What does this mean? Dropping the “Son of God”

This is my Son… the Christ?

Over the past few months, Wycliffe Bible Translators (the largest Bible translation organization in the world) and its partner SIL International have come under fire for producing Muslim-friendly translations of the Scriptures which replace references to the “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” with less familial language—ostensibly so as not to offend Muslims when witnessing. In one Arabic translation, for example, the word “Father” is replaced by “Lord” and the word “Son” by “Messiah.” Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God, but not the Son of God—to them, the latter phrase implies God had sexual relations with Mary.

The practice of dropping “Son of God” when translating the Bible has received widespread criticism. In June 2011, the Presbyterian Church of America approved an overture calling “unfaithful to God’s revealed Word” any translation that removes “from the text references to God as ‘Father’ or Jesus as ‘Son.’” In response, Wycliffe/SIL developed a new set of guidelines affirming their commitment to Trinitarian theology and suggesting that ‘Son of God’ and related familial language should normally be maintained” when translating—but not, they continued, “at the expense of comprehension.” That decision has failed to placate critics; a petition recently posted online has already generated more than 2,800 signatures.

In his “Open Letter on Translating,” Martin Luther said that it is important to translate Scripture in such a way that the common person—even little children—can understand it. “We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly,” he writes. But how far is too far? When does cultural sensitivity in translation obscure the actual Gospel? We asked a few Lutheran thinkers for their takes on the issue:

Rev. Dr. Stephen Chambers
Associate Professor of New Testament Exegetical Theology at Concordia Lutheran Seminary (Edmonton, Alberta)

I don’t know if this is part of their conscious motivation or not, but those who favour dropping the term ‘Son of God’ might be able to claim some authority from St. Paul. He was flexible in mission, willing to become all things to all people in order to save some (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). According to this principle, it seems wrong to insist on the use of any one particular term in expressing the faith. Every translation of the Gospel from one language into another gives up some of the nuance of the source language in order to gain a better hearing in the target language. That’s just how translation works. If total consistency is the number-one priority, shouldn’t we all be reading the Scriptures in their original languages? So, from this angle, these translators seem justified in giving up the term ‘Son of God’ for the sake of mission.

On the other hand, there’s another principle drawn from the same letter, by the same author, that’s even more important. Paul knew that the Holy Spirit can and does overcome all kinds of barriers in bringing people to faith. The greatest offense is the Gospel itself: Christ crucified for us (1 Cor 1:22-29). Despite that offense, the Spirit somehow enables Christians to say, “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor 12:3). And this, I think, changes the discussion completely. Sure, the term ‘Son of God’ may be offensive to many Muslims. But don’t we believe the Holy Spirit can and will overcome that offense, precisely by working through—not around—the words of Scripture? The translator’s job, from this angle, is to be courageous enough to say what the Bible itself says. That’s where the power to change hearts and lives comes from: from the Spirit working through the Word.

The term ‘Son of God’ may be offensive to Muslims. But don’t we believe the Holy Spirit can and will overcome that offensive precisely by working through the words of Scripture?

In particular, the phrase ‘Son of God’ is a key expression in the Word. The God we worship is not remote and inaccessible, the way Muslims picture Allah. Rather, God can and does seek intimate and familial relationships—within the mystery of the Trinity itself, and also with you and me. Paul did not mean that he was willing to change Christian doctrine, when he talked about being flexible for the sake of the Gospel. Regardless how offensive the term ‘Son of God’ may be, Christians should never be willing to let it be translated away for the sake of mission. Proper mission always promotes pure doctrine.

Rev. David Maffett
Executive Director of Lutheran Bible Translators of Canada

Proponents of excluding the terms ‘father’ and ‘son’ argue these words express a biological relationship resulting from sexual activity, and that other words can be substituted to express a social father/son relationship—that is to say, a non-biological relationship that is not the result of sexual activity. They argue that the Greek words pater (father) and uios (son) are social in meaning rather than biological. One article, for example, says, “It is important to realize that to express divine familial relationships, the Bible uses the Greek and Hebrew social familial terms, not the biological ones.”

But it’s not quite that simple. A quick look in at the Greek shows that word pater is used with teknon and pais (both words for ‘child’: Matthew 10:17 and Mark 9:24 respectively)—as well as with uios (the word for ‘son’ under debate: Lk 15:11-32)—in clear biological uses of the term. Zechariah is called John’s pater (Luke 1:67) and Paul circumcised Timothy because his pater was a Greek. So evidently the meaning of pater and uios are not limited to “social familial terms.” To claim that they are never used in biological sense when describing the relationship between Jesus and God the Father would be rather difficult.

In fact, the New Testament clearly establishes that the relationship between the Father and the Son is a sort of “biological” one. The Son comes from the Father and is of the same nature. Because we understand that the nature of this “biological” relationship cannot be the result of human sexual activity, we almost exclusively use the word ‘begotten’ to express this relationship between the Father and the Son. The problem is we don’t have a word in any human language to describe the begetting of the Son by the Father, nor the exact relationship between them. How could we? It’s something outside human knowledge and experience! But ‘father’ and ‘son’ are the terms God uses to reveal himself—much as He uses marriage language in the Old Testament to describe the relationship between God and Israel.

The relationship between the Father and the Son is a sort of “biological” one. The Son comes from the Father and is of the same nature.

Should we give up God’s chosen expressions just because they can be misunderstood or – maybe more accurately – be used by others to create misunderstanding? There are many language specialists in Muslim countries who say this supposed linguistic dilemma is really not a problem! We better think this out a little longer.

——————–

“What does this mean?” is a new series dedicated to exploring contemporary issues from a distinctly Lutheran perspective.

Print this article