identification with other followers of Christ around the world. Fellow Christians should not be overly critical as this transitional process takes place in another believers life, but should graciously accept them as brothers and sisters in the faith. Issue #10: Due to the great diversity of the Muslim world, a single approach toward the self-identity of Muslim background believers simply cannot be recommended for all contexts. Historical coexistence with Christianity, legal requirements, national attitudes toward religious pluralism, and the wide range of Muslim attitudes toward Islamic orthodoxy are all factors greatly af3
This might include those very rare situations, for example, where the mosque is little more than a community center and there is little expectation that all would participate in the usual Muslim worship rituals, or where an Imam has become a believer in Christ and is now teaching the Gospel.
fecting the feasibility of believers in Jesus Christ being able to faithfully follow him and still call themselves Muslims in some fashion. There is, likewise, no overriding necessity for anyone to use the term Christian or Christianity to identify himself/herself if that misleads hearers as to what one truly believes or how one lives. Issue #11: Some recent Bible translators for Muslim languages have decided to use, or are debating the use of dynamic, meaning-based and receptororiented translation of ben elohim and huios tou theou; this is instead of traditional, literal translation as has been used in most English Bible translations which render these as "son of God." We acknowledge that the intent of such new approaches in translation is to assist readers to actually understand the original meaning, but we strongly encourage translation of the phrase as literally as possible because: (1) there is a depth of theological meaning in the phrase that could otherwise be lost; and (2) the term son of God is already known worldwide and such a change may be viewed as changing the very Word of God, which Muslims have historically accused Christians of doing. In light of this we think it far better that a footnote or a preface be used to make clear the attendant meaning of expressions like son of God within the text2. In the event that our company is engaged in a translation project with other Evangelical organizations in which the majority believe an opposite tack should be taken (replacing a literal son of God equivalent with another term), but still explaining the usage choice in a footnote or preface, participation and/or endorsement will be at the discretion of regional leadership. Issue #12: It is a matter of high priority that a believers words and actions should always take into account how the people in the context are likely to interpret them. Issue #13: Meeting together regularly for worship and fellowship is one of the essentials of healthy spiritual life, and greatly enhances a follower of Christs sense of identity. We encourage all believers to actively participate in this practice. Issue #14: Participation in biblically permissible Muslim practices (e.g. avoiding pork and alcohol, no dogs in homes, fasting during Ramadan) is an option that MBBs and cross-cultural workers will often want to avail themselves of as a means to identify and maintain good relations with the wider Islamic
2 In the case of audio presentations of the Scriptures explanations will likewise need to be incorporated.
408
community.3 However, one should seek to communicate, as appropriate opportunity arises, that it is not about earning salvific merit with God. Issue #15: Distancing oneself from the stereotypic and non-Christlike excesses of nominal Christianity is of course understandable in Muslim contexts. However, religious identity is also a statement of community belonging. We therefore think it is deceptive, unethical and not biblically permissible for Christians to convert to Islam in order to win Muslims to Christ. Issue #16: The Gospel has both personal and societal implications, and cannot therefore be viewed in only personal transformation terms. We encourage MBBs to have as much involvement as possible in bringing the light of Christ to address the larger spiritual and social needs of their community.
It would also be important to make sure MBBs are aware that these practices are matters of Christian liberty, carried out in order to remove unnecessary barriers to the Gospel in that context, but not commanded in the Bible.
3
APPENDIX A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF CONTEXTUALIZATION

The issue of contextualization among Muslim-background followers of Jesus can best be addressed within a wider discussion of how to approach contextualization in general. Contextualization here refers to how believers in Jesus Christ think, express themselves and live out their faith within their own particular context. A context is the unique and complete socio-cultural environment that surrounds every human being. It includes culture, religious/theological background, economic, social, and educational background, gender, the historical era and each individuals personal circumstances. A context can be very broad (e.g. the African context), but can also be narrowed to any level of specificity (e.g. Ethiopia, Ethiopian Somalis, Ethiopian nomadic Somalis) to the point of speaking of the context of each individual (e.g. a particular Ethiopian, Somali, nomadic woman). Contextualization touches every aspect of a persons living faith: formal theology and confessions of faith, ethics, rituals such as worship and music, methods of instruction, language and translation, and outward religious symbols (e.g. church architecture, wearing a cross). Contextualization should go deeper than believers outward behaviors and symbols, penetrating all the way to their worldview. Evangelical Christians in general, and our members in particular4, believe that the Bible is God-inspired Scripture and is their ultimate source of authority. It is the primary basis for both their beliefs and how they live out their Christian faith within their context (i.e. the Bible is their primary source for contextualization). The Bible not only claims to be Gods Word, his revelatory message to the people to whom it was addressed, it also claims to be Gods revelatory message for all peoples in all cultures in all historical eras (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:6, 11; 2 Tim 3:14-17). As such, it is more than a collection of successful local theologies of Gods people in the past. It was written so that people from all contexts can understand its essential truths and to provide the primary source for belief and behavior for all believers in all contexts today (2 Pet 1:3). No one context is particularly privileged in its ability to understand the truths of Scripture; all can have adequate understanding, but none will have exhaustive understanding of any of the truths of Scripture.
See company Statement of Faith.

410
Though believers from all contexts can understand the essential meaning of Scripture, readers of Scripture will inevitably be affected by their contexts. Context increases awareness of some aspects of the text and decreases awareness of other aspects of the text. Context also shapes the way readers will understand and express the truths of Scripture. Because no individual believer or Christian community will have an exhaustive understanding or perfect expression of biblical truth, it is important that believers from all contexts humbly and continually learn from one another. Believers from younger churches can learn from older churches, but believers from older churches can also learn from younger churches. Though they can learn from older churches, all believersincluding followers of Jesus from younger churches, such as those in Muslim contexts have the right and privilege of studying the Bible for themselves and finding their own ways of expressing biblical truth in their lives and worship. It is important that they understand how the universal church has understood and applied Scripture in the past, such as in the creeds and confessions of the church. However, these communities of believers can and should shape their own biblically-based theologies (while remaining congruent with the theology of the universal church) using language and forms most appropriate to their context. These theologies may even, in the end, use fresh terms and models to describe core theological concepts, such as the nature of the triune God and the person of Jesus Christ. They will also, if they are truly biblical, make clear that Islamic faith and Christian faith are two very different and largely incompatible religions. Islam as a religion does not reflect biblical belief or practice in following the one True God. The process of contextualization regularly wrestles with issues of form and meaning. What should believers in the new context do with the old cultural and religious forms and symbols? Should they be retained, filled with new meaning, adapted into some new-but-familiar form, or completely discarded? For example, should Muslim followers of Jesus continue to call themselves Muslims? Should they continue to bow in prayer five times a day? Likewise, to what extent should the forms of the Bible or the churches in other contexts be adopted, or to what extent should believers look for new, more culturally appropriate forms? For example, should Muslim followers of Jesus refer to God as the Trinity? To answer these questions, we must understand the varied relationship that forms can have with their underlying meanings. On the one hand, insisting that a particular form always carries the same meaning across culture and time reflects a nave view that cannot be maintained in real life. For example, a kiss, walking hand-in-hand, a wink, or
comparing a person to a particular animal all carry different meanings in different contexts. On the other hand, maintaining that any form can freely be substituted to communicate the same meaning is equally simplistic: it ignores the historical connection between forms and their meaning and the control that social groups maintain over symbols. For example, wearing a ring on the fourth finger of the left hand is a form that, in the North American context, carries the meaning that a person is married. It would require a major shift in historical direction and social expectations for this form to take on a different meaning (e.g. that a person was simply wealthy or liked jewelry) or to substitute a different form to communicate the same meaning (e.g. that all married people wear a certain color of clothing). The relationship between meanings and forms varies according to the nature of the symbol.5 Paul Hiebert has suggested that the relationship between form and meaning is best understood in terms of a continuum.6 At one end of the continuum, form and meaning are sometimes arbitrarily linked. This is, perhaps, best seen in linguistic forms. The sounds to represent the idea of a canine mammal may be dog (in English), perro (in Spanish), or wesha (in Amharic). There is nothing that inherently connects any of these sounds to the idea of a canine mammal; the connection is purely arbitrary. Sometimes form and meaning are loosely linked. Some connection exists between the form and the meaning, but the link might be disconnected, especially in cross-cultural communication. For example, many agricultural societies link land and fertility with being female and link battle and violence with being male. However, these connections would not be made in every culture. Sometimes form and meaning are tightly linked. Though the two are not completely equal, it would be difficult to discard the form without in some way affecting the meaning. Bowing or falling prostrate is closely associated across cultures as signs of submission or reverence. Finally, form and meaning are sometimes equated. For example, when a minister in the USA says, I now pronounce you husband and wife, or when the vows are exchanged in certain other contexts, the words spoken (the form) actually create a new relationship between a man and a woman.7
Paul Hiebert, 1989. Form and Meaning in the Contextualization of Theology. In Dean Gilliland, Ed. The Word Among Us: Contexualizing Theology for Mission Today (Dallas: Word, 1989), p. 109. 6 Ibid. 7 The preceding two paragraphs are adapted from Steve Strauss, Creeds, Confessions and Global Theologizing: A Case Study In Comparative Christologies, In Eds. Harold Netland & Craig Ott, Globalizing Theology (Baker: Grand Rapids, MI: 2006), pp. 143-144.
5
Understanding that the meaning of symbols can be connected in different ways has several implications in contextualization. First, before old cultural or religious forms are maintained or filled with new meaning by followers of Jesus, they must understand both the meaning of the form in the local context and how tightly the form is connected to that meaning. If it is tightly connected, it may not be possible to give the form new meaning, but if it is loosely connected, it might be possible for the form to take on new meaning. For example, in some contexts it might be possible for Jesus followers to continue to call themselves Muslims or worship using forms that are used by the Muslim community, but still fulfill biblical imperatives for belief and behavior. However, in another context the connection between the form Muslim and its original meaning might be so close that believers in Jesus could no longer use that name and retain their distinctive as Jesus-followers. Second, before new forms are introduced from other cultures, it is important to understand how closely the form and meaning are connected in Scripture, and what the meaning of that form would have in the new context. For example, describing God as Trinity in a Muslim context may imply that there are three gods, and that one of them is the Virgin Mary. However, the word Trinity is never used in Scripture, and there might be superior ways of describing the biblical truth of the three-ness and oneness of the Godhead that would more accurately communicate biblical meaning in a Muslim context. Finally, understanding the varied relationship between form and meaning affects issues of translation. Translators must understand both how closely connected a particular biblical form is to its meaning and the implications of any form used in the target language. For example, before translating huios tou theou into any language, the translator must understand the meaning of the term in the original biblical context and the possible understandings of any proposed translation (Son of God, Messiah of God, Child of God, etc.) in the target language.
BOOK REVIEW OF: HEATHER J. SHARKEY, AMERICAN EVANGELICALS IN EGYPT: MISSIONARY ENCOUNTERS IN AN AGE OF EMPIRE (PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2008), 318PP.
By Phil Bourne This is one of the most stimulating books on mission that I have read in a long while. It traces the history of the American Presbyterian Mission in Egypt from 1854 until 1967 and describes how the challenge facing the missionaries was reflected in changing strategies. It contains enough detail for one to be able to empathize with the missionaries and see how the changing socialpolitical environment within Egypt often dictated what could and could not be done. The first chapter gives a brief overview of the work of the mission. The United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA) started work in Egypt in 1854. The first missionaries saw themselves as part of the wider Anglo-American Protestant movement and aimed to reach all sections of the population with the Gospel. In practice, however, most of the converts came from the Coptic community. The mission engaged in education, medical work, development programs, literacy campaigns and evangelism. Sharkey argues that in this they were both ambassadors of Christ and US culture, although how this manifested itself changed with changing circumstances. Sharkey helpfully divides the history into four periods: 1854-1882: A period where Americans, inspired by the ideal of universal evangelization, sought to reach both Copts and Muslims with the gospel. Their activities spurred reform within the Coptic Orthodox Church itself. 1882-1918: The Colonial Moment was a period of optimism during which the missionaries intensified their outreach to Muslims. It was possible then to give out tracts without opposition. 1918-1945: The rise of Egyptian Nationalism led to a rethinking of mission. Sharkey describes this period as the age of chronic anxiety, which was marked by retrenchment and uncertainty. 1945-1967: The age of Egyptianization and consequent systematic reduction of foreign influence.
The book concludes with a brief reflection on the changing nature of mission in Egypt. Sharkey writes as a neutral observer, and presents the evidence fairly and impartially, seeking to give voice to both sides of the controversies that plagued the mission in the latter years. There is sufficient detail to give a real understanding of the tensions that arose between the different players and it shows how the missionaries sought to act with integrity and fairness in their dealings with the Egyptians. If at times they were misunderstood, they accepted this with good grace. That there were such misunderstandings was almost inevitable given the deeply differing perspectives of the people concerned. Inevitably, for the missionaries it was also a pilgrimage of understanding. Chapter 1: The American Mission Encounter in Egypt, and Chapter 2: Coptic Reform and the Making of the Evangelical Community. The United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA), based in Pennsylvania, started work in Egypt in 1854. The Rev Thomas and Mrs Henrietta McCague were the first to arrive. By 1897 there were 50 missionaries. Although there was a genuine desire to evangelize Muslims, there was also a focus on seeking to reach the Coptic Orthodox Church through the teaching of the Bible. From 1860 this was facilitated by the regular visits to scattered Coptic communities in the Delta and Upper Egypt. Ultimately this resulted in the formation of a separate Evangelical Church in Egypt. Egyptian Evangelicals were actively engaged in evangelism. Initially the Coptic Pope, Demetrius II, with the support of Khedive Ishmael, launched a campaign to stamp out Protestantism, resulting in persecution of Evangelicals. However, over this period the Evangelical community grew to 596 members in 1875. Initially the Presbyterian missionaries were suspicious of the Episcopalian CMS who sought to revive the Coptic Orthodox, and also the Jesuits who were seeking to lure the Copts back into union with Rome. [The Jesuits had been active in Egypt since 1718]. It was only in the post-colonial period, when both Catholics and Protestants found themselves struggling with increased government regulation that more coordinal relationships developed between the two. By this time the theological stance of both parties had mellowed considerably and it became possible to work together in addressing mutual problems.
415
The Presbyterians in Pennsylvania were supporters of the emancipation of slaves and brought this strong sense of social justice to Egypt. They were quick to take up the cause of the poor and the disadvantaged, looking for ways in which they could better the lot of the poor, particularly the Christian minority that was seriously disadvantaged. They also brought a strong emphasis on literacy and education and their each one, teach one literacy program became a significant factor in the rise of literacy in Egypt during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was perhaps also their undoing, for it stirred the Muslims to emulate them and gave them the tools with which to oppose them during the late-colonial and postcolonial period. In accordance with their emphasis on education, in 1864 the American Mission took over responsibility for the girls school in Alexandria and established a boys and a girls schools in Cairo. In 1865 schools were opened in Assiut. The presence of the missionary societies also goaded the Orthodox into slow reform - Cyril IV introduced the printing press and the revival of Coptic scholarship. There also developed a lay movement within the Coptic Orthodox Church, which in several ways reflected the influence of the Presbyterians. In addition, there was also a growing work amongst the poor and marginalized. The Coptic Enlightenment was inextricably linked to foreign missionary intervention, as the spread of the bible resulted in the growth of education. The Evangelical community, directly and indirectly, has made the Coptic community, next to itself, the best educated and most enlightened part of the population. (:46) In this way the American missionaries did help effect something of a Coptic reformation... (:47) Chapter 3: The Colonial Moment of the American Mission The colonial period, 1882-1956, was brief in comparison with Egypts long history; for this reason Sharkey refers to it as a moment. During the second period there were four salient developments: 1) growth of the missionary interest in Muslim conversion, 2) growth of the Egyptian Evangelical Church at the expense of the Coptic Orthodox, 3) the increasing reliance on women in the missionary taskforce, and 4) growth of Protestant ecumenism. The American missionaries welcomed the British annexation of Egypt in 1882, as they hoped that this would result in an improvement in the status of the non-Muslims. The abolition of Dhimmitude by the Ottomans in 1856 had had little practical effect. The missionaries hoped that under British rule conversion from Islam to Christianity would be legally recognized. As a result there was a renewed emphasis by the Protestant missions in evangelizing
Muslims. (The new CMS mission in Egypt had made it its main focus.) But in practice little changed under British rule. The Colonial authorities generally regarded the missionaries as a nuisance. The missionaries for their part were often critical of British policy with its largely secular agendas. The Edinburgh Missionary Conference (1910) criticized the British for favoring Islam against Christianity:
If Christian missionaries had an unspoken pact with the British Empire, then its terms went as follows: missionaries were expected to provide the empire with a veneer of ethics, respectability, and moral purpose; to praise British governance among the churchgoing audiences at home; and to act in ways that would tacitly support and not compromise British rule on the ground. (:64)
In return the British colonial authorities agreed to assist the missionaries. But these benefits did not extent to native converts - these were often seen by the colonial authorities as opportunists. The refusal to protect Muslim converts came as a grave disappointment to the missionaries. Starkey illustrates the difficulties faced by converts by recounting the stories of a number of individuals: Kamil Abd al-Masih, Kamil (Ahmad) Mansur, Mikhail (Muhammad) Mansur, Nafisa, bt Ahmad Urabi, Ahmed Fahmy, Muhammad Habib. While from 1892-1918 the conversion of Muslims was a major objective, the number of converts was minimal; most were from the Coptic community. Starkey again gives examples of Coptic converts. The prominence of men as policy setters and chroniclers obscured the strong representation of women in the mission field during the 1882 to 1918 period. (:83) The first women came as wives of missionaries - the helpmate phase. They were not missionaries in their own right. After the American Civil War women gained more confidence and experience and single women joined the mission. By 1985, 59% of the mission personnel were women. The World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh (1910) was a significant turning point in inter-mission cooperation, and some of the missionaries in Egypt were key players in these events. In Egypt an inter-mission Council was formed which came to have a significant role in representing missionary concerns to the Egyptian Government. It was the Inter Mission Council that set up the Cairo Study Program for training missionaries in outreach to Muslims. Edinburgh was also significant as the starting point for wider ecumenical cooperation that eventually found expression in the Middle East Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.
417
Samuel Zwemer was a significant influence in the drive to evangelize Muslims. His approach was aggressive, describing Islam as retrograde, fanatical, and intellectually and spiritually impoverished. This elicited an equally aggressive reaction from Muslim activists. Consequently some of the missionaries regarded Zwemer as more of a liability than an asset.
Yet in one respect Zwemer was more astute than his colleagues: he recognized the growing presence of Muslim immigrant groups in the United States and Britain and considered their implications for Christian mission to Muslims as well as Muslim missions to Christianity. (:94)
Historians have argued that World War I dealt a devastating blow to missions but, while it weakened mainline Protestant missions, it strengthened the evangelical vision of the American faith missions.
Thus the war helped set in motion a long-term shift in American evangelicalism and the nature of American evangelical missions. [] After 1918, American Presbyterians in Egypt showed persistence but great caution as Muslim nationalists stood up to challenge the aspects of Christian missionary work ... they regarded as not only inappropriate and repugnant but subversive. (:95)
Chapter 4: Egyptian Nationalism, Religious Liberty, and the Rethinking of American Mission In the aftermath of World War I, the optimism that characterized Edinburgh 1910 seemed misplaced. In the post-war milieu, an important shift in Protestant missionary thought began to occur, reflecting a change in how missionaries conceptualized the cultural geography of Christian societies. (:97) In his report of the International Missionary Council conference (Jerusalem 1928) Basil Matthews suggested that the greatest threat to Christianity was now irreligious forces. The Western World itself had become a mission field. K S Latourette suggested that Asia and African churches send missionaries to Western countries. This reflected in a more sober mood among the missionaries in Egypt. Retrenchment followed a 34% cut in the mission budget in 1925. In 1922 the British set up a constitutional monarchy in Egypt. At the same time the debate over the role of Islam in modern society gathered pace. There were three contending perspectives: that of the ulam of al-Azhar, that of the Muslim Brotherhood and the views of Westernized intellectuals. In the 1930s the nationalists began to criticize Christian evangelization: they were happy for the missionaries to stay, provided they didnt evangelize Muslim school children and youths or criticize Islam. New laws restricting missionSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 418
ary activity were introduced. In response the missionaries fought to negotiate a waiver on aspects of these laws. Circumstances on the ground in Egypt were beginning to have more of an impact on mission activity than developments in the USA. The Abolition of the Caliphate by Ataturk in 1924 and the crumbling of the old political order were turning points for Egyptian Muslim Nationalism. The Egyptian nation, not the wider umma, became the focus for Egyptian Muslim identity. Egypt moved away from the West. In 1926 the conservative ulum lashed out against two modernists, Ali Abd al-Raziq and Taha Hussein. The Egyptian mission followed this debate closely, worried by its implications for religious liberty. They believed that the charges brought against the two men were contrary to the Egyptian Constitution. Charles R Watsons and J R Alexander, concerned about the status of converts like Hassan Kadri, issued a memorandum on religious liberty. There were undoubted parallels between Taha Husseins work on Islamic poetry in the Qurn and the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in Christian circles. This latter debate nearly tore the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) asunder in 1925. Charles Clarence Adams book, Islam and Modernism in Egypt: A Study of the Modern Reform Movement Inaugurated by Muhammad Abduh (1933) exemplified the convergence between Protestant and Islamic modernism. While assenting to the Scriptures as the infallible word of God, he saw modernism as a positive development. He describes Islamic modernism as an attempt to free the religion of Islam from the shackles of a too rigid orthodoxy, and to accomplish reforms which will render it adaptable to the complex demands of modern life. (:103) Adams wanted the Cairo Evangelical Theological Seminary to engage more energetically in modernization and reform. But Muslim writers did not reciprocate this openness: Muhammad Husayn Haykal, whom Adams cites approvingly, was critical of the missionaries, calling for tighter government regulations of schools and social programs. After 1927 there was an upsurge of anti-mission rhetoric and a growth in Islamic social activism through organizations like the Young Mens Muslim Association (founded 1927) and the Association of Islamic Guidance and the Muslim Brotherhood (founded 1928). Unlike the waqfs, these activities were funded by the middle classes and focused on centers outside the established religious institutions, extolling a philosophy of self-help. The Muslim activists used the Arabic printed page as a vehicle for propagating their ideas. It was Samuel Zwemer who had first drawn missionary attention to the power of the printed page. But now the Muslim opposition was able to use
the same medium to counter Christian propaganda. Sharkeys detailed description of the missionary-Muslim debate gives a good insight into the nature of the controversy. The claims and counter claims dont always agree, and Sharkeys balanced account suggests that the Muslims were not above embroidering the facts. We see this in particular with the controversial visit of Zwemer to al-Azhar in April 1928. Behind these controversies lurked the question of religious liberty: can a Muslim become a Christian? It also showed up the inability of the Egyptian government to defend the rights of the socially marginalized. It is perhaps significant that successive governments were not able to resolve this issue - or at least not in a way that was consistent with the Egyptian Constitution. Opposition to the missionaries galvanized the Muslim Brotherhood who in the 1930s began to petition the government to provide more Islamic education in schools.
By the end of 1933, the social landscape facing missionaries had dramatically and irrevocably changed [....] Egyptian Muslim nationalists and activists had reached some consensus in identifying Christian missionaries as a threat to national sovereignty and social integrity, calling for government regulation over mission institutions. (:131)
In 1934 laws were passed regulating free schools. There was a feeling among the mission community that the rules were applied selectively, which eventually led to the closure of many of the rural schools. Similar restrictions began to appear in other areas: foreign doctors had to pass local medical examinations and visas were to be issued by Egyptian officials. F D Henderson remarked,
It does not require a drunk king to see or a prophet to interpret the handwriting on the wall. ... it is doubtful if [the schools] will be allowed to exercise much direct Christian testimony after [the period set for phasing out capitulations] (:133).
The decline in enrolment in the schools and the impact of the depression all contributed to a downturn in the missions activities. Money became a source of contention. Egyptian evangelists were sacked - evidence of the business-inspired model of American missions - and pastors salaries were cut. These actions appeared heartless to the Egyptians and the Egyptian synod, being more group-minded, suggested a moratorium on ordaining new pastors. It was agreed that after 1932 the evangelists were to be paid by the Mission, not the Synod. Also Muslim Egyptians became wary of the evangelists and only Copts attended open meetings. The Evangelical churches were not growing as before.
Anti-missionary agitation, economic distress, and concerns about the future of the Evangelical Church battered the morale of the American missionaries. (:138) It was not helped by the Laymans Report, Rethinking Missions, which linked the decline in support for missions with the changing mood in American society. It advocated reconciliation with non-Christian faiths, not the gaining of converts. Missionaries should respect diversity of opinions, and become humanitarian ambassadors, not soldiers or salesmen. Many missionaries were distressed by the relativism of the report, The question of Christian finality - whether Christianity is one version of divine truth or is ultimately the only version - was the do-or-die issue in the debate. (:139) Many of the missionaries denounced the report. The Missionary Association of Egypt had been able to side-step the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1920s and did not welcome the reawakening of the theological issues raised in the report. It eroded the consensus that had marked the foreign mission movement from 1882 to 1918. Some still insisted on the relevance of Christian conversion:
Let us restate the objective of the Mission. It is to evangelize Egypt. In the future it is, especially, to evangelize Muslim Egypt. All that has been done in the past is only preparatory to this great, this stupendous objective. (J. R. Alexander: 140).
But other missionaries were beginning to move away from this perspective. Davida Finney focussed on literacy and social development, while Milo McFeeters developed a dairy farm. The mission was in fact already moving in the direction that the Laymans Report advocated. The question of religious liberty was once again elevated to the top of the agenda. The reports editor, William Hocking, remarked that, Religious liberties clash, and when they clash the burden of proof rests on the alien religion. (:143) He suggested that the missionaries appeal to Egyptian national pride and sense of fairness. This is in fact what the missionaries did. Following the Yusuf Abd al-Samad affair they gathered the Inter-Mission Council and members of the smaller Protestant organizations and formulated a set of principles for Christian work in Egypt. This was presented to the government in 1933. This placed the primacy of the individual over the social collective. At the same time they were compelled by their religion not only to respect all men with their beliefs and institutions, but also to love and serve them, to show works of mercy and philanthropy ... (:143) It defined missionary service as the highest service of love and witness by word and deed to what has redeemed and regenerated our own lives. (:144) Although this statement strengthened ecumenical relations, it had no discernable impact on the EgypSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 421
tian government, which never implemented the procedure for registering Muslim conversions to Christianity. (:144) Rather, the government continued to elaborate restrictions on religious instruction. Missionaries had to grapple with the fact that the Egyptian government was subjecting religious liberty to the preservation of an Islamic public order, and was drawing a connection ... between resisting evangelism and defending the peace and security of the country. (:144) Study of the Qurn was introduced into all schools no religion other than their own shall be taught to students. Elder had warned in 1932,
Very few Muslims object to Christian teaching, but the day may come when they shall and when the government will prevent us from teaching Christianity to nonChristians. This will mean that our Christianity will have to be caught rather than taught from our schools. (:145).
That day came in 1942 with a law prohibiting the spread of religious propaganda outside mosques or other sanctioned spaces. At the Tambaram meeting in 1938, Hendrik Kraemer presented his rebuttal of the Laymans Report. But, in contrast, others saw that gathering as the end of Western Christian mission, confirming the goal of European and American missions should not be ... to establish outposts of Western Christianity scattered throughout the world and ... affirming the importance of interfaith dialogue ... (:148) World War II depleted the missionary staff and halted some of the work. The girls school in Alexandria closed. In 1944, the Witness, one of the river boats used for evangelism, was leased to the alumnae of the American College for Girls (ACG) and docked in Cairo permanently: the mission had given up on evangelization along the Nile. The number of missionaries had shrunk from 217 (1924) to 66 (1944). There were still hospitals in Tanta and Assiut, six clinics and schools in Assiut, Luxor and Cairo. By this time the mission schools were catering for the Egyptian elite. On the other hand the Evangelical Church was thriving with 164 minister and 300 congregations. But relationships between mission and church were tense. Relationships with other Protestant missions were stronger than ever. In 1944 the UPCNA of Egypt joined the NECC (founded 1927), bringing closer contact with the PCUSA, a move that anticipated the merger of their churches in 1958. (:147) In contrast they had little contact with the French and Italian Catholic missionaries who claimed that they do not seek to evangelise Muslims. The Egyptian Muslims didnt quite see it this way! While many of the missionaries still regarded the Coptic Orthodox Church mori422
bund, changes were afoot. Charles Watson noted that in some places the Coptic Orthodox seemed as evangelistic as our own church (:138). Chapter 5: The American University of Cairo The American University of Cairo (AUC) is one of the most visible legacies of the American Missions work in Egypt. Sharkey devotes a whole chapter to the founding and evolution of the AUC, largely I suspect because its founder, Charles Watson, was indicative of so much that was changing in the mission in the inter-war years. Charles R. Watson was the son of the missions first chronicler, Andrew Watson. During his time working as correspondence secretary to the mission in the USA he began to formulate a vision for a Christian University in Cairo. The AUC was established in 1920 as an independent institution, but with close links to the Christian community through the Inter Mission Council. Watson was a keen ecumenicist, but he struggled to define the mission, or missions, of the AUC. He saw the AUC as an educational and cultural bridge between the US and Egypt. On this basis, he began to rethink American Presbyterianism and its missionary engagement. In contrast to Watson, the mission had envisioned the University as being an extension of their own ministry. The Cairo Study Centre was incorporated into AUC and renamed the School of Oriental Studies. Watson shared the ecumenical vision behind the Study Centre and for this reason did not want to bind the AUC exclusively to the American Mission. Watson defended the Universitys Christian charter, but argued that a new approach was needed in spreading Christian values. He definitely had a Christian vision, although this vision shifted significantly over the course of his career and contributed to or facilitated the Universitys long-term secularization. (:156) Watsons internationalism contrasted with the denominational isolationism of some of the American Presbyterian pastors. He was born in cosmopolitan Cairo, not Kansas or Iowa, so lacked the small town mentality and down to the ground outlook of some of his colleagues. Watson was also becoming uneasy about American missionary approaches to Muslims in Egypt - he disliked polemics. He saw strengths in Islam that his colleagues did not appreciate and weaknesses in American society. He slowly abandoned the crusader rhetoric of his early days, and even his faith in the desirability or necessity of formal Christian conversions. (:157) But AUC was still a laboratory for applying American Christian values to Egypt. He tended to value good works over professions and confessions, exemplifying liberal Christian modernism. This reflected similar trends in American Universities.
The political challenges became more pressing in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The unjustifiable and sometimes ludicrous accusations made against the University by Muslim critics were of concern to Watson. As a result the University instituted a course in journalism - a course which Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, used to train his own students. Watson became increasingly involved in the promotion of religious liberty. In the face of these criticisms the AUCs curriculum began to change, placing more emphasis on social ethics than theology and adopting a sympathetic and cooperative attitude toward the government program. James K. Quay of YMCA joined the staff of AUC to teach Ethics or Character training, but became disillusioned when an attempt to introduce New Testaments into the classroom alienated most of the students. From that time the YMCA distanced itself from religious controversy. He wrote, The Protestant community suspects us of being non-religious and the Muslim community suspects us of trying to proselytize for Christianity and both are wrong. We try to present a phase of Christianity which we believe the Protestant community has largely overlooked, and we hope to win the Moslem, not away from his loyalties to the things that are good in Islam but to acquaintance with Christ as the giver of life abundant. His religious affiliation is his own affair. (:164) Watson also experienced a similar change of heart.
Christian missionaries to Muslims still need to find a way to prove the consequences of Jesus for their lives. Now here is the real difficulty of missionary work. [...] No amount of historical evidence will prove Christs resurrection, if Christians go on living exactly as though He was dead and fast locked away in the grave. (:165)
In 1932 he published an article, Rethinking Missions which in turn inspired the Laymens Report [see above]. The latter was to mark a watershed in the history of American Protestantism and the missionary movement. It marked the dawning of skepticism among Protestant intellectuals about the moral verities of the past, a greater willingness to acknowledge publicly the goodness in other, non-Christian religious systems, and an implicit critique of the missionary connection to Western imperialism. (:165) The article ignited fundamentalist-liberal tensions and contributed to the decline in self-confident evangelism. Watson emphasized voluntariness in religious practice (:167), rejecting the old goals of conversion - becoming a Christian is a process not an event. By 1937 there was a shift in his perception, describing the Muslims as friends
424
- the role of missions was to show love through social action (:168). There was also a stress on civic involvement and a vision for social service. Americans needed to temper their higher individualism into higher socialism. (:168) This perspective found expression in the AUCs Extension Programme, started in 1924, which was a showcase of the universitys civic involvement. Watson called AUC a bridge of friendliness between the US and Egypt. The big idea behind AUC was to deliver Americas great resources of practical knowledge and Christian dynamic for the sake of Egypts advancement. (:173) But not all AUC staff agreed with this vision: For instance, Amir Buqtur, one of the professors, was enthusiastic about the educational mission, but not a practicing Christian. In the 1940s the missionary enrolment in SOS had fallen, so in order to keep the program viable they agreed to train US diplomatic and oilmen. The connection with the missionary community weakened. To Watsons bridge of friendship was added the bridge between Western Christianity and Moslem lands - a bridge of nations, not religions. In 1956, just eight years after Watsons death, no prayers were said at the ceremony inaugurating the new academic year. Secularization was in vogue, which enabled the university to flourish long after the events of 1967. Sharkey argues that the missionary encounter in Egypt converted Watson and AUC without overturning his personal faith. (:176). But his contribution to Christian mission is largely forgotten. The institutes he founded, like the YMCA, struggled to define the Christian component of their work (:177). The case of Charles R. Watson and AUC shows how difficult it is to define the American missionary enterprise in this period precisely because its activities were so broad and because its participants described their mission in a weave of religious, cultural, and political terms. (:178) It would seem to me that in this shift of focus Watson lost contact with some important aspects of the gospel and in particular with the unique transforming power of Christ in the life of the individual. It is in this alone that our hope for real social transformation rests. Chapter 6: Turning to the Life of the Church: American Mission in an Age of Egyptian Decolonization and Arab-Israeli Politics With the upheavals that followed the World War II and the Suez Crisis the situation changed dramatically. Although Egypt had been technically independent since 1924, it was not until after the Nationalist Revolution of 1952 that Egyptians began to feel they were really independent.
With the creation of Israel, American missionaries in Egypt expressed their support for the Arabs of Palestine. Their outspokenness on what they consider to be a matter of justice helped them weather the first Arab-Israeli war (1948-49), the Free Officers revolution (1952) and the Suez Crisis (1956). But at the same time the regulation of what could and could not be done in schools became increasing tightened, prompting the American Presbyterian missionaries to focus less attention on institutions and more on the life of the Egyptian church. E. M. Bailey suggested that they should let the government bear the burden of running schools and concentrate on providing good Christian programs at the weekend. In time all churches, including the Coptic Orthodox, switched their attention to Sunday schools. In 1963 a law stating that all directors of schools be Egyptians was implemented and the remaining schools were all transferred to the Coptic Evangelical Church. The missionaries developed friendships across denominational lines. Indeed, the social scene had changed so much ... that American missionaries and Evangelical pastors were cooperating in rural development projects with the Catholic, Orthodox, and other smaller Protestant churches their predecessors had once regarded as rivals. (:181) At the same time the Evangelical community began to turn inward, focussing more on their own community. The much larger world of the Coptic Orthodox Church was on the periphery of our service, and the infinitely larger world of Islam was even more so. (Lorimer :208) This reflected an inward turn in America too, with an emphasis on social concern to the exclusion of evangelisation. By 1967 meetings of Muslim inquirers were a distant memory. [] Missionaries were no longer actively seeking to draw Copts to the Evangelical Church. By 1966 the Egyptian perception of Americans had dramatically changed, much of this due to American support for Israel. The Evangelical Church asked Americans to stop attending their meetings - Evangelical Christians could not afford to be seen with them. In the winter of 1966-67 the mission decided that the time had come to disband. But in the wake of American support for Israel during the Six-Day War they were forced to leave Egypt immediately. At the same time the Evangelical Church reiterated its support for Egypt and Palestine. John Coventry Smith observed:
In 1967 the Six-Day left us struggling to find ourselves in its aftermath. The Christian community, including its leadership, was utterly unprepared for the questions that this raised. We did not have a clear theological position about the Jews, the foreign mission wing was sympathetic with the Arabs, and the national
426
mission wing had friends in the Jewish community and tended to side with them. (:213)
In the aftermath of the war it wasnt comfortable being an American in the Middle East. But later the government authorities asked the local Christians, What did we do to offend the missionaries? Please let them know that we know the difference between politicians and the missionaries, and we appreciate their work. Tell them that they will always be welcome. (:214) On their return the focus was on service to the Christian communities. CONCLUSION: A MISSION TRANSFORMED The presence of the American Presbyterians in Egypt had an influence on society and its institutions that went well beyond the Christian communities. But overall the Protestant community still remained a minority. The history of the Presbyterian mission was more than a history of religion, it was a history of ideas and ideas have power. (:218) While some missionaries may have felt uncomfortable with the Laymans Reports recognition of merit in non-Christian religions and it advocacy of a common search for truth,
[by] the 1960s, Presbyterians were approaching missions in much the same way that the report had suggested, that is, in a liberal ecumenical mode that emphasized social service and cooperation outside denominational boundaries. (:227) If the American Presbyterians in Egypt moved toward an increasingly liberal version of Protestantism, then this was not only because of developments in the home church ... but also because their experiences in Egypt convinced them that religious traditions could stifle and oppress and that departures from social conventions could lead to social progress. (:227)
Watson in particular saw liberalism as a move away from convention and the route to social change. Similarly John Lorimer suggested that, No Christian missionary ... can serve for long in a Muslim society without experiencing ambivalence about his relation to Muslims and the validity of his mission in a Muslim world. (:222) In speaking of the legacies of the American Mission, Lorimer paid no tribute to Kamil Mansur, but rather to forthright Muslims who expressed admiration for Christ and Christianity, e.g. Shaikh Zaki, Fatima Hamza - neither of whom would dream of becoming Christians. Watson suggested that a person could be Christian in spirit without necessarily acknowledging a Christian identity - religious labels were of secondary importance. James Quay called one student a Christian Moslem, who reciproSt Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 427
cated by calling Quay a Moslem Christian. He wrote, Whenever you expose a man to the influence of Christ and as a result, some aspect of the mans character is changed for the better, you have converted that area of his life to the Gospel. (:224). Sharkey questions whether one can really love a Muslim without loving his religion. She relates a story told by Martha Roy about a child who chided her for saying she loved them, but did not love their religion which was a part of them. Loving Muslims meant coming to terms with their Muslim identities. Whereas the term Evangelical had once been synonymous with Protestantism, this is no longer the case. The use of the term was much debated by the Presbyterian missionaries. Kenneth Nolin associated the word Evangelical with the gospel, the injl, referring to the fact that the Qurn recognises al-injl as a sacred scripture. John Lorimer was reluctant to surrender the term evangelical, but used it in a wider sense - they were evangelical in the best sense of the word, as distinct from fundamentalism. By the time the Missionary Association disbanded in 1967, the American Presbyterian missionaries were liberals in [other] important ways also. The Christian population was open to the selection of women as church elders and the ordination of women as ministers in ways that the Evangelical Church was not. A century of ruminating on the need for religious liberty and the freedom to profess beliefs that ran counter to tradition had transformed the missionaries into freethinkers of a kind. (:228) These are compelling arguments, but I am not sure that I agree. There seems to be a confusion of categories here. The lack of progress in the realm of recognizing the legality of conversion away from Islam - a cause close to the heart of all the missionaries - surely suggests that Islam is different, and therefore offers an alternative vision of the future. The choice between Muhammad and Jesus is a real choice.
428
BOOK REVIEW OF: BARBARA MACGOWAN COOPER, EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS IN THE MUSLIM SAHEL (INDIANAPOLIS, 2006)
By Duane Alexander Miller1 In this volume Cooper has provided us with a valuable study of the history of the SIM evangelical missionary work in Niger. Chapters are devoted to different challenges and issues surrounding the mission and she examines sensitive questions like the relationship between the missionaries and the locals, the status of health-care missions in an evangelical milieu where evangelism and conversion are most valued, and gender relations. The author does a good job highlighting the curious in-between status of the SIM-born missions today; tese have been around much longer than the new crop of Pentecostal churches, but are still treated with suspicion by many of the Muslims, especially those who have been deeply affected by Islamist reform movements emanating from the Gulf. There are occasional errors, like when she embarrassingly refers to CamCampus Crusade for Christ as 'Campus Crusades'. She could really cut back at times on her own theological musings, something for which she is not trained. When she engages in critiquing SIM's theology it sounds, well, a little fundamentalist - just the kind of fundamentalism you find on the left, and not the right.
Duane A. Miller teaches at Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary
429
BOOK REVIEW OF: ALEXANDER ROBB, THE HEATHEN WORLD AND THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH (EDINBURGH 1863) By Duane Alexander Miller1 This is the sort of rare gem one finds in the lower-level stacks of an old library like that of New College, the School of Divinity of Edinburgh University. Reading such venerable volumes can teach one a lot about the state of Christian missionwhere it was at a given period of time, and what sort of discourse was being employed by churchmen at the time. Alexander Robb, a missionary in Nigeria, presents his church of the time with a forceful and passionate argument for mobilizing missionaries and supporting the work. He, The Rev. Alexander Robb, deals with the normal questions that missionaries today still face: why support mission work when there are few converts? (God is sovereign, we don't see fruit sometimes because we'll get proud, etc.); what is the relation between commerce and mission in the (then) age of empire? (Let them each go their own way); is there possibility for salvation for the heathen without the Gospel? (Even if there is, we should act as if there is not). It is a short little volume, and on the whole he does a good job of providing answers that even today seem, well, let's say less stale than other missionary texts of the mid-19th century. On the negative side, he starts the book with a catalogue of the inhumane vices of the heathen. It all seems a little overblown, but later on he strikes a balance by insisting that these are indeed human beings made in the image of God. One wishes for a little more sympathy and willingness to find positive aspects of the heathens' cultures, but Robb doesn't see much there.
Duane A. Miller teaches at Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

430

Complete Issue SFM April 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete Issue SFM April 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST.

296 327 395 403 414

FROM THE EDITORS DESK BY REV DR JOHN STRINGER

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

Douglas Pirkey reported the speaker as saying:

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

The relationship was diagrammed as follows:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

present may be.

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

Smith, pp. 40-41.

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

E-mail correspond by P.V.B with author (February 13, 2010).

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

JESUS IS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)

St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010)