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

St Francis Magazine Vol 7, No 3 | August 2011!previous uses and understandings of "son (of God)"; all previousdefinitions and understandings are redefined in light of the historicalrecord of the facts surrounding Jesus' conception. 10More specifically, every instance in Matthew where Jesus is referredto as God's Son or where God is referred to as His Fatherwould be interpreted or reinterpreted by the Jewish audience inlight of the foundational definitions and context that Matthew carefullydeveloped in chapter one. In other words, all these Father-Sonreferences would be understood to be reality, not metaphor; eachtime Matthew's audience heard one of these terms, they would knowthat Jesus, whom they were hearing about, really was God's Son (asinterpreted and clarified by Matthew at the beginning of his Gospel).Luke also identifies who Jesus is in the early sentences of hisGospel so that his audience will interpret the rest of the book inlight of that knowledge. For example, in 1:35 Gabriel says to Mary,"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most Highwill overshadow you. So [that's why] 11 the holy one to be born [fromyou] will be called the Son of God." 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Son of God': Understanding the Messianic Titles of Jesus", in International Journalof Frontier Missions (Spring 2000), pp. 46–47]. However, as pointed out in the nextfootnote, Biblical authors sometimes provide their own redefinitions of termsthrough divine revelation. So it violates proper exegetical procedure to use theseextra-biblical sources to establish the meaning of Biblical terms without considerationof whether or not those terms have been redefined by New Testament authors.Similarly, Old Testament definitions or uses of "son (of God)" should not be usedto obscure the insight and further revelation given in the New Testament regardingits unique and expanded meaning as applied to Jesus.10 It is the nature of such revelation that it redefines all previously held views andunderstandings, including any prior perceptions of the meaning of "the Son ofGod" that first-century Jews may have had. In fact, participants in the Gospel accountswho used or heard the term "the Son of God" may or may not have understoodits full meaning; commentaries debate whether or not they did. But from theauthor-audience viewpoint, that is largely irrelevant since the author gives hisaudience insight that the participants didn't necessarily have. So the audience whoheard or read these written accounts would have understood the full, nonmetaphoricalmeaning of "the Son of God" in light of the context carefully set outby divine revelation through the Gospel writers, modifying any previous understandingsthey might have had about this term.St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision!%!