Untitled - St.Francis Magazine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 2 | April 2012 narrative development of Jesus’ authority culminates in his commission of the disciples (28:18-‐20). In this commission Jesus declares that all authority on earth and in heaven had been given to him (compare with Matt. 11:25), affirming his role as the Messiah and Lord of all. The subsequent baptismal formula makes his unlimited range of authority intelligible as well as explains why Jesus enjoyed a unique relationship with God. The baptismal formula is the climax of Matthew’s Christological development and portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, demonstrating that Jesus is not only God’s regal, messianic representative of Israel, God’s true son, but that he is also God -‐ God the Son. 63 What had been developing narratively in the was preexistent. However, as Adela Collins points out, we should be cautious of injecting this meaning into these sayings because Jesus parallels John’s coming to his own in Matt. 11:17-‐18 and in Luke 7:33-‐34. In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls use the verb ‘come’ to “express an eschatological role (being ‘sent’ by God) without implying preexistence” (Collins 2008, 123-‐126). 63 This biblical analysis concurs with these words of Craig Keener: “Many NT texts explicitly associate the title ‘son of God; with ‘Christ,’ probably reflecting the earliest Jewish-‐Christian use of the term. Jesus himself at the very least used implied intimacy with the father when he addressed God as ‘Abba’ (Mark 14:36), an Aramaic title which carried over into the early church (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) and must be original with Jesus. In the messianic context of Jesus' ministry, however, the title surely meant more. Among the Gospels, ‘Son of God’ becomes particularly prominent in John and Matthew. In none of the Jewish senses listed above does ‘Son of God’ imply ‘God the Son,’ nor necessarily divinity at all, nor biological relation to God (it is not biological even in Luke 1:35), those senses of the Christian term to which Islam, for example, so strenuously objects. Vermes is plainly correct when he declares that Judaism could use ‘son of God’ to refer: ‘in an ascending order, to any of the children of Israel; or to a good Jew; or to a charismatic holy Jew; or to the king of Israel; or in particular to the royal Messiah; and finally, in a different sense, to an angelic or heavenly being. In other words, 'son of God' was always understood metaphorically in Jewish circles. In Jewish sources, its use never implies participation by the person so named in the divine nature." “But granted that deity is neither a necessary nor the usual sense of the term in the Synoptics (where it probably bears the sense of Messiah), the Fourth Gospel 206
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 2 | April 2012 Gospel through what Jesus had said and done is now stated overtly. In addition, Matthew closes his Gospel with Jesus promising his omnipresence, a promise only God could fulfill. 64 Upon reading this commission of Jesus to his disciples any first century Jewish reader would have understood the full meaning of the Isaianic prophecy with which Matthew opened his Gospel. Jesus was much more than the chosen, Davidic, messianic king who enjoyed divine sonship, much more than a symbol of God’s presence; Jesus was and is “God with us.” 5. Conclusion As one can see, acknowledging historical context impacts how we understand the texts. Though the texts interpret history for us so we can understand what God was doing, they accurately reflect what happened in history for us. Our faith is not based on “cleverly devised myths” but upon what God has done for us in space and time. When the texts are read through this biblical theological lens a distinction between divine sonship and divine ontology emerges; yet, this distinction does not diminish the fact that Jesus, the Son of God, is God the Son. This reading simply reflects a background not only in Judaism but in six decades of early Jewish Christian teaching. Is it not possible that the association of the term with Jesus, who was identified as deity for other reasons, would eventually invest this term with new significance? The expression in the Fourth Gospel means far more than "Messiah," although the expression itself is never made to bear the weight of Christ's deity provided by other components of the narrative. One title that actually does seem to intrinsically connote Jesus' deity in much early Christian tradition as well as in the Fourth Gospel is John's post-‐resurrection title ‘Lord’ (20:28)” (2003, 296-‐297). 64 This was not the first time in Matthew that Jesus promised his presence. See also Matt. 18:20. However, for the non-‐initiated reader, this final promise linked to the baptismal formula may have made the previous promise more understandable. 207
Page 1:
By Arab Vision & InterserveVol 8, N
Page 4 and 5:
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 18 and 19:
18 - เอกสารวิชา
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53: St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
show all

Untitled - St.Francis Magazine

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?