If the phrase “son of God” is tantamount to blasphemy to Muslims, is it acceptable to translate the phrase differently into Arabic in the name of making the gospel known?
That’s a question that Bible translators and missionaries are continually wrestling with, and it got substantial air time in this month’s Christianity Today, in an article by Colin Hansen, “The Son and the Crescent.” 
The issues are complex. On the one hand, many Muslims find that merely uttering the phrase “son of God” is unspeakable (and unhearable) blasphemy. On the other hand, Christian theology depends on the Father-Son language to accurately describe the relationship between Jesus and God.
Reading through the various opinions on how the phrase should be translated, I found myself having a mixed reaction.
It was interesting to me that the most vociferous opposition came from folks who were afraid that the doctrine of the Trinity would be compromised by changing the translation.
I thought that these fears were overblown, reflecting an over-theologized reading of many texts. In fact, one of the professors interviewed for the article, who opposed translating “son of God” as “Messiah,” perhaps inadvertently underscored how this objection misses the mark:
“‘Messiah’ is not an adequate substitute for ‘Son of God.’ Both have the same referent, namely Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. But they do not have the same meaning… The Greek expressions for ‘Messiah’ and ‘the Son of God’ do have similar meanings, in that both, in many contexts, indicate something about Jesus’ role as kingly ruler under commission from God…. But ‘Son of God,’ unlike ‘Messiah,’ indicates an analogy with a human family relationship…”
What I find so interesting about this quote is its recognition that Messiah does, in fact, connote the same thing as Son of God–i.e., a kingly ruler. Moreover, there may even be an awareness here that the idea of Israel’s king as “son of God” is something that applied to David and Solomon as well as to Jesus.
So there are many places (e.g., the baptism, confession, and transfiguration narratives in the Synoptics) where “Messiah” is a very good translation.
But then comes John. And in John, this “son of God” language is stretched beyond “Messiah” to a preexistent relationship between the father and the son. Indeed, at at least one point in the narrative the whole point of the “son of God” language seems to be to give offense to the Jews who would not hear of a man being equal to God.
At some point, the biblical, Christian confession of Jesus as Son of God will have to come through.
So I am sympathetic to those who want to minimize the offense. In part I’m sympathetic not only because I think that other translations are helpful to the readers’ understanding but also because the fortress mentality of the literalists, and the fear that is driving them to cling to literal wording, does not convey to me either realization of how contexualized all our readings are, or faith in the power of God to use even imperfect means to bringing people to salvation.
I also worry that behind the opposition to “son of God” as “Messiah” is a misunderstanding about the heart of Christian confession. Too often, in certain circles, I get the feeling that the Christian confession of faith is “Jesus is God,” but the earliest church said, instead, “Jesus is Lord.”
I think it’s no mistake to allow Muslims an entree into the church by standing in solidarity with those early Christians who said, “Jesus is Lord,” and allowing fuller, further investigation into scripture and the theology of the church to bring them through the process of coming to understand that yes, this risen Lord, son of God as King of the Cosmos, is also, mysteriously, and at the same time, the one through whom all things came into being.
This reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Rev. Rick Warren’s invited prayer at the inauguration of Pres. Barack Obama; he prayed to “Yeshua, Esa, Jesus.”
I just wish someone could warn the Christians translating for Muslims not to paint “them” with too broad a brush. Having lived a few years in the largest Muslim country, I know first-hand how Islamic peoples are not monolithic. And from country to country, the cultures and religious practices vary some. Most do not want translation, not of the scriptures anyways, not of the holy al-Qur’ān. What’s wrong with translating the phrase in question “the so-called Son of God” or footnote to say that this is what the Jews associating with Esa called him? Anyways, a good visual for westerners and especially evangelical Christian westerners trying to get Muslims to know their scriptures is here (see that some of their new friends will be much more open and tolerant than is often reported and imagined):
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/
Thanks for addressing this. I had a lot of the same feelings when I was reading the article. No one has an understanding of the complete faith when they “come to Jesus” and some of the critics gave me the impression that they operate as though the Bible were originally written in English.
One of my fb friends posted this good response to the CT article:
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/blog/post/bible-translations-for-muslim-readers
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
It is important to understand when is the need to use dynamic equivalents and when not to. I am surprised by the reactions of theologians many of whom I respect. One needs to get in through the door before one can speak to the inhabitants. And people must be positively responsive to the language we use before they hear us.
Eventually we must reach a point where we have to share that Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord if any investigation into the claims of Christianity is to be fruitful. But its does not have to start at the beginning. Muslims acknowlege Isa as a special prophet and expect his coming again!
It is such literalists from the Muslim people in Malaysia that wants the Malaysian government to prevent Christians from using Allah to refer to the Christian God. We are involved in a complicated court case at this moment to allow us to use the word Allah.
Daniel
You’re nothing if not provocative to literalists like me. Probably why I drop in so ofter,
What do you see as the difference between ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is Lord’… ontologically and functionally?
Lord is a function, God is an ontology.
God is Lord of the cosmos, but God also entrusts this rule to other humans: humanity in Gen 1, the Davidic king in Psalm 2. Jesus as one enthroned at God’s right hand and therefore ruling the cosmos on God’s behalf, “Lord,” is an earlier aspect of Christian confession than divinity.
‘“Lord,” is an earlier aspect of Christian confession than divinity’
What sort of time frame are you thinking of here?
1Cor 8:4-6 (ESV)
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth-as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Paul alludes to the Shema. God is One. The shema said
Deut 6:4 (ESV)
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Paul takes the title for God – God -and applies it to the Father. He then takes the other name – Lord – and applies it to Christ. The teaching is clear Christ is Yahhweh; he is deity.
Then why did he say that there is one God, the Father, and distinguish the Lord Jesus? If he wanted to communicate that Jesus was deity, it would seem that he should have included him in the “God” part.
Daniel
I think we have both ontological and functional here. The shema quotation underlines the implicit ontological. He is included in this sense in the God part. However, function is involved too. God made himself known as Yahweh, the God of relationship; the Lord. This functional relationship is Christ’s for relationship is ‘through him’. He as you say rules.
But when are you saying divinity is confessed?
At our church we’ve just begun a series on 1 Corinthians. What I’m finding fascinating is that the church in Corinth was likely heavily Greek and yet Paul’s references to Israel’s history (10:1-13) or Adam’s & Eve’s union (6:16) are distinctly Jewish.
There’s no doubt Paul adjusted the trappings of his message for his various audiences (9:22), but it is interesting that he makes no apologies for his Jewish heritage and he keeps his language loaded with scriptural allusions, even in Gentile contexts.
Hi Mike
I agree. Good comment. I think a proper Bible is what is required and then ‘someone to explain it’. We must take care we are not accused of underhand methods that may compromise the gospel.
That said, I do see some of the practical problems.
Thanks for the post. I found the CT article just yesterday and found it fascinating. I can see both sides but find a solution in my own mind difficult. I’m considering making Bible translation with NTM or Wycliffe my life’s work, and I’ve heard of things like this. Normally I would lean toward contexualizing; I think that is what John did when he used the word ‘logos’ for Jesus as a way to connect to Greek culture and philosophy – that the logos everybody is wondering about is actually God who became flesh, Jesus Christ. But ‘Son of God’ is a such a watershed term in Scripture and Christian theology… I don’t know!!
But more importantly than forming our own opinions on this, we really ought to pray for the translators working on these hard issues. At least that’s what I would want if I were in their shoes.
“Lord” is commonly used by Muslims when addressing Allah. It is common in the Qur’an as well. I don’t know what is worse for my Muslim friends, hearing Jesus called the “Son of God” or “Lord.” Both titles are repugnant.
Andrew Walls in “The Missionary Movement in Christian History” (1996) indicates that the first use of “Lord” in Acts 11:20 by Jewish Christians with Greek-speaking pagans could have resulted with “the recognition of the Lord Jesus as one more cult divinity alongside the Lord Serapis or the Lord Osiris” (34). Talk about a serious translation issue in the Septuagint! Claiming Jesus as “Lord” actually “sharpened the confrontation of early Christianity with the popular religion of the Greco-Roman world” (35). The Septuagint would certainly be labeled syncretistic by today’s standards, and yet look how it was used of God.
Communicating the “lordship” of Jesus to Muslims is perhaps an even more problematic issue than his “sonship” because of all the different words for “Lord” in other languages (especially Arabic).
I heard somewhere that the term “son of God” is a very “technical term” in the sense that it does not refer to any biological relationship at all. It is an expression used in the Aramaic language to mean the closeness of Jesus to God. For example if a girl is beautiful it is customary to say that she is “the daughter of beauty; if a man is courageous, the expression is he is a “son of courage”. Similarly if a person is close to God it is customary to use the phrase “son of God”.
Finally we should remember that these are finite, human expressions to communicate an infinite, divine reality. No matter how we express it, we will faulter; we will be inaccurate – simply because we are finite human beings.
Dont you think so?
Goorge Ponodath