Jesus, the Son of God: Biblical meaning, Muslim Understanding ...

St Francis Magazine Vol 7, No 3 | August 2011!What is the evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God's Son andthat God is His Father? Would first-century Jews have understoodthese terms to be just metaphors or idioms as some have claimed, orrather, as they read the inspired writings of Jesus' disciples wouldthey have understood Jesus to be God's Son in a more real sense?The New Testament begins with a Jewish author writing to aJewish audience, using a Jewish genealogy to show who Jesus is.To move the genealogy forward, Jesus' disciple Matthew uses theverb "fathered" (from the Greek verb !"##$%) forty times, so that(following the Greek text), "Abraham fathered Isaac, then Isaac fatheredJacob... David fathered Solomon..." and so forth, until thegenealogy reaches its goal/peak and culminates in verse 16 with adivine passive 4 in the sentence, "Then Jacob fathered Joseph, thehusband of Mary, from whom Jesus who is called Christ was fathered[by God]." It is interesting how all five times that Matthewmentions women in the genealogy (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah'swife and Mary) their role is not communicated with a verb, but witha prepositional phrase, the same phrase "from/by..." (Greek: ""&...")for each one. That pattern works together with the pattern of thefathers' role being communicated through the verb of each clause torivet attention on the final use of the verb in the genealogy when itis suddenly a divine passive, with God as the implied Father. 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 Bible scholars such as Leon Morris, Robert Gundry and Donald Hagner recognizethat Matthew uses a divine passive here.5 Matthew says in 1:17 that there are three sets of fourteen generations in his genealogy,but then only lists thirteen men in the last set. To remedy this apparentdiscrepancy, some Bible scholars have suggested counting one of the names in thegenealogy twice (for example, some include Jeconiah as a member of both the secondand third sets). However, if it is recognized that God is implied as Jesus' Fatherin verse 16, then Matthew's count is accurate as is and there is no discrepancy.There is also other evidence that Matthew intended to have the divine passivecomplete the pattern for the third set in his genealogy. For example, in order tohave fourteen individuals in each set (2 x 7 = double perfection), he left out at leastfour ancestors in the second set (including Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah from betweenJoram and Uzziah in verse 8, and Jehoiakim between Josiah and Jechoniah inverse 11), and he probably left out a few more in the third set (which is suggestedby the fact that in Luke 3 there are twenty-one, instead of only thirteen, men listedfor the same time period).St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision!#!