Evidence for the Resurrection
Jay Smith
99 Truth Papers
Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith
April 1997
Introduction
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead has always been a contentious area of discussion with the world. It is this event which has drawn the most criticism from the skeptics; and for very good reason. For the authority of Jesus’s teachings was based on His claim that He was the unique Son of God. Yet, Jesus was dependant on the resurrection from the dead to prove that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22, and John 2:19-21). It is, therefore, imperative that we go to the event of the resurrection to ascertain whether or not Jesus is who He says He is, and furthermore to ascertain whether the scriptures can be believed as the true Word of God. A key Scripture which points this out is 1 Corinthians 15:14-19:
“If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith…you are still in your sins…[you] are to be pitied more than all men.”
Thus, in order to have true faith in the scriptures, which maintain not only that Jesus is the Son of God, but that He is our saviour, we must believe in his BODILY RESURRECTION, because Christ’s bodily resurrection proves what Jesus claims for Himself, and proves the scriptures to be accurate, and therefore, authoritative!
We then come to the question of how we can know the authenticity of the resurrection? Is it only by faith? For if the resurrection proves who Jesus is, and by so doing also gives credibility to the scriptures, it is imperative that it can be shown to be historically trustworthy. And it is. Let me share with you eight reasons why:
1: The Prophets Spoke of it in the Old Testament
There are numerous places where the prophets spoke of the Messiah who would come first to suffer and then to triumph over that suffering, pointing to the death and resurrection. There are three passages in particular which speak of the Messiah’s death, followed by his victory:
Psalm 22: we read about agony and desolation in verses 1-21, followed by deliverance and faithfulness in verses 22-31.
Psalm 69: we read of a suffering man and death in verses 1-29, but then find praise and triumph in verses 30-36.
Isaiah 53: probably the most well-known chapter in the Old Testament which refers to the death and resurrection.Here in verses 1-9 we find some of the most vivid descriptions of a suffering and sacrificial servant. Yet, this is followed in verses 10-11 by the promise that the servant would see His offspring, that His days would be prolonged, and that He will see the fruit of His labours, all inferring a resolution to the misery and death which He would suffer.
All three point to the coming death and resurrection.
2: Jesus Foretold it in the New Testament
A number of times Jesus spoke of His impending death and resurrection prior to His death. He mentioned it:
To the Pharisees at the Temple, in John 2:19-21
On His way to Jerusalem He talked about it in Matthew 16:21, and Luke 9:22.
After Peter’s confession He referred to it in Mark 8:31.
At the Mount of Olives He prayed about it, in Mark 14:28.
3: The Historical Record Implies It
We also have Jewish and Roman Historians who refer to the crucifixion of Jesus:
Thallus, a Greek writer from around 50 AD talks of the Crucifixion, and even mentions the darkness and earthquakes which followed it.
Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in Rome around 93 A.D., mentioned not only Jesus’s death but the work of John the Baptist and Jesus’s brother, James.
Tacitus, a Roman historian in 115 A.D., speaks of the Crucifixion of Jesus, as does the author of a fifth century document named the Toledoth Jeshu.
As for the resurrection, we know it was referred to by first and second century Jews because of the writings of the early church father, Justin Martyr. He details how the Jews in the diaspora were fomenting the story that the empty tomb was caused by the disciples of Jesus who stole the body. They wouldn’t need the story if the tomb hadn’t been empty.
4: The Empty Tomb Provides Us With Evidence
This then leads us to the greatest evidence which we can point to: the empty tomb itself. What is as clear today as it has been for almost two thousand years, is that NO BODY HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED! Only some empty clothes. There has never been any dispute by the Jews, or the Romans or the Christians over the fact that the tomb was empty. Everyone is agreed on this point. The alternative would have been too difficult to prove. What is so amazing about this simple fact are the implications behind the empty tomb. In order to understand these implications, it might be good to remind ourselves of the scenario surrounding the tomb. Consider the following:
According to archaeological evidence a two-ton STONE would have been used as a doorway for the tomb. This would have been wedged into a slanted groove above and to the left of the entrance to the tomb. Once the body had been placed inside the tomb, the wedge would have been removed and the stone would have been rolled over the doorway to block any potential grave robbers. Yet this enormous stone was found laying up and away from the entrance of the tomb (see Mark 16, and John 20). It has been suggested that it would have taken almost twenty men to have accomplished such a feat.
A Roman SEAL (made up of a rope slung across the surface of the stone, and attached to the sides of the tomb wall) would have been fastened, to warn away robbers (Matthew 27:66). The punishment for defacing a Roman Seal was death, carried out by being crucified upside-down. This seal was missing when the empty tomb was discovered.
Sixteen GUARDS would have been stationed at the sepulchre (Matthew 27:66). Four immediately in front of the tomb, and the remaining twelve in groups of four fanning out in a semi-circle. These were not Jewish temple guards, but Roman legionnaires; the most disciplined fighting force of their era; the “creme-de-la-creme!” They would have all known that the penalty for sleeping on the job was execution, by being burned to death with their own clothes. The scriptures tell us that these guards, upon realizing that the tomb was empty, did not go back to their barracks, but went to the Jewish priests. Why? Because they knew they would not be believed by their own superiors, and would have been executed for sleeping on the job. They went to the temple priests to have them plead their case for them. And we know that the temple priests bribed the soldiers to tell the people that the disciples stole the body (refer to Matthew 28:11-15).
Recently in the town of Nazareth, a MARBLE SLAB was discovered, written in the name of Caesar (thus dating it to around the time of Jesus). On it was inscribed the penalty of death for anyone robbing or defacing a tomb. Yet, we know that prior to this time the crime for grave robbery only warranted a fine. It seems a stiffer penalty was suddenly imposed in the 1st century, due possibly to the embarrassment of Christ’s empty tomb.
* So we have an empty tomb, in which lay some empty grave garments. We have a two-ton stone moved up and away from the entrance, and the seal broken. On top of that we have sixteen of the best soldiers in the world befuddled as to how the stone, the seal, and the body could have been moved while they were standing on guard just a few feet away. On these points not too many people dispute.
There are however a few theories which are being bandied about by those trying to come up with excuses for the empty tomb. Some of them are quite comical. Let me just list them below:
The tomb was unknown to the disciples. Yet, Joseph of Arimathea must have known; as it was his tomb. The authorities and others must have known.
The women found the wrong tomb. If that were so, then did the whole world also find the wrong tomb? Because till this day no alternative has ever been produced.
The disciples and the women were only hallucinating. Why then did the Roman guards have to make such a fast retreat to the Jewish priests? Were they hallucinating too, at risk to their lives?
The body was stolen by the disciples. What then about the guards, and their witness? Can anyone imagine the timid disciples overpowering the Roman guards, moving the two-ton stone, and reviving a dead Jesus?
The Swoon theory is the favourite among some skeptics. Jesus, once in the cool cave, came to, with no wounds, and no garments. He then moved the two-ton stone, overpowered the guards and went about preaching a new religion!
The newest theory is called the Passover plot. Jesus, who knew he would be killed had himself drugged, and like the swoon theory, though wounded, came to, moved the stone, overpowered the guard, and changed the world?
5: The Many Post-Resurrection Appearances (15)
Along with this evidence are the many post-resurrection appearances. In all there were fifteen, over a period of forty days, and at different times of the day:
Mary Magdalene in the morning,
the Emmaus travellers in the afternoon, and
amongst the 11 apostles in the evening.
According to Paul, Jesus even appeared to 500 witnesses at one time (1 Corinthians 15). If each of them were to give six minutes of testimony, we would have 50 hours of testimony. Some of the witnesses were even hostile witnesses, such as Thomas, James and Saul (who later became Paul).
6: It Changed Their Lives
A further evidence is the change which came over the disciples. One may ask why should these disciples speak up about the resurrection? They were not sophisticated. They had no prestige, no wealth, and no social status. These disciples, who had fled when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, had denied him and hid in the upper room over the next few day, were now being beaten, stoned, thrown to the lions, tortured, and crucified for what they now knew. They were giving their lives to preach Christ’s resurrection. They certainly would not have changed so dramatically for a lie. Certainly this movement had something unique about it that other movements did not have.
We know of about a dozen other movements that arose in Palestine within a hundred years before and after the time of Jesus. One of the best known was an uprising led by a man called Judas the Galilean at about the time of the birth of Jesus. He along with hundreds of his followers were picked up by the authorities and crucified (Josephus, Antiquities, 17:271-298). About a hundred years after the death of Jesus another charasmatic individual, Simeon ben-Kosiba, led a revolution which attracted hundreds of followers, all believing he was the promised Messiah. They too were hunted down by the authorities and killed. In all these movements, the death of the leader signalled the death of the movement.
The rule was, that if your messiah’ was killed then obviously he was not the true messiah, and the best solution was to give up the cause or choose another from his family. Like the movements of that time, they could have chosen James the brother of Jesus as their new Messiah, since he was a leader at the centre of the early Jerusalem church for thirty years, until his death; but the early Christians refused to give him that status. That was the rule, yet the followers of Jesus continued to follow Jesus long after his death for one simple reason; their Messiah had not been defeated by death but had risen from the dead (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; and John 20-21). It was this fact alone which seperated Jesus from all those who came before or since, and for whom the disciples were willing to die. In fact all of the apostles except one died for this man who no longer lived, yet whose message had so changed their lives.
Yet it wasn’t only the apostles who were changed, for we find that even hostile Jewish witnesses believed. Take the many Jewish priests who became Christians, according to Acts 6:7, as well as the thousands of early converts who were all Jerusalem Jews. They were right there where the tomb was situated. They could easily have looked for the tomb themselves, and could have talked to the witnesses who had claimed to have seen Jesus, as I’m sure many did. Yet, they too chose to be persecuted for what they knew was true.
7: It Was the Foundation for a New Faith
This resurrection became the foundation for our faith today. That is why we worship on Sundays and not on Fridays (like the Muslims), nor on Saturdays (like the Jews). That is why we participate in the ritual of baptism (symbolizing the dying/living of Christ). And that is why we celebrate communion, to commemorate not only the death on the cross but the joy of resurrection from the grave.
8: Today, Learned Men Believe It
And finally, the resurrection can be believed because learned men, who have studied and researched it believe in it. Take for example:
Brooke Foss Wescott (a textual critic) who says: “There is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ.”
Dr. Paul L. Maier (professor of ancient history) maintains: “No shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the 1st Easter.”
Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: “According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.”
Dr. Frank Morrison (a rationalistic lawyer) decided to take three years off from his practice to disprove the resurrection. After three years of study, he found that the sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. As a consequence he wrote the book: Who Moved the Stone?
C.S.Lewis (a literary genius) was also interested in the accuracy of the resurrection. After evaluating the basis and evidence for Christianity, Lewis concluded that in other religions there was ‘no such historical claim as in Christianity.’ He was too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospel as myth. He had no other choice but to accept the resurrection as fact.
Conclusion
So what, then can we say concerning the resurrection? Can it be believed? If we add the testimony of the Old Testament prophets with those of Jesus, as well as all the historical data which we possess on the death and resurrection of Christ, and if we contemplate all the ramifications of the empty tomb, the many post-resurrection appearances, the changed lives of the disciples and the opinions of learned men today, we come away with a hugely well supported case for the validity of the resurrection.
Consequently, the evidence for the resurrection overwhelmingly supports the contention that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. This fact alone gives us substantial confirmation that the validity for our scriptures is likewise sound, which in turn encourages us in our preaching, knowing that what we say has and can be supported with evidence. It is this which undergirds not only our faith, but moves us on and out to share “Christ crucified and resurrected” with those who have yet to hear.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus: Its Significance
Jay Smith
99 Truth Papers
Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith
April 1997
Introduction
There are certain theological concepts or words which we share in common with the Muslims, though the meanings which we attach to them differ substantially, and even contradict completely with that which they attach to them? Five of these concepts or words which I feel are of importance are 1) the meaning of the title Messiah, 2) the fact of the Virgin Birth, 3) the concept of the Kingdom of God, 4) the Name for Jesus, and 5) the significance of the Sacrificial Lamb. What I find interesting is that while Christians place great importance on all of these five ideas, the Muslims though they recognize their existance in scripture, have no real concept of their importance, and at times do not even understand what they mean, or the significance they hold for the sources from which they were borrowed.
It is important, therefore, that we take these five ideas, or words, and explain their meanings from the Christian perspective, so that we can not only better speak to the issues they raise for our Muslim friends, but finally offer them the real significance which God had intended.
In another paper I introduced a discussion concerning the word Messiah. In that talk I was concerned that our Muslim friends be acquainted with the Messiah as He really is, and not as a person who, according to Muslims, is merely a prophet. I wanted them to see that our scriptures clearly defined Him as a person who was uniquely anointed by God, though He was equal with God. I wanted them to understand His mission was two-fold, to come initially as a suffering servant in order to take upon Himself the sins of the world, and then. as a consequence, to initiate the true Kingdom of God, which is here and now.
Until they understood the Messiah fully, they would continue using the title for Jesus as the “al-Masih,” yet fail to comprehend that as the Messiah, Jesus fulfilled all that God required of His creation, which negated any need for another prophet, or a further revelation, for that matter.
In this study I would like to continue with that same theme, and delve into the fact of the Virgin Birth, a fact which both Christianity and Islam agree upon, but which Islam has little understanding of, both historically and theologically. It is obvious that their idea for the virgin birth has been borrowed from Christianity, but without the meaning which the Bible has attached to it. It is for that reason that I would like at this time to help our Muslim friends understand the real significance of the virgin birth.
That Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit of God is an important belief for both Muslims and Christians. However, we are faced with the urgent question, “Why?” Why was Jesus born of a virgin? What does this tell us about Him? What kind of a person can be born only of a virgin? And why is this important to us today?
In the Qur’an, Mary asks the angel how she could be pregnant as, “no man hath touched [her]” (Sura 3:47). The angel answered that it was so decreed (Sura 19:20). Yet why should this child come in this manner? Most Muslims would shrug in ignorance, as the Qur’an never explains it.
At times like these, the Qur’an points the Muslim to those to whom the former revelations were given, the Christians. We read, “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord” (Sura 10:94; cf. 21:7).
Let us, therefore, go to these scriptures and ask them to explain this unique birth. Perhaps then we can see the real significance of Christmas as God intended.
[I] The Virgin Birth Delineates the Uniqueness of Jesus
The former scriptures say a number of things concerning Jesus. To begin with they say that He was:
Unique in His conception:
In the annals of history, no other human being has had such a marvelous conception. Not even Muhammad. All the rest of the human race stands together. Since the time of Adam and Eve we have all had two parents.
But, this one human, Jesus of Nazareth, stands alone as a kind of new, second Adam. He, alone, was born of a virgin. And this birth was unique in other respects as well.
We read in the Bible that the angel Gabriel foretold His conception (see Luke 1:24-37), and that a new and strange star appeared, indicating where He would be born. At the time of His birth angels proclaimed the event (see Luke 2:8-14), and before He could talk wise men from the East came to worship Him (see Matthew 2:11). John the Baptist, also miraculously born (though not virgin-born), while still a baby in the womb, leapt for joy as soon as Mary, with the newly conceived Jesus, arrived.
Unique in His sinlessness:
His life, consequently, echoed the way He came into the world. In Luke chapter 4 we read that the devil came to tempt Jesus as he had tempted the first Adam, but was unable to corrupt Him. Jesus stayed absolutely obedient to His Word. Unlike the rest of humanity He never sinned.
Unique in His power:
His uniqueness was displayed in many ways. In Luke 3:22, 4:1,14 etc… we are told that the Spirit of God, the power of the highest, rested upon Him. As a result Jesus went about doing endless miracles; healing the sick, controlling nature itself, and raising the dead. He knew what people were thinking, where they had been, what they had done without ever asking them. He could even tell the future. All of this shows us that here was a man who knew far more of the power of God than any other human who has ever lived.
Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Jesus lived in an endless display of the power of the Spirit of God. There was no limit to what He could do in the service of God. Nobody found Him unable to meet their need.
Unique in His message:
His uniqueness was witnessed in other areas as well. Jesus was not just an ordinary man chosen by God to bear a very important message. His message received its authority from Himself. He did not get His authority from His message. In other words, with Jesus, His teaching is less important than the man Himself. He told people to follow Him, and not just to follow His teaching. Even when He taught, the people were not so amazed at what He said as the power and authority He had in His teaching (see Luke 4:32).
The virgin birth of Jesus, therefore, helps us to focus our attention on the man Himself. It is proof that here is someone totally new, totally different, indeed, totally unique. No other prophet, indeed, no other person could come close to making the claims He made, or do the things He did. For this reason His birth was important in announcing the uniqueness of who He was.
[II] The Virgin Birth Points to the Purity of Jesus
But that was not all. The virgin birth also signified that Jesus was not of the line of Adam. Because He did not have two parents, He was exempted from Adam’s line. Now, you may ask why this is so important? Why should Jesus not be born in the line of Adam just like every other human being? Why must He not be a descendant of Adam? Why is this fact significant?
To answer this we need to take a long step back, in fact to the very beginning of creation. In the Taurat (Genesis 1) we learn that God created all living creatures with the ability to reproduce themselves. To produce offspring “after their own kind.” From the beginning of creation we see that God established a very important principle, that “like produces like.”
We see this illustrated on a small scale every day in the way that a child inherits various physical and personal characteristics from its parents, its skin colour, its racial features, even specific likenesses, such as long noses, or body height and weight, or personality traits.
[A] That which comes from Adam is sinful:
On a larger scale, however, we can see that we all possess the basic humanity that Adam and Eve have passed down to us through the myriad of generations since the time of creation. Yet, when we think of humanity, we tend to assume that this likeness pertains to physical attributes alone. But there is more to it than that. Adam passed down to us more than those characteristics which separate us from other animals or living things, such as the apes or reptiles. And here is where the problem lies.
When we read the book of Genesis, we discover that immediately following the story of creation, and the beginning of the human species as we know it, comes the story of the beginning of sin.
The Taurat tells us this story of sin in the events leading to the Fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. In disobeying God, by eating the fruit that Eve gave to him, Adam brought a judgment and curse upon not only all of his descendants, but upon the universe itself.
In Genesis 2:17, we learn that the very earth was cursed because of Adam’s disobedience. As a result of his disobedience, Adam would die and rot away and go back into the dust from which he was formed. He would, therefore, not enjoy perfect life, or health and happiness in the garden of Eden. Nor would he be in relationship with the Lord, as had been intended.
Before they rebelled against God, Adam and Eve were innocent, unashamed by their nakedness, and totally happy with God. After their sin they had changed substantially. Now, suddenly, they were ashamed of their nakedness. They tried to hide away from God. They now understood what evil was, and how it differed from what was good.
So, although Adam had been created very good, free from all moral pollution or physical danger, yet, he, by disobeying God, had brought about death, shame and corruption into his own heart, together with his wife, Eve. Sin had now entered the world, and had permeated Adam and his wife Eve.
In Genesis 5:3 we are told that Adam produced offspring “in his own likeness, after his own image.” Again, we find the old dictum that, “like produces like.”
Adam had defiled his own humanity. He had brought a curse upon himself from God. He had become guilty and sinful. Adam’s children were, likewise, the same. They too were corrupt and cursed. “Like produces like.” Take for instance the very first son of Adam, who was Cain. What did he become? A murderer. And from then on we are not surprised to read that the history of humanity is filled with murder, hate and jealousy.
Therefore, we have a chain of human life reaching back to Adam, the consequence of whose sin has affected us all. Because of that original sin by Adam we are all imputed with the guilt of sin, the wages of which is death.
Today we see those consequences all the time. We notice that children are naturally selfish and disobedient. They need to be disciplined to be good. And as we all know, the natural tendency for humans is to behave badly, putting themselves as their own highest authorities, and their thoughts are so often shameful. Even Muslims admit that Muhammad, whom they believe to be the highest example for us to follow, himself, did what was wrong and had to pray about his sins (Surah). Indeed, as Romans 3:10 says, “There in no-one righteous, not even one.” We have all been imputed with the sin of Adam, as “Like has produced like,” right on down through the annals of history, till today. But there is one exception.
[B] That which comes from God is sinless:
There is one who never did anything wrong. He went against the norm. He was sinless, the only man who ever was, and His name was Jesus, the sign promised by the prophet Isaiah. He had to be like that because of who He was and what His mission would be.
Jesus could not be a son of Adam. He could not be a descendent of the corrupt and cursed Adam. Therefore, He was conceived from a Holy source, from God himself. By His virgin birth, He was not imputed with the sin which the rest of us were imputed. He was different, because His Father was different. Remember the dictum, “Like produces like.”
Jesus shared the characteristics of His Father. By this we do not mean that He was conceived by God in a sexual way. No, from scripture we are told that the power of the highest miraculously worked to produce a conception in Mary’s Virgin womb. But that child carried the nature of God within Him, as He was “God with us-Immanuel.”
Here was a child that was described by Gabriel as a “holy one.” This child was not part of that chain of curse and corruption reaching back to Adam. Here was a new Adam, a new, fresh, human being. Here was a human that was not under the curse of God. In fact, in Luke 3:22, we read that God spoke from heaven, saying that Jesus was His Son whom He loved and that He was well pleased with Him. There was no shame or guilt or corruption in this man.
As proof of this we find that His holiness did not go unnoticed, even by those who were not of His group, those who persecuted Him, and despised Him. At the end of His life, Pilate said that He could find nothing wrong with Jesus, and so washed his hands of his execution. In Luke 4:34 even a demon identified Him as the “Holy One of God.”
We know that like produces like, so we know that Jesus shared the same nature as His father. Yet, you may ask, what about His mother? He had a human mother did He not? That is true, He did. It is because He had a human mother that we know that He also had a human nature. Due to His virgin birth Jesus had the nature of a human and the nature of God, yet He remained one person. The significance of His two natures would take pages to explain. Suffice it to say that in Jesus, God is revealed in human form as God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). His virgin birth, however, underlies these two natures: born of a woman, providing Him His humanity, yet born of a virgin, underlining His divinity.
And, some believe, it is important that it was through his mother and not his father that He came to earth. If we were to look at the story of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3, we find that it was Adam who received the warning from God not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Eve had not yet been created. Therefore, Adam had the higher authority to keep this promise. In chapter 3, when Eve took the fruit and ate it, she was not alone. Adam was with her according to verse 6. Historically, the church has taught that the blame for the sin of eating the fruit was uniquely Eves, because she was the first to eat it. Yet, Adam was right there witnessing the act and he did nothing to stop her. He therefore, is as culpable as her, and in some respects possibly more-so, as it was to him that the warning had originally been given. Eve only heard about it 2nd-hand from Adam.
For this reason, one can say that the guilt for having eaten the fruit could be greater for Adam than for Eve. It is therefore, of more importance that Jesus be descended from Eve and not Adam, to be fully exonerated from the guilt of that first sin.
[C] That which comes from Eve is fulfilled:
If we stay in the 3rd chapter of Genesis, and verse 15, we find a prophecy spoken by God concerning the descendant of Eve and Satan. God says, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” God in this verse is foretelling the event of the cross which was to happen thousands of years later. What He is saying here is that an offspring of Eve would crush the head of Satan. We know this happened on the cross and the subsequent resurrection, when Jesus finally destroyed the work of Satan by triumphing over death.
What is interesting is that God did not say the offspring of Adam, nor did God say “their offspring,” referring to the two of them. He purposefully mentions “her” offspring, pointing to the female side of the created parent, since Eve stands for all of woman-hood (as can clearly be seen in the subsequent prophecies in vs. 16 which only women can suffer). Therefore, the person to fulfill this prophecy had to be a woman. Essentially what is happening here is that God is pointing to the virgin birth, since Adam’s offspring would not be involved in this birth, absolving Him from Adam’s sin. The virgin birth has thus added importance, because it fulfills the prophecy which God gave to Eve way back at the dawn of creation.
[III] The Virgin Birth signifies the Divinity of Jesus
Yet, that is not all. The virgin birth has other significance for us today, as well. According to the book of Isaiah, we find that this unique child would be a sign to the people of Israel. In chapter 7, verse 14 we read:
Isaiah 7:14 “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”
What was the sign which the virgin birth was to announce? It was that a child named Immanuel was to be conceived. This was no ordinary name, for this was no ordinary child. Immanuel means “God with us.” Therefore the child’s name signified who the child was; this child was “God with us.” Here then is the sign. God, Himself, was to come through this virgin birth.
In The Injil, in the book of Matthew 1:18-25, we are told that this prophecy is fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus, the Christ (another name for Messiah). Before Mary and Joseph had any sexual relations, Mary was pregnant “through the Holy Spirit.” In verse 20 we are told that her conception was an act of the Holy Spirit, not by sexual intercourse (as some Muslims claim the scripture is saying), but by a miracle.
In Luke 1:26-2:52, we read in more detail of the conception and birth of Jesus. There are too many verses for us to read at this time, but the gist can be summed up as follows: The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her that her virgin-born child will be called the “Son of the Most High, the Lord God,” and that “He will reign over the house of Jacob (Israel) forever.” When Mary queries the possibility of this prophecy, Gabriel explains that the power of the highest, the Holy Spirit, would “overshadow” her and therefore, the “Holy One” in her would be called the “Son of God.” As in the case of the Messiah, we can be in no doubt that with this virgin birth, someone extremely important was to be born. He was the Holy One, the Son of the Most High God. In Luke 3:38 we learn that only Adam is similarly referred to as the “Son of God,” yet in his case, he was offered this title due to the fact that he was created by God and not by the process of procreation.
Note: why do Muslims, in questioning the seeming physical relationship of Jesus to God, as His son, not also question Adam’s physical relationship to God, as he is also referred to as the “Son of God?”
It is interesting to note that in Adam’s creation he was created without sin, completely blameless, and in relation with God. In this way he was a “Son of God.” There was nothing in his life at the beginning which could impair that relationship which he had with God.
This fact helps us to understand why the virgin birth of Jesus is, thus, so important. The fact that His birth was a virgin birth brought added significance, in that since Jesus was born unlike any other human, without two parents, He could clearly be identified as the sign promised by Isaiah, as God, Himself amongst us, the Holy One.
Conclusion: Its significance for us today
What then can we say is the significance of the virgin birth? What is it that Muslims need to know about the virgin birth which will help them to understand God better? From what we have just read it is evident that the virgin birth has enormous significance.
First of all this unique birth delineates the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that He was totally distinct from all the rest of humanity in His conception, in His moral character, in His power, and in His message. There was and is no-one like Him. Thus it stands to reason that only He was born of a virgin. Muslims should ask why their Qur’an never explains the reason for this unique birth of Jesus. The fact that the Qur’an mentions the virgin birth yet says nothing concerning its significance, while at the same time elevating another person to a greater level than Jesus shows that much has been left unsaid, possibly because it was a borrowed idea to begin with, yet an idea full of hidden truth.
Our Muslim friends must be informed that Jesus, though He was a human like us, was also divine, and consequently, did not partake of the curse of Adam with which we have all been imputed. For that reason, Jesus, who because of His divinity was sinless, could take upon Himself our sins completely. Consequently, we now have the assurance of our salvation, something which Muslims can never claim.
The virgin birth furthermore shows us that it was Jesus who fulfilled the prophecy given to Eve, that one of her offspring would come and destroy the power of Satan, the power of death, and the power of evil in the world; and in so doing, bring us back into relationship with God, so that we could now live with Him for. That is the great news which Muslims need to hear.
And finally, since the virgin birth was promised by the prophet Isaiah as a sign of “Immanuel,” God with us, who was yet to come; Jesus as the only person in history to have been born in such a way, truly can be called “God with Us.” The fulfillment of that prophecy informs us that this child was also the Son of God, and that He was the Holy One. Muslims need to be made aware of these prophecies and their fulfillment. They must know that since God has already come among us, there is now no need for a further prophet, or a further revelation. All has been fulfilled in this one unique person.
To understand this truth, however, Muslims will then need to delve into the reason why God came to be with us. On this point the Qur’an is deeply inadequate. Since it does not speak at all of the curse of Adam, it knows little concerning the consequences and remedy of sin. It also says nothing concerning the significance of the virgin birth. The Bible, however, has these answers (Sura 10:49). It is up to us to share it with them.
Because they have not understood the nature of sin, they have not understood the need for its rectification, which requires a divine intervention for its eradication. It is no wonder, then, that they have not understood the significance of the virgin birth, though they continue to claim its validity in history. Here then is our task, to re-introduce the uniqueness of Jesus’s birth, without which we would continue to live in sin for eternity.
Who is the Messiah (“Al-Masihu-Isa”)?
Jay Smith
Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995
Contents
Introduction
Equal to the Prophets
Different from the Prophets
Superior to the Prophets
Son of God
Was Jesus the Messiah?
The two comings of the Messiah
Suffering Servant
Eternal Lord of Glory
Conclusion
A: Introduction
In the last few months, while talking with Muslims concerning the differences and similarities in our beliefs, it has been brought to my attention that there are certain theological concepts or words which we share in common, though the meanings we attach to them differ substantially, and even contradict completely that which they attack to them.
Four of these concepts or words are:
the Messiah
the Virgin Birth
the Name for Jesus
the Sacrificial Lamb
What I find interesting is, that while Christians place great importance on all four of these ideas, the Muslims have no idea of their importance, and at times do not even understand what they mean, or the significance they hold for the sources from whom they were borrowed.
I would like to take these four ideas and words and explain their meanings from both the Muslim and Christian perspectives, and make a comparison between the two, so that we can better speak to the issues they raise with our Muslim friends.
For this talk I would like to begin with the concept of the Messiah.
B: The Qur’an says the Messiah is equal to other Prophets
Throughout the Qur’an, we find that Jesus is always referred to as a prophet, much like all the other prophets. In Sura 2:136 he is joined with Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and Moses as simply one of the prophets. In Sura 43:59 he is mentioned as nothing more than a servant, and in Sura 5:78 as only a messenger. Yet in eleven instances in the Qur’an Jesus is given the title of “al-Masihu Isa,” The Messiah Jesus (see Surahs 4:157,171; 3:45) or “al-Masihu ibn Maryam,” the Messiah, son of Mary (see 9:31). In all 11 cases this title applies to Jesus alone. Islam, therefore, seems to join with Christianity in declaring Jesus the long-awaited Messiah promised to the Jews through the prophets of old.
Not only that, the Qur’an intensifies this title by applying to the title Masihu the article “al.” In all cases, without exception, the title is written “al-Masihu.” The definite article positively distinguishes him from all the other prophets.
But that is where the confusion comes in. For nowhere in the Qur’an does it say who or what the Messiah is. It gives no explanation for the Messiah. In fact, great scholars in Muslim history like Zamakhshari and Baidawi admitted that al-Masihu was not an original Arabic word. Why, then, does the Qur’an acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, yet give no delineation of what the word Messiah means? Why give him a unique title and not explain it’s significance?
C: The Bible says the Messiah is different to other Prophets
C1: The Messiah is superior to other Prophets
Since the Qur’an gives us no definition for the Messiah, we must do what the Qur’an encourages Muslims to do when they have any question. In Surahs 10:94 and 21:7 the Qur’an calls on Muslims to “ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee,” or in other words, those who have the scripture, the Bible. Jews and Christians find in the Bible that the title for Messiah is reserved for the specially-chosen one of God, one man alone, who stands above all other men, prophets and apostles included.
In our New Testament we find the title “ho Christos,” which in Greek is a translation of the word “Messias” (See John 1:41 and 4:25). In every case where this title is used the article “ho” is included, emphasizing that, like the Qur’an, it is referring to one specific person.
The title is set forth in all of scripture as applying to God’s supreme Deliverer who the Jews eagerly awaited. In the earlier periods of the Old Testament, however, there were a number of instances in which other individuals were referred to as “a Messiah” or anointed one.
In Leviticus 4:3 the title Messiah is applied to the anointed high priest in Israel. In 2 Samuel 1:14 it refers to the nation’s king. In Psalm 105:15 the prophets of God are referred to as Messiah. Even the Persian king Cyrus is afforded the title in Isaiah 45:1, as it was he who prepared the way for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem.
But in the book of Daniel we find a specific prophecy by Daniel (Daniel 9:25) which promises that after Jerusalem is rebuilt a time would pass after which a “Mashiah,” an anointed one would come.
It was this prophecy where the word Messiah was used as a title for the coming Prince of God which led the Jews to refer of him as “ha Mashiah,” “the Messiah”.
The prophet Isaiah spoke often of this Messiah, saying that he would come from the root of Jesse, the father of David, that he would rule all the earth and that he would slay the wicked by the breath of his mouth alone (Isaiah 11:1-5).
One prophet after another spoke of this supreme representative of God, who would be a great figure, far above all the prophets of God in honour and majesty. According to Zechariah, this supreme ruler was destined to be God’s own chosen representative (Zechariah 6:12-13).
The prophet Micah predicted that he would be born in Bethlehem, and that his origin is from the beginning of time, and whose reign would last forever (Micah 5:2). Daniel called him the “son of Man,” who came from the ancient of days (before time), and that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him in an everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:13-14).
Even those during the time of Jesus held similar beliefs of the Messiah. John the Baptist (or Yahya) looked toward the coming Messiah as one far superior to himself. In Luke 3:16 he says, “I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” And as Jesus was coming towards John, John is quoted as saying, “This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me'” (John 1:30).
From these passages we can see that not only the ancient prophets considered the Messiah to be someone special, but John, who was a prophet during Jesus’s lifetime, considered the Messiah, whom he knew as Jesus to be far superior to himself. John spoke of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Messiah, as Micah and others had done before him. Furthermore, since he was the only prophet to rise at the same time as Jesus, he rejoiced at the honour of being appointed to reveal him to the nation (John 1:31).
C2: The Messiah is the Son of God
Yet that was not all. From scripture we find that the Messiah was more than just the greatest prophet. The most emphatic promise of the coming Messiah as one of the sons of David was made to David himself. When David was king, he sought to build a great temple to house the ark of the covenant of God. God forbade him from doing so, through the prophet Nathan. But God did give David a special promise. We find this revealing promise in 1 Chronicles 17:10-14:
“…the Lord will build a house for you. When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he will be my son… and my kingdom for ever; his throne will be established for ever.”
Initially one would assume this prophecy points to a biological son of David. According to the Qur’an Sura 17:7, David’s son Solomon did build a great temple for God (the al- masjid, “the temple”). This is also echoed in the Bible. Yet, shortly after Solomon’s death the kingdom of Israel was split in two, and was completely decimated within 300 years. It was thus not an everlasting kingdom. So the promise to David was not for his son Solomon.
The Jews realized that God had been referring to the Messiah in this promise to David, and the promise that He would establish his kingdom for ever now took on real importance. As a result, from this time on, the Jews coined the expression “Son of David” as a title for their coming Messiah.
But what is more important in this promise is the phrase in verse 13, which reads, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” Since this promise from God is referring to the Messiah, it clarifies who the Messiah really is. The Messiah was to be the Son of God!
David knew that the Messiah would be the Son of God and therefore he openly called him his Lord and Master in Psalm 89:26-29, 35-36, while at the same time acknowledging his dependence. This is echoed by Jesus in Revelations 22:16, where he says, “I am the root and the offspring of David…” Jesus the Messiah is his offspring, as he was born into the line of David. But ultimately he is his root, as David came originally from him.
Therefore, not only was the Messiah superior to the prophets according to the many prophets who preceded him, he could also claim the title of Son of God, which by itself completely separated him from any other person in existence.
D: Was Jesus the Messiah?
We have now delineated that the Messiah is indeed an unique individual. But can we say that it is Jesus who is the Messiah? From the Surahs we quoted at the beginning of this talk, the Qur’an seems to think so. No other prophet is given the title of “al-Massih.”
In the Bible we find that Jesus accepted the claim of Messiah for himself. When talking to the Samaritan woman who spoke of the coming of the Messiah, he answers by saying, “I who speak to you am he” (John 4:26). On another occasion, when the Jews asked him pointedly whether he was the Messiah, he retorted “I told you, and you do not believe” (John 10:25). And then towards the end of his ministry, the high priest of Israel himself directly asked him, “Are you the Messiah…?” To which Jesus answered directly, “I am” (Mark 15:61-62).
So both the Qur’an and Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, a claim which, not surprisingly, the Jews took offence to. And for good reason.
E: The two comings of the Messiah
The Jews understood the Messiah to be far greater than any other prophet who had come. For them, the Messiah was to be their long-awaited Ruler and Deliverer, God’s supremely Anointed One, whose origin was from of old and whose rule over the whole universe would last forever. They expected him to arrive from heaven.
At the time Jesus was born, the Jews were eagerly awaiting the coming of this Messiah. For centuries they had been ruled by foreign, gentile powers. The Persians, then the Greeks, and now the Romans had taken turns dominating the Jews, and they resented this succession of foreign rulers, and therefore, longed for their coming Messiah. They believed he would come as a conquering king, to establish the Jewish race as the greatest nation on earth with all other nations subject to them.
E1: The Messiah came as a Suffering Servant to save the world (first coming)
But they made mistakes in their assumptions. First of all, they assumed that he would come as a conquering king. This is the same mistake which the Muslims have made about the Messiah. Like the Jews they assumed that the Messiah will come in power. Yet, this is not how the Messiah initially came. Had the Jews read their scriptures more carefully they would have seen that the Messiah would come twice, the first time as a suffering servant, and the second time as an everlasting king to rule over God’s everlasting kingdom.
Secondly, the Jews assumed that it was they who were destined to be the rulers of God’s kingdom, dominating the rest of the world with the Messiah as a Jewish king. They failed to see that God was referring to a heavenly king who would become the Messiah by appearing in human form, and that his rule and authority would be a spiritual one over the true people of God.
Where the Jews were correct, however, was their perception that the Messiah would not be a mere prophet or messenger but that his origin would be in heaven, that his goings forth would be from many ages past, and that his throne and rule over the kingdom of God would be established as an everlasting dominion.
But what of this suffering servant? Why did the Jews forget this aspect of their Messiah? From the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Daniel they should have realized that he would come in obscurity, and suffer, and only later, when he came back to rule over the established kingdom of God, would he take on the role they had ascribed for him.
The Jews confused the prophecies of the Messiah’s second coming, which all foretold of his eternal glory, with those of his first coming which spoke of him as a humble servant destined to suffer reproach and rejection by the masses who would not follow his path of righteousness and holiness.
In Psalm 22 we find the Messiah crying out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Throughout this chapter we hear the cries of a desperate man, reviled by those around him. Right from the outset we see the crucifixion and sufferings of Jesus being foretold in fine detail centuries beforehand.
In verses 14-15 he cries out that all his bones were out of joint and that his tongue was cleaving to his jaws, words which describe precisely the suffering one receives while being crucified. Yet the punishment by crucifixion was only invented some centuries later by the Phoenicians. It is remarkable to find in verse 16 the words, “…they have pierced my hands and my feet.” These are clear predictions of the Messiah, his hands and feet duly being pierced, many ages before this form of torture was even invented.
Yet even more curious is the riddle in verse 18 which reads, “…they divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” This riddle would have confused even those who first heard it. How would they have known that Jesus’s tunic had no seam? We know from John 19:23-34 that lots were cast to see who would get the entire tunic, rather then tear it along the seam and divide it equally as was usually done.
We therefore see that the suffering of the Messiah was predicted to be by crucifixion and that it’s attendant events were foretold in fine detail.
Psalm 69 also speaks specifically of the crucifixion of Jesus as the Messiah, mentioning the hatred and mocking of those around him (verses 4-9) as well as the vinegar which was given when he thirst (fulfilled in John 19:29).
In Isaiah 52 and 53 we find not only the prediction of this suffering, but the reason for the suffering. In these passages written 6 centuries before the life of Jesus, we find his crucifixion foreshadowed. We also find that this long-awaited Messiah would have the sins of the world placed on him in his hour of trial and that he would die that others might live.
Another riddle is included here to substantiate that this suffering servant could be no other than the Messiah, Jesus himself. In Isaiah 53:9 we read, “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death…” How could a man be buried with honour among the wealthy if his grave was prepared among the wicked? The body of any Jew who was put to death by crucifixion was thrown into a large pit reserved only for criminals. Yet, when Jesus died, according to Matthew 17:60, a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea came and took his body and buried it in his own tomb.
In verse 12 we read, “…he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.” As with Psalm 22 and 69, Jesus directly applied this prediction to himself the night before he was crucified, when he said to his disciples, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors;’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.” (Luke 22:37).
It is quite plain from these scriptures that the early prophets foretold that the Messiah would come to suffer and die for the sins of the world at his first coming. To substantiate their claims they provided specific detailed events surrounding that climatic hour, all of which were duly fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus. These great prophecies, made and recorded hundreds of years before his coming, are incontrovertible evidence that Jesus the Messiah came not simply as a prophet, but as God’s anointed Saviour to save the world from their sins.
E2: The Messiah came as the Eternal Lord of Glory (second coming)
There are other prophecies of the Messiah which do not speak of a suffering servant at all but of the eternal Lord of Glory. These prophecies are not referring to his first coming, but to his second coming. It has been estimated that there are up to 500 prophecies which relate to this second coming.
We don’t have time to even do a cursory study of half of them, so let me mention the three passages which we have already used, because though all three speak of the suffering servant, they follow with a real change of tone in the subsequent verses.
In Psalm 22, the first 21 verses speak of the need for comfort as the subject of the Psalm calls out in his anguish to God in heaven. Then from verses 22-24 the subject cries out in complete peace and in joyful triumph, pointing out that though he was suffering and dying just a few days earlier, he had now been raised to a complete newness of life. This passage seems to be a prediction of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, after having suffered enormous trials just a few days earlier. Hebrews 2:21 echoes this same exclamation of praise for the congregation of the righteous found in Psalm 22:22, and attributes it to Jesus himself.
In Psalm 69, the first 29 verses speak of the inward suffering of a man about to face death, yet from verse 30 the tone changes dramatically to that of praise and triumph as the subject praises God for his wonderful deliverance. This again is the foreshadowing of the resurrection which was yet to come to the Messiah, after he had first suffered.
In Isaiah 53:11 we find more prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah, mentioning that after his suffering “he will see the light of life and be satisfied.” Although he was “pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities” (vs.5) he will yet look in triumph on the immense benefits of his redeeming work, “he will see his offspring and prolong his days” (vs.10), and he will be given “a portion among the great” (vs.12). These are the fruits of his victory which he will receive in good time.
Other scriptures prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah. Therefore it is not surprising that Jesus himself spoke often of the fact that the prophets foretold not only the crucifixion of the Messiah but his resurrection as well. He mentions this specifically to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-26. Later in verses 46-47 delineates that because of this act repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem.
We know from the book of Acts that 40 days after the resurrection Jesus ascended to glory in heaven where he has lived till the present. This then is the final chapter behind the story of the Messiah.
Philippians 2 explains and summarizes the scenario best. There we read that He came the first time as a lowly man, “making himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross” (vss.7-8). Then from the depths of human despair he lifted to the heights of divine glory, and according to verses 9-11 he was, “exalted to the highest place, and given the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
F: Conclusion
The Messiah, therefore was no ordinary prophet of God. Both the Bible and the Qur’an give him a unique position among all the prophets. The Bible even claims Him as the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world.
Al-Masih is what the Qur’an calls him, “the anointed one,” yet since it gives no inclination as to the significance of that name, nor what it was he was anointed for, it robs him of his glory, maintaining that he was only a messenger, who would return as a servant. Even more damaging, the Qur’an claims that he was not even the greatest of messengers. That position was reserved for another, Muhammad. The title, al-Masih, therefore, loses it’s meaning in the Qur’an. It becomes a curiosity that begs an explanation.
It is rather amusing, yet sad, when we read in Surah 5:78 that the author of the Qur’an refers to this “Supremely Anointed One” as “the Messiah, son of Mary, [who] was no more than an apostle.”
One can only presume that Muhammad had no idea of the meaning of the title al-Masih, but had probably heard it freely applied to Jesus by Christians who were close to him. Not questioning it’s interpretation, he had readily adopted it without realizing that it completely undermined his belief that Jesus was only one of a long line of prophets.
Had he read the scriptures carefully, he would have seen the importance which they hold for the Messiah. He would have been familiar with the claims they made for him, not only that he was the Son of God, but that he had the unique mission of taking on the sins of the world as a suffering servant. Instead of looking for a conquering warrior, as is still done in Islam, Muhammad would have realized that the Messiah was indeed the lowly carpenter’s son from Galilee, who lived a mere 33 years, yet due to his 33 years of suffering changed the course of history for all of humanity.
Muhammad would also have known that this first coming, or mission of the Messiah, would have been followed with that of the 2nd, where the Messiah came in glory, immediately after having suffered on the cross, to instigate and propagate the eternal Kingdom of God.
And more importantly, Muhammad would have understood that the kingdom was not a physical place with frontiers and boundaries, but that it included everyone who believed in the redemptive work of the king.
Unfortunately Muhammad was not aware of these prophecies concerning the Messiah. It is no wonder then that he, like the Jews who have not read their scriptures properly, believed and hoped that the Kingdom of God was yet to come, and that when it came, it would do so by conquering and domination.
That is the reason Muslims still hope and long for a Khilafah, and a Caliph. That is the reason the Hisb-ul-Tahrir party is growing and engaging the youth of Islam today. Had they understood the Messiah correctly, they would have understood the kingdom He came to build. And they would then have understood that the kingdom already exists in every nation on earth, amongst people they go to school with, among people they work with, and among people they live right next door to.
Muslims need to be introduced to the Messiah as he really is. They need to refer to the scriptures (the Bible), as they have been admonished to do in Surahs 10:94 and 21:7. And finally, they need us, as the “people of the Book” to share with them the true meaning of the Messiah; not one who is merely a prophet, but one who was uniquely anointed by God, to come first of all as a suffering servant in order to take upon Himself the sins of the world, and then secondly, to initiate the true Kingdom of God, which is here and now, even amongst those of us sitting in this room. They too need to belong to that kingdom, a kingdom which will continue eternally for everyone who believes in Jesus Christ, not only crucified, but resurrected in glory.
Who Founded Christianity – Jesus or St. Paul?
Jay Smith
Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995
Contents
Introduction
Maccoby: Jesus was a Pharisee, Paul was a Sadducee
Response to Maccoby
Jesus v. Paul
Paul was not the first
Seeming Contradictions Between Jesus and Paul
God’s Word
Two Covenants
Atonement? The Prodigal Son
Inclusive v. Exclusive Gospel
Why didn’t Jesus call himself a Christian?
Later changes made by Paul
Conclusion
A: Introduction
An ongoing problem for Christians who argue or discuss with Muslims at Speaker’s Corner is that of the authority for our beliefs. Many of the best references to support the theology which we hold to and support in our conversations are gleaned from the epistles of Paul. Yet we continually find our arguments rejected outright by Muslims because they consider Paul’s letters to be untrustworthy and therefore non-authoritative.
Christianity, they go on to say, was founded by Paul and not by Jesus. Much of what we believe, they continue, was added to later on by Paul and his followers, in direct contradiction to Jesus’s teachings.
Most of their criticisms on this point, interestingly, do not come from research they have undertaken, but is borrowed from recent polemical writers within the Jewish community, particularly the writings of Dr. Hyam Maccoby, who teaches here in London.
B: Maccoby: Jesus was a Pharisee, Paul was a Sadducee
According to Hyam Maccoby, Paul was not a Pharisee, nor even a Jew, but a gentile proselyte to Judaism. Maccoby’s source for his material is the discredited Christian writer Epiphanius, an Ebionite who wrote 3 centuries after the fact. Paul, according to Maccoby, failed in becoming a Pharisee, and so allied himself to the Sadducees and the High Priest, two groups who enjoyed their privileged status under Roman occupation, and so were in conflict with the Pharisees, who wished to be rid of the Roman oppressors.
Maccoby believes that it was due to a near nervous breakdown that Paul split from this group and formed a new religion, taking ideas such as baptism, the eucharist, christology, the Holy Spirit, and eschatology and melded them with Jewish sacred history, Gnosticism, and the pagan mystery religions.
Jesus, on the other hand, according to Maccoby, taught beliefs which are quite common to Jewish Pharisaical teaching. He was a figure within Judaism and so would not have accepted his own divinity. This, Maccoby says, is clear from the first three Synoptic gospels, but not John, which was written much later, after the evolution of this theology by the early Christians led by Paul.
Maccoby continues by asserting that Jesus never regarded himself as a sacrifice for humanity, a belief which Maccoby contends arose after his death, as it was not part of Jewish theology.
Yet, Maccoby does admit that creating a divine character for Jesus has Jewish roots. Elijah and Enoch were both taken up to heaven, which transcended other human experiences. This well- known Biblical event, he feels, could be the stepping stone to the belief of the divinity of a person who then takes on the divine qualities of God.
There is no root in Judaism, however, for the sacrifice of the divine figure. Jews never worshipped the allegorical concept of God’s divine wisdom as found in the book of Proverbs. And nowhere, Maccoby maintains, did Jesus ever make a claim of deity, calling himself instead the Messiah, a title which he maintains was political and which was quite common in those days. In fact, Maccoby believes that much of Jesus’s teachings were also political in nature, and it was for this reason that he was finally put to death. Those passages which do point to Jesus’ spiritual nature were added later, he says, by Paul and his disciples.
Along those same lines, Maccoby states that Jesus did not wish to abrogate Judaism, but was only in conflict with certain Jewish figures, which is normal within Jewish circles. He neither abrogated the Torah nor reformed it, but interpreted it, and in ways not unlike the Pharisees. For instance, curing sick people on the sabbath is not forbidden by the Mishnah nor the Talmud, which are both Pharisaic writings.
Maccoby believes that the ideas attributed to Jesus would have appalled him, had he known about them, therefore they could only have been attributed to him after his death. The gospels were written 40 years and later after the death of Jesus, thus Maccoby contends that there was plenty of time for these theological ideas to evolve within the Christian community.
C: Response to Maccoby
In response to the above claims by Hyam Maccoby, we need not go into great detail except to point out from the outset that much of Maccoby’s material is derived from the Ebionite tradition, a tradition which was first of all proposed three hundred years later than the subject in question, and secondly, a tradition which acknowledged its hostility to Paul and his beliefs even at that time. It is inexcusable to rely on material for supposedly truthful information about a person or movement which is not only distant from the source, but also the avowed enemy of that person or movement. Would we go to Serbian generals to ascertain the facts of the Bosnia conflict today? This is what Maccoby has done in his work.
To divorce Jesus from the personal claims which he makes in the gospels puts into question his whole ministry and the amazing impact which he had on those who followed him. It also makes the book of Acts look totally worthless, as the church which evolved from the ministry of Jesus was completely dependant on the person and claims of Jesus as saviour.
Concerning the contention that Paul changed the gospels later on, it is unthinkable that an invention of Paul, who was not one of the Twelve and whose apostolic credentials were so often questioned, could succeed in becoming a part of the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. “It staggers belief that he could have successfully foisted his innovation… on the church at large” (Hunter).
To say that it was Paul who created the view of Jesus as deity is to reject the christology of the Jerusalem church and the evidence of Jesus’s deity found in the book of Acts. Of key importance is Peter’s statement that Jesus has been raised to God’s right hand, from which he has poured forth the Holy Spirit, and has been made both kyrios and christos (Acts 2:33-36). Numerous titles of deity were attributed to him, such as: Messiah (Acts 3:20f), Servant of God (Acts 3:13,26; 4:27), the promised Prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15; 5:31), the Holy and Righteous One, and the “stone” of prophecy (taken from Psalm 118:22), rejected, but now made the head of the corner (Acts 4:11). These all predate the more developed delineation of Jesus as deity expounded by Paul.
Muslims who use Maccoby’s material to substantiate their claim that Paul is not authoritative would do well to first understand the agenda behind Maccoby’s criticism. As a Jew Maccoby concludes that “If Paul was the creator of the Christian myth, he was also the creator of the anti-Semitism which has been inseparable from that myth.” It is for this reason that he tries to distant Paul from a Jewish background, and thereby instil upon him the guilt for all anti-Semitic undertakings which have been evidenced in the history of the church.
Paul was never anti-Semitic, but he was anti-Judaism (having theological disagreement with Judaism). Rather then creating a heresy out of Judaism, as Maccoby suggests, it is quite evident that Paul would never have regarded himself as having ceased to be a Jew or as having left Judaism for a new religion. He believed that his new faith was the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs and he accordingly would have thought of himself as believing in what properly understood was the culmination of Judaism.
This, however, is an argument for Jews to contend with, and not Muslims. They would do better to compare the material found in the Gospels with the writings of Paul, rather then race around trying to borrow polemical data from an arena which has little to concern them, and which they really don’t understand. So it is to that area which we will now go.
D: Jesus v. Paul
Muslims believe that the Gospels are diametrically opposed to the material found in the letters of Paul. To support their assertions they point to many supposed “contradictions” between that which Jesus taught and what Paul wrote, maintaining that these prove the message of Jesus, a true Jewish Pharisee, was not the same as that of Paul’s.
These are indeed claims which are difficult to take seriously, yet, they demand an answer, nonetheless. For without the authority and authorship of Jesus, Christianity simply would fall apart. If one could show that Jesus brought a different message then Paul, then indeed there would be room for concern.
Upon closer scrutiny of the scriptures, however, we find that Jesus and Paul are not at all in contradiction with one another, and that most of what Paul claims has already been stated before by Jesus and the other disciples, though in a different way. Indeed, what is clear is that Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but its greatest expounder.
D1: Paul was not the first
So where did he get his teaching from? Paul answers that question clearly in Galatians 1:11-12, where he states, “the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 he speaks of receiving from the Lord that which he passes on to them, the Gospel (see also 1 Corinthians 11:23). He carefully points out that these are not things which he invented.
Did Paul begin Christianity in a void? If so, his beliefs couldn’t have been there beforehand. Yet, in the book of Acts, Peter, one of Jesus’s closest disciples for three years, addresses the gospel, speaking and witnessing the fact of Jesus, his death and resurrection in Acts 2. He continues this witness in Acts 3 and 4, long before Paul even comes onto the scene.
In fact, Paul doesn’t enter into the picture until Acts 7, where he witnesses the stoning of Stephen, and then becomes the persecutor of those who were establishing the church. He admits to putting many saints in prison, and casting the vote for their death (Acts 26:9-11); and even tried to destroy the church (Galatians 1).
How can someone become the persecutor of a religion which he is the founder of? If he founded a religion, it couldn’t have been there beforehand.
D2: Seeming Contradictions Between Jesus and Paul
D2i: God’s Word (Logos)
What about Paul’s teachings? Is it contradictory to that of Jesus? Muslims think so. Take the case of God’s word. Muslims try to show that Paul preached a religion based on faith in Jesus Christ, whereas Jesus contradicted this by preaching a religion based on following the law of Moses. “The word made flesh and dwelt among us,” the idea of Jesus being divine, being God’s word himself, and becoming flesh, according to Muslims, could not have come from Jesus, but was invented by Paul. Proof of this, they say, is found in John 12 where Jesus was told what to speak by God, so it could not have been God’s word.
But it was John, a disciple of Jesus for three years, who heard everything that Jesus said and did, who derived this concept of Logos. The idea is not even mentioned in any of Paul’s writings! How could he have invented it?
D2ii: Two Covenants
Let’s take another accusation levelled against Paul. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets”. Later, Paul says that Jesus had come to abolish the Law and Prophets (Colossians 2:14). Muslims say Paul is contradicting Jesus here. But is he?
According to the Christian scriptures there were two covenants: a) the law of Moses (made up of legal or moral laws as well as ceremonial or ritual laws), and b) the new covenant, which came through Jesus Christ. What Paul is referring to when he says the old law is abolished, are the ceremonial and ritualistic laws which were for the Jews alone (Colossians 2:13- 15). No Syrian or Arab or any other gentile was commanded to keep these laws. Only the Jews were, as it made them distinct from all other people, as the chosen of God. What was abolished were the ceremonial laws which excluded the gentiles from being the people of God. The moral law still holds. Yet, one can be forgiven, if they repent.
Paul and Jesus are not contradicting one another. Jesus was establishing the Moral law in Matthew 5:17. One needs to continue reading from verse 21 and following to see that He then goes on to delineate what those moral laws are.
D2iii: Atonement? The Prodigal Son
The real issue here is whether salvation is attained by keeping the law or by the justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone. As an example, Muslims erroneously point to Jesus’s teaching on the Prodigal Son, who was forgiven because of his repentance. They correctly maintain that there is no teaching of atonement here.
Paul, however, says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by a gift. This view of the atonement, they feel, contradicts the teaching of Jesus. But does it?
Consider: all believers are children, and God is their father. No other religion in the world depicts God as father. Islam has 99 names for God, but the name of Father is not one of them. In Islam, believers can only come to God as servants (“att”), which parallels Old Testament teaching.
It is Jesus who introduces God as our father. If God is our father, someone has to be a child. This is the thrust of the Prodigal Son story. The son was not a servant but the man’s son. He had status. The reason why the father accepted him was not out of kindness, but because the man was his father. In Galatians 4:4-6, God sent his son, born under the law so that we might receive the full rights of sons. Since we are sons, we can now call him Abba, Father.
Where, if not in the story of the Prodigal son, did the belief of the atonement originate? Consider the story of the last supper found in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22, all independent of Paul (Mark’s source was Peter). Jesus said the bread was his body, and the wine his blood. How much more plain can you get? That is atonement. Forgiveness comes, thus, through the shedding of his blood. Yet, all Jesus was doing was to confirm something which was there from the beginning, from the story of Cain and Abel, where one sacrifice was accepted and the other rejected. Cain’s sacrifice was from his own work, that which he had grown, but Abel offered the blood of the lamb as the hope of his salvation.
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” This principle is found right through the Old Testament. No Jew ever believed that he could attain the forgiveness of sin just by asking for it (see Exodus and Leviticus to see the many sacrifices ordered by God for this very purpose).
Thus, Jesus was now saying that forgiveness could only come through his own blood. Matthew 20:28, John 6:51; and John 10:11 all reveal Jesus speaking of the need for a blood sacrifice, specifically, his blood sacrificed.
This is a point completely lost to Muslims, even though they continue the tradition of sacrificing a goat during the time of Id, though the meaning has been changed to that of remembrance for what Abraham had done earlier. It always puzzles me why Muslims never question the significance for Abraham’s sacrifice. Is it no wonder then why they find the idea of atonement so objectionable.
In Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul speaks of salvation by faith, but follows it up with the need to do good works. There is no denial here of good works.
Jesus also speaks of salvation by faith in John 3:14-15. Salvation, thus, comes through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we can receive the spirit of Christ, which then leads us to do good works. Most people want to separate the two ideas, and make them sound contradictory. Yet Paul and Jesus taught both.
D2iv: Inclusive v. Exclusive Gospel
There are other areas of contention between Jesus and Paul which the Muslims like to point to. Jesus, they maintain, says that the gospel must only go to the Jews, while Paul says that the gospel must go to all people. Yet, the last thing Jesus said before he left the earth was, “to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The issue here comes back to the old and new covenant again. Under the old covenant only the Jews were considered. That old covenant came to an end the night Jesus broke the bread and offered the wine.
Ironically, it was Peter and not Paul who took the gospel to the gentiles first, to Cornelius, before Paul (Acts 10).
D3: Why didn’t Jesus call Himself a Christian?
Muslims ask that if Jesus was the founder of Christianity, then where does he refer to himself as a Christian? The point is entirely missed here. Jesus is the Lord of the Christians, not a Christian himself. He is the Christ, acknowledged in Islam as “al-Massihu Issa” (Christ of the Messiah, Issa). The word Christian was not even around during the time of Jesus. In fact the early Christians didn’t use this term. They called themselves the Followers of the “Way.” It was the followers of Jesus who were called Christians for the first time at Antioch, in Acts.
D4: Later changes made by Paul
One of the finest proofs that Jesus founded Christianity comes from these similarities found between the Gospels and Paul’s writings which we have just referred to. Christianity basically has two trends or sources from which it derives:
the first are the writings of the disciples, and
the second is Paul’s writings.
The disciples are independent of Paul’s writings. They use different expressions, yet they all teach the same ideas about Christ. Where, then, did the disciples get their ideas? They couldn’t have borrowed it from Paul, as they preceded him. Obviously it came from Jesus himself.
Could, as Muslims claim, Paul have misled all of Jesus’s disciples later on? Could he have taken their writings and changed them, so that they coincided with his own? Outside the fact that we have no evidence for earlier writings which may have differed from what is in our possession today, it is incredulous to believe that Paul would want or even dare to conspire against all the other disciples, and change that which they had given their lives to uphold.
Furthermore, John outlived Paul, and Peter lived another 30 years after Jesus. They were there during all of Paul’s teaching. If Paul were the founder of Christianity, how did he influence all of Jesus’s disciples, without either Peter or John or the other disciples who had been with Jesus knowing about it, or objecting to it?
In Galatians 2, we read that the disciples were suspicious of Paul because he had persecuted them. But when they heard his gospel, they told him to go and preach the same gospel to the gentiles. Why would they welcome him as one of them if he was preaching something contrary to what they were preaching?
E: Conclusion
One can always ask, “Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul”, or who founded Islam, “Muhammad or Umar”, or who founded Judaism, “Moses or Joshua”, or who founded Buddhism, “Buddha or Siddharta?” Yet, why is it always Christianity which is labelled with this question?
It seems so grossly unlikely that a religion which is focused so uniquely on Jesus, could or should be founded by someone else. All adherents would contend that their religion was founded by God. Perhaps it would be more correct to assert that it was Moses who introduced Judaism, and Muhammad who introduced Islam, Confucius who introduced Confucianism, and Jesus who introduced Christianity.
What so many Muslims miss is the sheer depth of theology in Paul’s writings, much of which couldn’t have been made up or simply borrowed. For instance, the scriptures speak of the unity of God. Thus, we are monotheists, and we have a complex view of God’s monotheism. We believe that God is a triune God; the very word tri-une implies unity. Perhaps Muslims find the doctrine hard to understand; so do most Christians. One would not expect God’s essence to be easily explained. But nonetheless it is true, as we see it written all over the pages of scripture.
We need to consider, however, that if Paul was the founder of Christianity, then certainly he should have diverted from this doctrine. Yet, he doesn’t, but continues to say the same thing. “A mediator” he writes in Galatians 3:20 “does not represent just one, but God is one.” We find this also in Romans 3, and every Christian believes it.
Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.
Jesus, the founder, laid down his life that you might live. Paul, the expounder, laid down his life that you might hear. Are we willing to lay down our lives that others can hear and live as well?
Jesus in the Qur’an
Introduction
The Qur’an treats Jesus as a very important figure. It gives him a greater number of honourable titles than any other figure in the past. It calls him a ‘sign’, a ‘mercy’, a ‘witness’, an ‘example’ one who is upright, one who is eminent, and ‘one brought nigh unto God’ . It gives him the titles Messiah, Son of Mary, Messenger, Prophet, Servant, Word of God, and a Spirit from God 1. He is the only prophet to have been born of a virgin and he did the greatest miracles of all the prophets. Jesus is also referred to in ninety verses scattered in 15 surahs in the Qur’an. Yet for all of this respect, the Qur’an denies Christ his identity as the Saviour and Lord of mankind. The Qur’an presents a very well defined idea of prophethood and then applies this role of prophet to Jesus and most of the other major Old Testament figures. It is the idea of prophethood it applies mostly to Muhammad, and this idea is then read back to all major prophetic figures in the past.
Prophethood in the Qur’an
Prophets in the Qur’an fall into two divisions, Prophet (Nabi) and Messenger or Apostle (Rasul). A Prophet is anyone directly inspired by God. A Messenger is one to whom God has entrusted a special mission. Messengers are usually also prophets and often come with books of revelation. The basic message preached by Messengers and Prophets is the same: warning people to repent of sin (especially idolatry) and fulfill their duty to God. This message fits with the Islamic doctrine of salvation that all one must do is repent of sin, believe in God, and do the right good works to be saved. The prophet/messenger is there to warn them of the consequences if they lapse in fulfilling their duty to God. If they do repent the prophet/messenger promises blessings from God. It is a simple role and the Qur’an asserts in Surah 10:48 that every nation has received a prophet at one time or another. Muslims believe that all of the Old Testament prophets had this same ministry as prophets. Totally absent from the Qur’an’s view of prophethood is any reference to Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah to come, any reference to calling the Israelites back to their covenant with God centered on the sacrificial system of the Temple, and any expansion in revelation concerning God’s plans for mankind or any other covenants like the Davidic covenant or the New covenant. The Islamic idea of prophethood is strictly linear without development calling people back to the same basic religion.
Certain prophet/messengers received books from God. The idea here is that they all received their books the same way as Muhammad is supposed to have received the Qur’an–by dictation from a heavenly original. According to the Qur’an, Moses received a book called the Taurat, David a book called the Zabur, and Jesus a book called the Injil or Gospel. Muslims are taught that they must believe in all of these prophets and their books. The Qur’an, however, is taught to be the only one that is uncorrupted and trustworthy, as well as being sent to correct the corruptions in the prior books and retain whatever sound teaching was in them. The net effect is that the Muslim, while saying he believes in all of the books actually only trusts the Qur’an.
‘Isa
Jesus’ name in the Qur’an is ‘Isa. It is unresolved how he came to be referred to by this name and many theories have been put forward, three of the more important being it is either a corruption of the Syriac “Yeshu”, a corruption of “Esau” which was a derogatory name the Jews used for Jesus, or it was used to make a rhyme with Moses (Musa) in certain verses of the Qur’an. For our purposes, it is enough to say that your Muslim friend will automatically know who you are talking about when you use the name Jesus Christ. He will expect it from you since you are a Christian and it will not be offensive to him.
An interesting thing in the Qur’an is that Jesus is recorded many times speaking on his own behalf defining his own identity and his ministry. A survey of these instances will give us the best view of the Qur’anic Jesus.
Jesus’ cradle speech
The first instance of Jesus speaking for himself in the Qur’an is when he was a baby. In Surah 19, after his miraculous conception and birth, Mary comes to present the baby Jesus to her relatives. They accuse her of immorality and in her defense Jesus speaks up from the cradle and says:
He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, and hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and He hath enjoined upon me prayer and alms-giving so long as I remain alive, and (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! Surah 19:30-33, Pickthall’s translation
There are many key words and thoughts here. First, Jesus identifies himself as the slave of Allah. The technical word here is ‘abd, which means he is just a human in the ordinary human relationship with God. The use of this word is a direct denial of deity in Jesus’ nature. Second, note the statement of being given a scripture and being appointed a prophet. This is according to the Qur’anic idea of scripture and prophethood mentioned earlier. Jesus is saying here he was to receive a scripture like Moses, David, and Muhammad. The references to prayer and almsgiving are taken by Muslims to refer to two of the five main duties of Islam, ritual prayer and almsgiving. Jesus was called to be a good Muslim, in other words. The last statement, referring to his death and resurrection is taken by Muslims to not occur in that order but rather reversing the order, him being taken to heaven first and then coming again to finish out his normal lifespan. Though this is not the order the Qur’an uses it is what Muslims believe.
Jesus’ miracles
Surah 5:110 gives a convenient list of the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Qur’an:
O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead, by My permission;… Surah 5:110, Pickthall’s translation
Note the constant refrain, “by My permission”. Muslims assert from this that Jesus’ miracles were all done by God’s power and that in himself he had no power to do them; that in himself he was just a man. Two miracles are omitted from this list but found in other places in the Qur’an: causing a table spread with food to be miraculously lowered from heaven for his disciples (5:112-115), and being able to tell people what they had hidden in their houses (3:49).
His speech from the cradle and making the bird from clay are stories that are both found in apocryphal Christian books written prior to the time of Muhammad. They are two of many Qur’an stories that demonstrate borrowing from other religions.
The Trinity
There are many places in the Qur’an where any kind of a trinitarian idea of God’s nature is rejected. The main conception of the Trinity in the Qur’an seems to be one of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son. Most Muslims you will meet realize that Christians today do not mean this when they talk about the Holy Trinity. But they will be quick to assert that any notion of three-ness is wrong and use the Qur’an to defend their idea. Jesus in the Qur’an speaks very forcefully against the Trinity:
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. I spake unto them only that which Thou commandest me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord….Surah 5:116,117, Pickthall’s translation
The Qur’an reinforces Jesus’ words with statements like the following:
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three”– Cease! (It is) better for you!–Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son… Surah 4:171, Pickthall’s translation
The Qur’an never seriously interacts with the biblical and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity describes what God has revealed about His unity. It does not multiply gods as the Qur’an states.
Jesus predicting Muhammad
One verse in the Qur’an has turned Muslims loose looking in the Bible for any possible prediction of Muhammad.
And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One (Ahmed)…. Surah 61:6, Pickthall’s translation
Most will go to the passages in John 14-16 concerning the Paraclete to try to prove that this really refers to Muhammad, not the Holy Spirit. The important thing for us to note is that Muslims believe that a major part of Jesus’ ministry was to predict the coming of Muhammed.
The Crucifixion
The Jesus of the Qur’an did not die on the cross. Surah 4:157,158 says,
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus Son of Mary, Allah’s messenger–They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself….
The normal explanation is that God put someone else on the cross and took Jesus to heaven. Judas is probably the most suggested person for who died in Jesus’ place. No historical evidence is given. It is believed because the Qur’an states it as the truth.
Jesus’ return to the earth
The Qur’an does not explicitly state that Jesus will return again to the earth. It is a doctrine that is developed in the traditions of Islam (the Hadith). Here are the two Qur’an verses used to support the doctrine of his return:
There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them — Surah 4:159, Pickthall’s translation
And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but Follow ye Me: this is the straight way. Surah 43:61, Yusuf Ali’s translation
From these verses and with other traditions the Islamic version of the return of Jesus will look like this. After being taken to heaven to escape crucifixion, Jesus will appear at the end of time as a sign that it is the Last hour. He will descend by resting his hands on the wings of two angels. He will descend onto a white minaret set in the eastern part of Damascus. He will invite the whole world to become Muslim including Christians and Jews, He will kill the anti-Christ, He will break the cross, kill all the swine, end all wars, and will become a judge. He will marry, have children, perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, die after 40 years and be buried beside Muhammad in Medina. His time on the earth will mark a period of abundance on the earth and all religions will end except Islam.
How Muslims feel about Jesus
From the above description you can sense how Muslims do have a great degree of admiration and devotion to Jesus. Some even seek him for intercession because he is such a powerful figure in Islam. Unfortunately, the Qur’an directs their respect away from regarding Him as being the only Saviour from sin and the Lord of Lords. It even has Him denying His identity as God come in human flesh, and denying that His ministry was the climax of God’s program on the earth.
As with the Qur’an, Muslims do not tend to recognise the importance of the actual historical evidence that exists concerning Jesus. They take the Qur’an’s word for His identity and ministry without examining the basis for their belief.
Also, as Muslims are passionate about the Qur’an being a superior revelation to the Bible, so with Jesus, they believe that we Christians are committing blasphemy in what we assert about Jesus. They think it is Christians who have made Jesus out to be God. The zeal and passion Muslims show in arguing these things comes from sincere belief that we are wrong and committing blasphemies. They do not realise their error and misunderstandings. They do not realise that we are taking Jesus at His word and also taking the word of Jesus’ disciples as found in the New Testament.
Recommended Books
Geisler, Norman and Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam. Baker Books, 1993.
Masood, Stephen. Jesus and the Indian Messiah. Oldham: Word of Life, 1994.
Why Follow Jesus?. OM Publishing, 1997.
Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Oxford University Press, 1977.
Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. MacMillan Publishers, 1991.
Parrinder 1977 p. 16
But Wasn’t Jesus a Muslim?
Peter Saunders
Peter Saunders
This is the transcript of a talk given by Peter Saunders, Student Secretary of the UK Christian Medical Fellowship, at Manchester University on Tuesday 24th February 1998.
I didn’t choose the title of this talk and you may think it strange even to ask the question ‘wasn’t Jesus a Muslim?’ After all, Jesus Christ is the central figure in Christianity and the name Christian was first used to describe his followers (Acts 11:26).
But Jesus is a very important figure in Islam too. He’s regarded as one of the greatest prophets, the forerunner of Muhammad and the one to whom God revealed the ‘Injil’ or Gospel.
In the broadest sense of the word Jesus was a Muslim because the word Muslim simply means ‘one who submits to God’. Jesus certainly submitted to God and perhaps uniquely could ask ‘who accuses me of sin?’ and silence all his critics. In fact the world Islam simply means ‘submission’.
But we’re asking a far deeper question. We’re asking whether or not Jesus embraced the same faith as Muhammad. Would he, for instance, have recognised Muhammad as ‘the seal of the prophets’? Would he have believed that the Qur’an was the word of God? Would he have prayed towards Mecca, fasted at Ramadan, recited the Creed or indeed denied his own divinity?
If by saying ‘wasn’t Jesus a Muslim?’ we’re asking these far deeper questions then Muslims and Christians find themselves strongly at odds in their answers.
Both Christianity and Islam have been tremendously influential. About one quarter of the world’s population at least nominally, would regard themselves as Christians. A fifth would call themselves Muslims. Yet for most of the last thirteen centuries the two religions have developed in parallel in separate parts of the world. Islam has mainly been centred in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, India and South East Asia (especially Indonesia and Malaysia). By contrast Christianity has been confined largely to Europe, North and South America, Africa and the former Soviet Union. And yet both have been, and still are, growing rapidly.
Now, perhaps for the first time in world history, Christians and Muslims can meet and talk in a way that they’ve never been able to before. This is especially possible in schools, university forums like this, and on the internet where Muslim Christian dialogue is taking place on an unprecedented scale.
In many ways Muslims and Christians find themselves as co-belligerents in a common battle against the modern world. The West is now not Christian but rather post-modernist. It’s characterised by an obsession with media technology (consumerism and entertainment), a radical relativism which asserts that we can all have our own private truth, an ego-centrism (which looks after number one) and a religious pluralism which asserts all religions are the same. This way of thinking has led to escapism and cynicism in society generally.
By contrast both Christianity and Islam find themselves running against this ideology. They share a concern for community, service and absolute truth: involvement rather than escapism, hope as opposed to cynicism. While postmodern society holds that man is simply a clever monkey, the product of matter, chance and time in a Godless universe, Muslims and Christians are together in asserting that man was made to enjoy a relationship with God.
Similarities between Islam and Christianity
Before exploring the differences between Islam and Christianity its useful to map out our common ground. There are seven common strands that are clearly evident.
First, that Islam and Christianity share a common ethical code, one which underlies respect for marriage, a belief in the sanctity of life, and a respect for property. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament are very similar to Islamic ethics and as Christian doctors we find ourselves agreeing with Muslims on many ethical issues. For example members of the Christian Medical Fellowship work together with members of the Islamic Medical Association within HOPE (Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia).
Second, Christianity and Islam share a common geography and history. The two religions date back to the Middle East and in particular come together in the person of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
Third, we share a belief in one God. This may seem a surprise to Muslim listeners, but both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible assert God’s oneness. ‘The Lord is one’ says Deuteronomy 6:4. ‘There is One God…’ says 1 Timothy 2:5.
Fourth, we share a belief in prophets – men throughout history chosen as God’s mouthpiece who spoke God’s Word. Many of these prophets are shared in both religious traditions. For example: Moses who brought us the Torah (Taurat), David who brought us the Psalms (Zabur), and of course Jesus who preached the Gospel (Injil). There are several other biblical prophets who are also mentioned in the Qur’an.
Fifth, we share a belief in angels: heavenly beings who are used as God’s messengers throughout history. Gabriel in particular plays a prominent place in both religions. Muslims believe that Muhammad was visited by Gabriel and of course Christians believe that Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus Christ.
Sixth, we share a belief in Scriptural authority. We accept that God’s revelations throughout history have been recorded in books, and while we may disagree about the degree of divine inspiration of the various books in our religious traditions, we nonetheless both share a profound respect of the authority of ‘Scripture’.
Seventh and finally, we share a belief in the day of judgment. Both, Christians and Muslims, hold that on this day God will divide everyone who has lived on our planet into two groups; one group consigned to heaven and the other group consigned to hell. While we differ on the criteria by which that judgment will be made, we nevertheless concur on the fact that there are only two possible destinations for human beings after death.
Similarities between Muslim and Christian views of Christ
So, there are many similarities between the two religions, in fact even when we come to the person of Jesus Christ there are some common strands. There is very little in the Qur’an about Jesus. When we consider that the Qur’an is about the same length as the New Testament but only mentions Jesus in a few of its 114 chapters (whereas by contrast the whole of the New Testament of the Bible is about Christ) we can see that there is little balance in the quantity of material. However, what little there is in the Qur’an affirms a lot of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels.
This is particularly evident in three areas.
First with regard to his birth. The Qur’an deals with this in Sura 19:16-23, 29-33 and in Sura 3:42-47, 59. These verses affirm that an angel visits Mary (cf Luke 1:26,27), and indicates that God has chosen her and singled her out (cf Luke 1:28). She is said to be blessed among women (cf Luke 1:31-33) and great things are spoken of the son she will bare (cf Luke 1:31-33). The Qur’an in Sura 3:59 likens Jesus to Adam, (as does the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 5:22, 45-49 and Romans 5). Most importantly the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the fact of the virgin birth (Sura 19:20). Interestingly Jesus is the only one of the prophets mentioned in the Qur’an who is said to have had a virgin birth. When we consider that Jesus was male, and that he therefore had a Y chromosome, we see that the only explanation for its origin (since it could not have come from Mary herself) was that God must have created it afresh. This is probably what the Bible means when it affirms ‘a body you have prepared for me’ in the book of Hebrews. Certainly there is no suggestion in the Bible or in the Qur’an that God had intercourse with Mary or implication that even the X chromosome came from her. This creation of a body for Jesus was a unique act (although Jesus himself, we believe, was existing before time began).
Second, there are similarities in the Qur’an and the Bible with regard to the life of Christ. Like the New Testament, the Qur’an affirms that Jesus performed miracles: in particular that he restored sight to the blind, healed lepers and raised people from the dead (Sura 3:49, 5:11). The Qur’an also affirms that Jesus brought ‘the message of the Gospel’ and that he committed no sin (Sura 3:46).
Third, there are similarities between the titles given to Christ in the Qur’an and those in the Bible. The Qur’an calls Jesus ‘the statement of truth’ (Sura 17:24), a similar claim to Jesus calling himself ‘the Way the Truth and the Life’ in John 14:6. Similarly, the Qur’an calls Jesus the Word (Sura 10:19 cf John 1:1), the Apostle (Sura 19:31 cf Hebrews 3:1) and the servant or slave of God (Sura 4:172 and 19:31 cf Isaiah chapters 42, 49, 50 and 53). The servant of God was one of Jesus’ favourite terms for himself and he clearly taught that he was the person talked about in the prophet Isaiah’s ‘Servant Songs’ written many centuries before. Most remarkably, the Qur’an refers eleven times (for example Sura 3:45, 4:71, 5:19, 9:30) to Christ as the Messiah. This is particularly interesting because Messiah (or Christ in Greek) is the title repeatedly applied to Jesus throughout the Bible. In fact, much of the Old Testament is devoted to explaining the characteristics and qualities that the coming Messiah will have.
So we see that there are similarities between the person of Jesus as painted in the Qur’an and the Bible. But there are huge differences too.
Differences between Muslim and Christian Views of Jesus
Some stories we find in the Qur’an about Jesus are not in the Bible at all.
For example the Qur’an tells us that a palm tree provides anguish for Mary after Jesus’ birth (Sura 19:22-26). We are told that Jesus created pigeons from clay and then threw them into the air whereupon they turned into real birds and flew away (Sura 3:49 and 5:11). The baby Jesus is alleged to have talked from the crib (19:29-33) and perhaps most surprising of all we are told that God, Mary and Jesus together constitute the Christian trinity (Sura 5:116).
These ideas to Christians sound quite bizarre, but now with the benefit of archaeology we have some idea as to what their sources may have been. At the time of Muhammad the New Testament had not yet been translated into Arabic and so he didn’t have access to the New Testament manuscripts when recording the Qur’an. However, we know that he was in contact with a number of groups who, although calling themselves Christian, had quite bizarre beliefs. Some people suggest that Muhammad may have been influenced by this and simply incorporated ‘heresy’ into the text of the Qur’an and there is, in fact, very good support for this view. The story of the palm tree is found in an apocryphal document called ‘The Lost Books of the Bible’. Similarly the story of the pigeons comes from ‘Thomas’ Gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ’. The story of baby Jesus talking is remarkably similar to that found in an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named ‘The First Gospel in the Infancy of Jesus Christ’ and the false belief about God, Mary and Jesus making up the trinity was also peddled by a heretical sect called the Choloridians which had been banished to Arabia at the time.
So there are similarities but also differences.
If we want to know more details about the life of Christ, then we need to look at sources other than the Qur’an. The Qur’an was not written down until at least 600 years after the death of Jesus but the New Testament was recorded by eye-witnesses within a few years of his death. Not surprisingly we can also learn a reasonable amount about Jesus from late first and early second century documents written by non-Christian Jewish and Roman historians. Let us look at some of these latter documents first because they predate the Qur’an by at least 400 years.
Early non Christian sources about Christ
First there is Tacitus. Tacitus is of particular interest to us in England because he was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, who was once the Roman Governor of Britain. In approximately 110 AD Tacitus, one of Rome’s most famous historians, recorded this about Christ:
‘Therefore to dispel rumour, Nero substituted his culprits and treated with the most extreme punishments some people, popularly known as Christians whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name Christus had been executed when Tiberias was Emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birth place of this evil, but even throughout Rome where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.
Tacitus was by no means a follower of Christ but he did nonetheless record and confirm the basic facts about his life and death.
Similarly Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived from AD 37 to 90, wrote the following in his ‘Antiquities of the Jews’.
‘And there arose about this time a source of new trouble, one Jesus. He was a doerof marvellous deeds. This man was the so-called Christ and when Pilate had condemned him to the Cross, those who had loved him did not cease – for he appeared to them, as they said, on the third day alive again.’
There was also Lucian of Samosata, a Satirist – a ‘John Cleese’ of the early second century who referred to Christ as ‘the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world’. Seutonius refers to Christians as being ‘given over to a new and mischievous superstition’. Pliny the Younger gives advice to Trajan about killing Christians and Thallus and Phlegon are two first-century historians who debate the cause of the darkness in the middle of the day which occurred at Christ’s crucifixion.
This brief excursion into Jewish and Roman history is simply to show that the consensus among non-Christian writers was that Jesus existed, performed miracles, was crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor, and was believed by his followers to have risen from the dead. If we’re wanting more detailed evidence then it is to the Gospels in the New Testament that we must turn.
The Gospels in the New Testament
The New Testament consists of 27 books all of which were almost certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The New Testament is all about Jesus and as mentioned is about the same length as the Qur’an. Therefore we have a tremendous amount of material to examine.
The first four books in the New Testament are four biographies written by two of Jesus’ twelve disciples (Matthew and John), another man (Mark) who was a close follower of Jesus and one of the leaders in the early church, and a Greek doctor (Luke) who although he never met Christ personally interviewed the eye-witnesses and became an early Christian leader himself.
Their parallel accounts, although recording different details, show a remarkable degree of consistency. There was clearly no change in the story through a chain of oral tradition, simply because there wasn’t such a chain. It was eye-witnesses who recorded these events. Also, the fact that we have very early manuscripts and fragments of New Testament mean that we can be confident that what we have today is what the original authors first wrote . The earliest fragments that exist include the John Ryland fragment in the John Ryland Library in Manchester which dates from 125 AD, and the Magdalen fragments which date from about 65 – 70 AD and are housed in the Magdalen College Library in Oxford.
What is remarkable is that these date from either the life-time of the Apostles (in the case of the Magdalen fragment) or from the life-time of those who knew the Apostles personally. This is despite the fact that they were written on papyrus which easily disintegrates.
There are also complete manuscripts of the New Testament from the first three centuries after Christ including the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus in the British Library and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library in Rome. In fact there are over 230 New Testament manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament (in about eight different languages) which pre-date the time of Muhammad. In addition to this there are 88,000 quotes from the New Testament in the writings of the ‘church fathers’, 32,000 of which date from before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
We find nothing like the documentary evidence for the New Testament in any other literature from antiquity. For example, we know of Julius Caesar only from ten documents, the earliest of which is a copy written 1,000 years after his life-time. Apart from the New Testament the best documented literature in antiquity is Homer’s Iliad of which have only 643 copies, the earliest written 500 years after the original.
Clearly, the New Testament manuscript evidence is extremely reliable.
Has the New Testament been changed?
It is often said by Muslims that the Bible has been changed, but when could it have been changed in relation to the writing of the Qur’an? It cannot have been after the Qur’an was written since we have New Testament manuscripts pre-dating the Qur’an as I have already said.
Equally, it cannot have been changed before the Qur’an was written because otherwise the Qur’an would say so. Interestingly the Qur’an does not say that the Bible has been changed at any point. In fact, to the contrary, the Qur’an encourages its readers to compare its own teaching with the Old and New Testaments of the Bible in order to confirm the truth of the message. This makes sense when we understand that the New Testament was not translated into Arabic until after the Qur’an was written. Therefore there was no opportunity for Muslims to realise that there was any clash between the teaching of the two books. This explains why Muhammad used to refer to the Bible for guidance (Sura 5:43, 46 and 6:34 and 10:64).
Most importantly how could God have allowed the Bible to be changed when Jesus himself said that ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). Why would anyone have dared to try and change it when faced with the truth of the warnings of the consequences of doing so in the Bible itself.
It is significant that the early Muslim commentators Bukhari (Al-Razi) were all agreed that the Bible could not be changed since it was God’s Word and several centuries passed before Muslims claimed that it had been changed. Surely if the Qur’an was indeed written by God, as Muslims claim, it would record the plain fact that the Qur’an and New Testament disagree. Instead – the Qur’an affirms the Bible.
Jesus Christ in the New Testament
What then do the New Testament documents tell us about the person of Christ? As mentioned, they agree with some of what the Qur’an teaches but provide much more detailed eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ teaching, miraculous deeds and claims about himself. For example, the Sermon on the Mount which makes up three chapters of the Gospel of Matthew consists entirely of Christ’s direct teaching on a multiplicity of different subjects. Many miracles showing Christ’s mastery over diseases and natural phenomena are described in all four Gospels and the Apostle John tells us that Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which were not recorded. John’s comment on this is to say that ‘if everyone of them were written down I suppose that even the whole world would not have had room for the books that would be written’ (John 21:25).
The New Testament confirms that Christ gave wonderful teaching and performed many miraculous deeds. In stark contrast to the Qur’an it claims that Christ was crucified by the Roman authorities.
Probably the most remarkable thing recorded about Christ in the New Testament is the claims that he made. He claimed that he was the only way to God (John 14:6) and this claim was confirmed by the Apostles – in particular both Peter (Acts 4:12) and Paul (1 Tim 2:5). More than this, when asked to reveal God the Father to the disciples he simply asked them ‘have I been with you so long and you don’t know me?’ (John 14:9) He followed this up by saying that anyone who had seen him had seen the Father. It was this astounding teaching that Jesus and God were one that marked him out as unique.
That this is what he was claiming is very clear from the New Testament where his divinity is directly stated in at least eight passages (John 1:1,2; John 1:18; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1) and strongly implied in others (Matt 1:23; John 17:3,5; Col 2:2; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 1:17).
His claims to be one with God were further confirmed by the fact that he called himself ‘I Am’ (John 8:58) a title which God used in the Old Testament to describe only himself (Ex 3:14). He accepted the title Lord (Hebrew Yahweh ‘ Greek Kyrios) and accepted worship (John 9:38) while being intimately aware of the Old Testament laws about idolatry. He claimed to have the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), which only God can do and also to be the Judge on the Day of Judgement (John 5:22). On top of this he affirmed that he existed even before the world was made (John 17:5).
If we have any doubts about what Jesus said we can tell from the reactions people had to him that they knew what he was claiming. They either worshipped him (Matt 4:33) or accused him of blasphemy (John 10:33). He was crucified simply because he claimed at his trial to be ‘the Son of God’. From Psalm 2, the Jews at the time knew this to be an implicit claim to Divinity. Their response was to say ‘you have heard the blasphemy’ and then to condemn him as worthy of death.
Mad, Bad or God?
What should we think of someone who claims to be God? There are only three alternatives. If the claim is false and the person making the claim does not know it to be false then we would have to say that they are suffering under a delusion and probably psychotic. On the other hand, if the claim is false and the person making it knows it to be false, then we would have to say that they are a deceiver trying to lead people astray. On the other hand, if the claim is true then we should recognise that person as both God and act accordingly. Would it be possible for God to become a man? If God can do anything then it must be. Why would he want to? Jesus said that he came to save the lost. In other words his visit to our planet had a purpose. He was both revealing his true identity and also dying on the Cross in order to make it possible for our broken relationship with God to be restored. The central message of Christianity is that the only way we can be put right with God and forgiven of our sins is by accepting that Jesus Christ has taken the punishment for our sins on our behalf. If we put our faith in him he will then grant us forgiveness and give us a new life so that we can approach the Day of Judgement with confidence.
Is it possible that Christ could have been psychotic or an evil deceiver? Certainly Muslims believe neither of these possibilities. How could he be mad when he gave such profound teaching? Similarly, how could someone who lived a life of virtue be evil?
He must have been God
Let us turn the question around. If it were possible for God to become a man, what sort of man would we expect him to be? We would expect him to have an unusual entry to life and both Qur’an and Bible confirm his virgin birth. We would expect him to be morally perfect and to perform extraordinary deeds, again facts confirmed in both Qur’an and Bible. We would expect him to speak the greatest words ever spoken and for him to have a profound effect on people. Furthermore we’d expect his influence to be universal and lasting and for his life to fulfil in minute detail the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament of the Bible. This is exactly what we find. Finally we would expect him to exercise power over death and again this is confirmed by the eye-witnesses through his resurrection and rising from the dead.
We simply have to look at the evidence and come to our own conclusions. To return to our original question of ‘Was Jesus a Muslim?’ – we would again say ‘Yes he was’ if we simply mean by this that he was submitted to God. If however, we mean would he have denied his divinity and claims as recorded in the New Testament, then Jesus clearly was not a Muslim.
Despite the similarities between the two religions we are left at the end with them being completely irreconcilable with regard to their beliefs about Christ. The greatest sin in Islam is to associate anything with God. To do this is a certain route to judgement and everlasting hell.
By complete contrast in Christianity unbelief in Christ’s divinity and resurrection is the path to judgement and hell.
Clearly both religions cannot be equally true. Despite the similarities the answer must turn on the identity of the person of Christ. You can compare Islam and Christianity to two bank-notes, both similar, but one of which is a valueless counterfeit. In deciding which one is counterfeit we need to ask which gives the true picture of Jesus. Ultimately this means that we either accept the testimony of the eye-witnesses who knew him, or accept that a ‘revelation’ received by someone 600 years after the events of the first century is more accurate. I simply leave you with a quote from St Paul: ‘even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you, let him be eternally condemned’ (Gal 1:8). I am being deliberately provocative here, but you can see that I have no choice but to be. Either Christianity is a counterfeit or Islam is, and we must make our decision on the evidence available and act accordingly. I challenge you as one who has read the Qur’an and yet chosen in favour of the Bible. I pray that if you are a Muslim you will take up my challenge and read the New Testament Gospels with an open mind, praying that God will show you whether Christianity or Islam is true. Thank you.
The Messiah
L. M. Abdallah
L. M. Abdallah
Contents
Ahmed And Hamdi
The Lamb of God
The Word of God
The Sacrifice of God
Sin
The Son of Abraham
God is One
God and Man
Appendix
Ahmed and Hamdi
Ahmed was employed at an office. It wouldn’t be entirely true to say that he was unhappy in his work, it was just that he found it difficult to get on with the department head, who always saw to it that Ahmed never got the chance to prove himself. As soon as the department was assigned a more difficult project, his boss always made certain that he himself was in a position to take all the credit.
More than once Ahmed had thought about changing jobs, but job prospects weren´t very bright, and it would have been difficult to find something better, at least for the time being. Besides, his current salary was somewhat higher than with most available jobs, so Ahmed remained with the company. Money was an important factor since he needed enough to be able to provide for his wife and three children. Ahmed was very proud of his children, especially Hassan, his oldest son, who was studying engineering at university.
One day, something happened which changed the situation at work for the better. Hamdi joined Ahmed´s department. Hamdi, a little younger than Ahmed, was always in a good mood, very cheerful and easy to get on with. At last, Ahmed had found a friend at work. They began to eat lunch together and meet in the evening. Hamdi, too, was married, and God had blessed him with four wonderful children, two boys and two girls.
Ahmed and Hamdi became good friends and they often visited each other at home. They loved to sit down over a cup of tea and just talk. The hours used to fly by, and they could talk about almost anything.
At first they mainly talked about work at the office but as time went on they began to discuss some of life´s important questions. Both Ahmed and Hamdi were deeply religious but they did not share the same faith. Ahmed was a Muslim, while his best friend, Hamdi, read the Bible regularly and was a follower of the Messiah (Al-Masih).
What surprised Ahmed most was that the more he got to know Hamdi, the more he came to respect his faith and his life with God. Ahmed realised that his friend enjoyed a close relationship with God, something which he himself had never experienced, and this made him curious. Hamdi´s life with God, Ahmed thought, must have had something to do with the Messiah. In one sense, Ahmed also believed in the Messiah, although not in the same way. He believed in everything written in the Qur’an about Jesus, the son of Mary (Aisa Ibn Mariam) and had a deep respect for the Messiah. He knew that the Messiah had been born of the Virgin Mary (Mariam Al-Athra), that he had performed many miracles with God’s permission and that he had received the Gospel (Al-Injil) from God. At the same time Ahmed realised that he only knew about a few details in the life of the Messiah, and his desire grew to find out more about this great apostle (rasul), who had been given so many names, even in the Qur’an.
One day, Ahmed, finally overcome by curiosity, decided to ask his good friend Hamdi about the Messiah. That decision led to many interesting conversations.
The Lamb of God
“Tell me about Jesus, the son of Mary, ” Ahmed requested earnestly. “I would really like to know more about him.”
Hamdi thought for a moment and then said, “If you want to understand why the Messiah came into the world you will need to understand the meaning of sacrifice.”
“Sacrifice? What do you mean?” wondered Ahmed.
Hamdi continued, “We see the meaning of sacrifice in Id Al-Athha (The Feast of Sacrifice). You know, when God asked Abraham (Sayedna Ibrahim) to sacrifice his son. What would have happened to Abraham’s son if God (Allah) hadn’t provided a sacrifice as a ransom (fida) for him?”
“Ishmael would have died,” said Ahmed.
“That is the meaning of sacrifice, ” replied Hamdi. “Someone dies instead of someone else. God sent a ram, which was sacrificed in his place. I am in the same position as Abraham’s son. I am under the power of death, ” said Hamdi.
“What do you mean?” said Ahmed, a little perplexed.
Hamdi answered in a serious voice, “It is written in the Bible (The Holy Book):
‘For the wages of sin is death.’ (1)
“The wages for my sin is death. I am a sinner. Yes, it’s true that others see me as a deeply religious man. I pray to God every day, I study his book and I serve him. But before God I am a sinner. Is there anyone perfect apart from God?” asked Hamdi.
“No!” answered Ahmed. “No-one but God.”
“So before God we are all sinners, aren’t we?” asked Hamdi.
Ahmed agreed, “Yes, that is true.”
“I am then in the same position as Abraham’s son, under the power of death. But where is the sacrifice for my sins? Hasn’t God sent a sacrifice as a ransom for me?” asked Hamdi. Ahmed didn’t really know what to say. Hamdi continued, “John the Baptist (Yahya Ibn Zakaria) lived at the time of the Messiah. The first time he saw the Messiah, he said:
‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ (2)
“The Messiah was not the lamb of man. He came from God. He came from above. God’s Spirit (Ruh Allah) covered the Virgin Mary (Mariam). She became pregnant and gave birth to a son. As you know, he is called ‘Jesus, the son of Mary’, ‘the Word of God (Kalimat Allah)’ and ‘the Spirit of God (Ruh Allah)’. He was pure. He came from heaven as the Lamb of God. The Messiah proved that he was the Lamb of God by living a perfect life before God. There was never a time when he needed to say ‘I ask God the Great for forgiveness (astaghfer Allah Al-Azim)’ since he was the perfect Lamb of God. But since he came as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, he had to be sacrificed. This happened when, of his own free will, he gave his life in death. He rose from the dead and he ascended alive into heaven. And one day he will return to the world.”
Hamdi was quiet for a moment, looked at Ahmed and said, “I am in the same position as Abraham’s son. I am under the power of death. But there is a sacrifice for my sins through the Messiah, the pure Lamb of God. Now, through his Lamb, God offers forgiveness for all our sins and eternal life in paradise (janna). The Messiah bore the sin of all mankind, including yours, Ahmed.”
Ahmed sat silently for a long time, thinking. Then he said, “If the Messiah took away the sin of the whole world, then I don’t need to die…in which case I already have eternal life.”
“Ahmed,” said Hamdi, “suppose it’s your birthday and the Messiah comes with a present and knocks on your door. He says to you, ‘Ahmed, I would like to give you a present – forgiveness for all your sins, eternal life and a living, personal relationship with God starting today. But there are some conditions. You must turn from your sin, confessing it, and receive forgiveness through my sacrifice for you. If you receive the gift, it’s yours, not otherwise.’ “
Ahmed sat, pondering. He felt confused and didn’t really know what to say.
“Maybe you think that was an extreme example, ” said Hamdi, “but every time a servant of the Lord explains the way to God through the Messiah, it’s as if the living and risen Jesus, the son of Mary is actually knocking on our door. He says in the Bible:
‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.’ ” (3)
Hamdi added, “Opening my door to the Messiah and inviting him into my life to break my bread and have fellowship with me, that is exactly the same as receiving God’s gift, a gift God wants to give everyone.”
“I want you to know, Hamdi, that what you’ve just told me about the Messiah has touched me deeply. I’ll need time to think about our conversation. But I want to hear more about the Messiah the next time we meet.”
“Al-salamu aleykum (may peace be upon you).”
“Aleykum al-salam (and upon you be peace).”
The Word of God
“What you told me last time about Jesus, the son of Mary gave me a lot to think about, ” began Ahmed, a little tentatively. “I hope you don’t mind, but I have a lot of questions I’d like answers to before going on with our conversation about the Messiah.”
“Of course, please go ahead, ” Hamdi replied, half knowing what Ahmed was going to say.
Again, Ahmed began tentatively, “You know that we, as Muslims, believe in the heavenly books – Al-Tawrah (the Pentateuch of Moses), Al-Zabur (the Psalms of David), Al-Injil (the Gospel of Jesus) and the Holy Qur’an. But I’ve also been taught that all the books apart from the Qur’an have been falsified by Jews and Christians, so that you can no longer believe what’s written in them. So the Holy Book (the Bible) you believe in is corrupted (muharraf) and a mixture of truth and lies.”
“Can you offer any historical evidence to support that?” asked Hamdi.
Ahmed thought for a while but to his amazement realised that he had never heard anything but unfounded allegations.
Hamdi continued, “Can you tell me when this alleged corruption took place or how it was even possible for it to be achieved?”
“No, I can’t, ” said Ahmed a little shocked. “No-one’s ever given me the answers to such basic questions.”
After a moment Hamdi asked, “Do you think it would be possible for the Qur’an to be corrupted?”
“Astaghfer Allah (I ask God for forgiveness)!” exclaimed Ahmed. “That would be utterly impossible. Believers would never allow anyone to even try to corrupt it.”
Hamdi answered, “Why do you think we see the Bible differently? How could you even think that the true believers would have allowed someone to change the Holy Scriptures and produce a corrupted Bible? I believe in the God who created heaven and earth, the God who is omniscient and almighty. He who has given mankind his own Word also has the power to keep his Word from corruption.”
With his eyes firmly on Ahmed, Hamdi asked, “Ahmed, do you believe that everything that happens is in accordance with the will of God?”
“Yes, I believe that, ” answered Ahmed.
Hamdi continued, “Do you really believe that God would first give his Word to the world and then decide that it should be corrupted, or does not the Almighty have the power to keep his Word from corruption?”
“Yes, God certainly does have the power to keep his Word from corruption, ” agreed Ahmed.
“Do you know, Ahmed, that the Bible is a wonderful book? It was written over a period of approximately 1,400 years. It contains Al-Tawrah (the Pentateuch), Al-Zabur (the Psalms), Al-Injil (the Gospel) and many other books which were written by God’s apostles (rasul) and prophets (anbia). The Bible is divided into two parts: The Old Testament, which covers the time before the Messiah’s birth, and The New Testament, which begins with the arrival of the Messiah in the world. The Bible was written in three different languages.”
“Which languages were those?” wondered Ahmed.
“It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, ” replied Hamdi. “God used many different types of people when he gave us his Word. Some were kings or statesmen, others were shepherds or fishermen. The Bible is a miracle from God, because in spite of the immense timespan and the many different people involved in its writing, the entire book holds together as a wonderful whole. There is a common theme throughout the whole Bible, and that theme, Ahmed, is the Messiah (Al-Masih).”
“Can it be true that God spoke about the Messiah for 1,400 years?” said Ahmed astonished.
“Ahmed, ” said Hamdi with a smile, “God has spoken about the Messiah throughout all history right up to the present day.”
“Is that really possible?” said Ahmed, full of doubt.
“Yes, of course it is, because with God everything is possible, ” answered Hamdi, “but we can talk about that the next time we meet.”
“I’m really looking forward to it, ” said Ahmed.
“Al-salamu aleykum.”
“Aleykum al-salam.”
The Sacrifice of God
“I’m really curious about how the Messiah could be the theme running through the whole Bible, ” said Ahmed.
“Do you remember when we talked about the Messiah as the Lamb of God which bore our sin?” asked Hamdi.
“Of course I do, ” replied Ahmed. “How could I ever forget that?”
“God has been teaching mankind about sacrifice throughout all history right up to Jesus, the son of Mary, ” said Hamdi.
“In what way?” asked Ahmed.
“How many people were on earth at the time of Cain (Qabil) and Abel (Habil)?” asked Hamdi.
Ahmed thought for a little while and then replied, “Four – Adam, Eve (Hawa), Cain and Abel.”
“Only four people, ” said Hamdi, “and yet they understood that it was necessary to worship God with a sacrifice. How could they have known that?” asked Hamdi and continued, “Because God is holy and pure, but man is a sinner and in need of a ransom for his sin. Noah (Sayedna Noh) worshipped God with a sacrifice. Abraham (Sayedna Ibrahim) worshipped God with a sacrifice. Moses (Sayedna Musa), David (Sayedna Dawoud) and all the apostles and prophets have worshipped God with a sacrifice.” Hamdi added, “I worship God in the same way as the apostles and prophets.”
“No, now you are joking. You don’t go down to the market to buy a sheep to sacrifice to God, ” said Ahmed, smiling with his whole face.
“I worship God through the Messiah, the Lamb of God, who bore my sin when he was sacrificed, ” answered Hamdi. “It is written in the Holy Book (The Bible):
‘For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men.’ (1)
“There is only one God and there is only one mediator between God and us, the Messiah, who offered himself as a ransom (fida) for all, for you too, Ahmed. Throughout all history right up to the present day, people have worshipped the living God with a sacrifice.”
“I think I’m beginning to understand what you mean, but you’ll need to explain a little more so that I can understand the whole picture, ” said Ahmed thoughtfully.
A moment later Hamdi replied, “God revealed the meaning and purpose of sacrifice in history, especially through Moses in the Tawrah (Pentateuch). The collective teaching of the law (Al-Sharia) on the meaning of sacrifice as a ransom for sin is clear from the following words of Scripture:
‘In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’ ” (2)
“But what has all this teaching about sacrifice got to do with Jesus, the son of Mary?” wondered Ahmed.
“Well, ” said Hamdi, “parallel to the teaching about the meaning of sacrifice are many prophecies about the Messiah. Among these prophecies were predictions that when the Messiah came into the world he would be sacrificed as a ransom for our sin. Hamdi picked up a Bible and opened it. Showing the passage to Ahmed he said, “See for yourself what an exact description of the Messiah’s sacrifice the prophet Isaiah wrote around 700 years before the Messiah came:
‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.’ ” (3)
Ahmed, deeply touched by the prophetic words, said in amazement, “Are you saying that this was actually written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, the son of Mary?”
“Yes, ” said Hamdi. “According to the prophets, the Messiah was to come from the family of the prophet David (Nabi Dawoud). David, who lived around a thousand years before the Messiah, gives a very accurate description of his future son, the Messiah’s, crucifixion. Crucifixion was a very slow and painful method of execution. After a while, the bones of the crucified person would go out of joint, and besides this, he would suffer from severe thirst. The prophet David writes:
‘I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. ‘ (4)
“David wrote this even though crucifixion wasn’t even used as a method of execution in his day. It was invented much later and was used by the Romans during the time of the Messiah.”
“So you’re saying that all these predictions have been fulfilled in Jesus, the son of Mary?” asked Ahmed.
“Yes, and not only these, but many other prophecies have been fulfilled to the letter in the Messiah, ” answered Hamdi. “The Messiah himself confirmed on a number of occasions that he came to give his life as a ransom (fida). He said about himself:
‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.’ (5)
“Ahmed, do you understand now how God’s teaching on sacrifice for the sin of mankind runs all the way through the Bible and how it has all been fulfilled through the Messiah?”
“Hamdi, ” said Ahmed, “I have never heard this before. It is very interesting. I need more time to think. But don’t worry, I’ll soon be back with more questions.”
“Please, receive this Bible as a gift from me, ” said Hamdi. “Begin with the New Testament, where you can read about the life of the Messiah and about his amazing miracles and teaching.”
“Thank you, ” said Ahmed. “I have heard a lot about the ‘People of the Book’ (ahl al-kitab), but I’ve never read the book itself before. I’m really looking forward to reading about the teaching and miracles of Jesus, the son of Mary.”
“Al-salamu aleykum.“
“Aleykum al-salam.“
Sin
“Hamdi,” began Ahmed a little tentatively, “since we met last time, I’ve been thinking about the Messiah and how he gave his life as a ransom for the sin of mankind. But there is one thing I want to know. Where does sin (al-khatiya) come from, and how is it that all mankind has problems with sin? Can you explain that?” asked Ahmed in a serious voice.
“Yes, I think so, ” Hamdi answered thoughtfully, “but we’ll have to go back to the beginning to understand where sin comes from. In the Tawrah (Pentateuch) we read that after God had created the world and mankind, he placed man in paradise (janna). There in paradise, man was completely pure and lived in a perfect relationship with God. But as you know, something happened which destroyed life in paradise. Ahmed, what happened?”
“Satan came and destroyed everything, ” said Ahmed.
“Exactly!” Hamdi replied. “God forbade man to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when he said to Adam:
‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’ (1)
“But Satan came as a snake and tempted Adam and Eve. They were disobedient towards God and ate of the fruit. The result was devastating for mankind. Since sin entered the life of mankind, everyone became a sinner.”
“Did everyone really become a sinner?” asked Ahmed sceptically. “I find it difficult to accept that. If it’s true, in what way did everyone become a sinner?”
“Mankind became just like the fruit he ate, ” said Hamdi. “He became a strange mixture of good and evil. Sometimes a person can perform some of the most noble and distinguished acts and then, the next minute, be involved in some the worst acts of treachery, perhaps even deceiving and defrauding his own neighbour. One minute, a person can be very loving and considerate, and the next minute, be filled with envy, selfishness, lust or some other characteristic related to sin. As you said, Ahmed, all mankind wrestles with this problem. Every religion deals with this problem. Every nation creates laws to control sin in its various outworkings. The worst of it is that people are not sinners because they sin, but they sin because they are sinners. It’s as if there’s a little factory inside people which produces sin and evil, isn’t it?” said Hamdi and gave Ahmed a searching look.
“I’m sorry to say that your description of mankind corresponds to reality pretty well. People really are a strange mixture of good and evil, ” answered Ahmed. “But where does Satan fit into the picture?”
“Well, it was through sin that Satan obtained power in human lives and societies, ” answered Hamdi. “He who once tempted Adam and Eve continues to do the same thing today. He still tempts people so that we will continue to live in sin. It is through sin that Satan obtains power in people’s lives because it is sin that separates us from God. It is because of sin that the world is like it is today. God created everything good, but mankind has brought a great deal of evil into the world, for example, through war and oppression, but also through broken relationships and many other kinds of misery which destroy people’s lives.”
“So you’re saying that God didn’t create us like this, but that the world is like it is because of Adam’s sin?” Ahmed wondered.
“Exactly!” Hamdi replied. “Sin entered mankind through Adam, as it is written:
‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.’ (2)
“The worst result was death, both physical and spiritual death.”
“Physical and spiritual death?” said Ahmed and looked questioningly at Hamdi. “What exactly is spiritual death?”
“Well, God told man that if he ate of the fruit he would surely die, ” Hamdi began. “And because God is righteous and always acts according to his Word, death indeed came over mankind so that all people die. But man also died in a spiritual way when he sinned.”
“How?” wondered Ahmed.
“Well, the result of sin was that man was driven out of paradise, ” answered Hamdi. “He was driven away from the place where he lived in a pure, perfect relationship with God. Man had to live outside paradise. Man died in a spiritual way when he became separated from the living and holy God through his sin. So it is sin and evil that separate mankind from God. It’s because of sin that we don’t automatically live in a close relationship with God. Since God is pure and holy, he cannot have any relationship with sin. That is why we need a Saviour (Munajy) to save us from the consequences of all our sin. Ahmed, do you believe that all your sins are recorded somewhere?”
Ahmed, looking a little worried, said, “I know that they are written down by the two angels following every one of us.”
“God knows everything about us, ” said Hamdi. “Every good deed and every bad deed. Every word, every thought, every intention (neya). God has everything written down. Do you know which way the scales will tip on the day of judgement (yom al-hisab)?”
“No, only God knows that, ” said Ahmed quietly.
“God loves you, Ahmed. Don’t forget that the Lamb of God, Jesus, the son of Mary has taken all our sin upon himself. Forgiveness is available for everything, ” said Hamdi calmly.
Ahmed thought for a while and asked, “If the Messiah is so important why didn’t Adam and Eve get to hear about him?”
“Would you believe me if I said that they did get to hear about the Messiah?” asked Hamdi.
“No, I don’t think it’s possible for them to have heard about him, ” Ahmed replied.
“God loves man and wants to have a relationship with him, ” began Hamdi. “That’s why he spoke about the Messiah from the very beginning. Right in the midst of the tragedy surrounding them, Adam and Eve nevertheless received a promise of a deliverer who would one day crush Satan’s power over man. God spoke to Satan in Adam and Eve’s hearing:
‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.’ (3)
“Throughout the whole Bible sons are named after their fathers, the son of Abraham, the son of Jacob, and so on. But here the Bible speaks of the woman’s offspring, not the man’s. Someone was to come who did not have a father, but was instead the son of the woman. This son would crush Satan’s power over man, while Satan like a snake would try to kill the woman’s son by striking his heel. This is exactly what happened when Jesus, the son of Mary offered his life as a ransom for the sin of mankind.”
“Remarkable, ” said Ahmed. “It’s amazing that God already began to speak about the Messiah to the very first people on earth. It shows once more that the main theme of the Bible really is the Messiah. You’ve given me a lot to think about before next time, Hamdi.”
“Al-salamu aleykum.“
“Aleykum al-salam.“
The Son of Abraham
“I’m very curious, ” said Hamdi. “I’d like to know what you think of Al-Injil (the Gospel).”
“It truly is a wonderful book, ” replied Ahmed sincerely. “I have never read anything like it. It’s fascinating to read about the Messiah’s amazing miracles in detail. And his teaching up on the mountain (The Sermon on the Mount) is extraordinary. There is clarity and depth in what he says. He turns many concepts upside down when he tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And his teaching on prayer is so different from anything I have heard before. I have to admit that the book has made a deep impression on me, but at the same time it seems like I’ve got as many new questions as answers.”
“Sounds interesting, ” said Hamdi smiling. “Let’s start with your first question.”
“All right, ” said Ahmed, “why does the Gospel begin with a genealogy from Abraham through David to the Messiah?”
After thinking for a while Hamdi asked, “Do you remember what we’ve talked about before, that the Bible holds together as a unit and that there is a theme running through the whole book?”
“Yes, I remember, ” answered Ahmed.
“Do you remember what the theme was?”
“Al-Masih, ” replied Ahmed.
“The answer to your question is related to that theme, ” said Hamdi. “According to the prophets, the Messiah had to be the son of David and the son of Abraham.”
Ahmed thought about what Hamdi had told him and said, “What you’ve said is interesting, but could you explain a little more about the different prophecies?”
After quite a long pause Hamdi began, “One day, about four thousand years ago, God spoke to Abraham, who is known as the friend of God (khalil Allah). When Abraham was still called Abram, God gave him a promise which would be of great significance for all mankind. In the Tawrah (Pentateuch) we read:
‘The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” ‘ (1)
“God called a man who had no children in spite of many years of marriage. God promised him a land. God would make him into a great nation. His name would be great and well-known. All this God fulfilled in detail. But the most remarkable of all the promises was that the Lord God would bless all the peoples on earth through Abraham. In this promise lies the promise of the Messiah. So the Messiah had to be a son of Abraham, and through him God would bless the whole world.”
“But how do you know that the promise is about the Messiah and not someone else?” wondered Ahmed.
“We can say that it gradually becomes clearer as we read further in the Tawrah, ” answered Hamdi. “In time Abraham got two sons, one with his wife Sarah, called Isaac (Ishaq), and one with Sarah’s maidservant Hagar (Hajar), called Ishmael (Ismail). Even though God blessed Ishmael, he made it clear to Abraham, even before Isaac’s birth, that the promise regarding the Messiah would be fulfilled through Isaac when he said:
‘…Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac…'” (2)
“Yes, Ishmael, who God blessed, became the father of us Arabs, ” said Ahmed, “but we Muslims know that God sent many of his apostles and prophets through Isaac’s descendants.”
Hamdi continued, “Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob (Yaqub). God showed that the promised Messiah would come from Jacob when he revealed himself in a dream to him and said,
‘I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.’ ” (3)
“It is remarkable that when God spoke with Jacob, he repeated many parts of the original promise to Abraham, ” said Ahmed.
“That’s because it’s actually the same promise being passed on from one generation to the next, ” Hamdi said, “but as you can see, Ahmed, it was through a son of Jacob that God was to bless all the peoples of the earth.”
“Yes, and I begin to suspect that the Messiah will once more prove to be the main theme of the Bible, ” replied Ahmed with a smile.
“That’s correct, ” said Hamdi. “Among the children of Israel (bani Isra’il) were many families. The question is whether God also revealed the family from which the Messiah would come. God chose David (Sayedna Dawoud) and made a covenant with him. In many prophecies God shows that the Messiah would come from the family of the prophet David. The prophet Isaiah, who lived more than two hundred years after David, likens the family of Jesse to the stump of a tree. David’s father was called Jesse. From that family would come one on whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. He would bring justice to the poor of the earth. He would create a kingdom like paradise itself, and everyone in that kingdom would know the Lord. Isaiah writes:
‘A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him… with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth… In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious…’ ” (4)
“Let’s see if I’ve got this right, ” said Ahmed. “God revealed that the Messiah was to be a son of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David.”
“Precisely!” answered Hamdi with a broad smile. “And when we read the Gospel we can see that the Messiah is born in accordance with the prophecies. That’s why the Gospel begins with a genealogy. It proves that the Messiah is indeed the son of Abraham and David.”
“Once more the main theme of the Bible has proved to be Jesus, the son of Mary, ” said Ahmed. “But, Hamdi, I’m sure you’re aware that I have some much more difficult questions in store. But I’ll save them for next time.”
“Al-salamu aleykum.“
“Aleykum al-salam.“
God is One
“What do you see?” asked Ahmed, holding up three fingers in the air.
“I see three fingers on one hand, ” said Hamdi with a smile, knowing what Ahmed was thinking of.
“Hamdi, ” Ahmed continued, “do you believe God is one or three?”
“You maybe don’t fully understand in what way I believe, ” said Hamdi, “but you must understand that I believe in the one true God, the God who created heaven and earth, who can do anything, knows everything and is present everywhere. You know that my faith is based on the Bible, and God’s Word teaches that God is one. This truth is written in many places throughout the Bible.”
“But God cannot be three and one at the same time, ” insisted Ahmed. He again held up three fingers and said, “One plus one plus one equals three and not one.”
“How many Ahmed’s are you?” asked Hamdi. “Are you one or two?”
“One, of course, ” answered Ahmed.
“God has created you with a body and a spirit, ” said Hamdi. “Is your body Ahmed?” asked Hamdi.
“Yes.”
“But what about your spirit?” asked Hamdi. “Is that Ahmed?”
“Well, yes it is, ” said Ahmed, realising what Hamdi was going to say.
Hamdi continued, “Why is it impossible for God to be three in one when he has created us as two in one?” After a short pause Hamdi said, “We can say that God is a complex unity who reveals himself in three persons. After all, what is one times one times one, Ahmed?”
“One, ” said Ahmed quietly. “But Jesus, the son of Mary is only man and not the Son of God.” Ahmed was looking intently at Hamdi. “Do you believe that the Messiah is the Son of God, Hamdi?”
“What do you think I believe?” asked Hamdi.
“I’m not sure exactly, ” said Ahmed, “but I suppose you believe that God had a physical relationship with the Virgin Mary, and they had a son together.”
“Astaghfer Allah! (I ask God for forgiveness), ” exclaimed Hamdi. “That is absolutely not what I believe, and I do not know any follower of the Messiah who believes that either.”
Ahmed, surprised, asked, “Then what do you believe?”
“I believe God is eternal, that he existed in eternity before anything was created, ” Hamdi began. “When the Gospel explains who the Messiah is, it does not begin with his birth into the world, but it begins in eternity, before God created the world. It is written in the Gospel:
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life…’ (1)
“God created the world through his Word, didn’t he?”
“Yes, that’s right. God said, ‘ “Be!” And it is!’ (Kun fa yakun), ” answered Ahmed.
“So God created the world through his Word, ” said Hamdi. “And this Word, which proceeded from God, was a part of God and was filled with God’s creative power and all his attributes. There was life in the Word of God, and wherever the Word became present, life was created in all its different forms.”
“Yes, I agree with that, but what exactly does the expression ‘and the Word was God’ mean?” asked Ahmed.
“If I were to testify in a court of law, you would not be able to separate me from my words, ” said Hamdi. “My words would represent me and would be a part of me. When we sit here and talk, our words are a part of us so that we are represented by our words. When God created the universe, the Word he spoke was one with him. We cannot separate God from his Word. This eternal Word of God, who is one with him and contains all his attributes, was revealed in Jesus, the son of Mary, as it is written:
‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ (2)
“Everything God has said about himself, all his attributes, were revealed in the Messiah. God is holy. When people saw how pure the Messiah was, they saw the holiness of God in him. God is love. When they saw how the Messiah loved people, they saw the love of God in him. God can do everything. He is omnipotent. When people saw how the Messiah walked on water, spoke to the storm, making the wind and the waves die down, created bread, healed the blind and raised the dead, they saw the power and glory of God revealed in him.”
“But how can God, who is present everywhere, be limited to a human being?” persisted Ahmed. “Did God forget the universe when he was in the Messiah?”
“Ahmed, ” said Hamdi, “suppose we were out on an unending ocean and we lowered a glass into it, filling it with water. If we analysed the water, we’d find it to be exactly the same as that in the ocean. It’s the same with the Messiah. The eternal, almighty God is present everywhere. At the same time, he reveals himself in the Messiah with the same attributes and power. But God is not limited because he reveals himself in the Messiah. He is still infinite.”
“But God cannot reveal himself in a person, ” said Ahmed.
“How can we limit God?” asked Hamdi. “How can we say that the Almighty cannot? Can’t he do everything?”
“Well, yes, he can do everything, ” answered Ahmed, “but I can’t believe that he has revealed himself in a human being.”
“It’s good that we agree that this can pose a problem for us but not for God, who can do anything he wants to, ” said Hamdi. “If you didn’t already know the story, what would you say if someone told you that God had revealed himself in a burning bush and had spoken out of that bush to Moses?”
Ahmed thought for a while and smiled to himself when he realised that it couldn’t be more difficult for God to reveal himself in a human being than in a bush.
Hamdi continued, “Ahmed, think for a moment, who is the person who is actually called ‘The Word of God’ and ‘The Spirit of God’ (Kalimat Allah wa Ruh Allah)? Even the Spirit of God is one with God. We know that the Spirit of God covered the Virgin Mary and that she became pregnant and gave birth to the Messiah, as the Angel Gabriel told her:
‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’ (3)
“The question is who it is that came into the world in this way. Ahmed, if you had been a doctor at the time of the Messiah and it was your task to write out his birth certificate, what would you have written? What was his name?”
“I suppose I’d have written ‘Jesus, the son of Mary’, ” said Ahmed.
“And the name of the mother?”
“Well, that would have been ‘The Virgin Mary’, ” said Ahmed.
“And then we come to the name of the father, ” said Hamdi with a smile.
“He didn’t have a father, ” answered Ahmed with an even broader smile.
“We could, of course, leave that line blank since he didn’t have an earthly father, ” said Hamdi, “…or we could ask ourselves, ‘Where does he come from? What is the origin of the one called “The Word of God” and “The Spirit of God”? What is the identity of the one who came down from heaven?’ He himself said:
‘For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world… I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.’ (4)
‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ (5)
“Ahmed, he came in order to give his flesh as a sacrifice for all mankind. He who partakes of ordinary bread receives physical life, but he who partakes of the bread of God that has come down from heaven receives spiritual life, eternal life. He who believes in the Messiah and partakes of him receives a life which satisfies man’s innermost hunger and thirst for God. This is what I myself have experienced. The Messiah is an offer from God to you, Ahmed.”
“I’m not ready for that yet, ” said Ahmed quietly. “I have many thoughts going round and round in my head. I realise now that I’ve completely misunderstood the way in which you believe in God. I’m slowly beginning to understand how you believe in the one true God and that he revealed himself in the Messiah. You know that I love the Messiah with all my heart, but I still have a number of questions that need answering. But we can talk about those next time, can’t we, Hamdi?”
“I’m looking forward to it, ” answered Hamdi.
“Al-salamu aleykum.“
“Aleykum al-salam.“
God and Man
“I’ve been thinking almost day and night about our last discussion, ” said Ahmed. “First you say that Jesus, the son of Mary is man. Then you say that God revealed himself in him. I want to know who he really is. Isn’t it true that you’ve made the Messiah out to be the Son of God when he is nothing more than the son of Mary?”
“Ahmed, ” Hamdi began, “the answer to that question is the key to eternal life with God, both here and now and in eternity. It would be ‘shirk’ (to place someone on the same level as God) if we made a man out to be God. But the Bible teaches that God revealed himself in a man and not the other way round. We both agree that the Messiah was born as a man. In accordance with the prophets, he is the son of Abraham, the son of David and the son of Mary. But in the prophecies which were given long before the birth of the Messiah, God teaches us that he would come to us in the Messiah.”
“Do you mean that the apostles and prophets before the Messiah already spoke about God himself being revealed in him?” Ahmed asked in surprise.
“The main theme of the Bible is the Messiah, so it shouldn’t surprise us that God had already revealed the truth about the Messiah through the prophets, ” said Hamdi.
“Show me, ” requested Ahmed, “I’m very interested.”
Hamdi thought for a while before saying, “When God, in about 700 BC, revealed to the prophet Micah that the Messiah would be born in the town of Bethlehem, he also disclosed that the one who would be born existed long before he was born:
‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’ (1)
“The Messiah was indeed born in the town of Bethlehem, as it is written in the Gospel:
‘So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.’ (2)
“The question is of who he is who existed long before he was born into the world. We see what he himself said in a conversation with some exasperated Jews in Jerusalem (Al-Quds):
‘”Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old, ” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth, ” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”‘ (3)
“We know that Abraham lived around 2000 BC.”
“So, the Messiah himself claimed that he existed before he was born, ” said Ahmed. “But where in the prophets does it say that God would reveal himself in the Messiah?”
“That is written in many places, ” said Hamdi. “The prophet Isaiah speaks about one who would come from the small area where Jesus, the son of Mary grew up. He would create an eternal kingdom, which would be characterised by the peace of God. He himself, who would also be a son of David, would reign in this kingdom for ever. The prophet describes the characteristics of the Messiah with the different names he is given:
‘For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and for ever.’ (4)
“We know that the names God gives someone describe that person’s characteristics. So, who is he, Ahmed, who is given the names ‘Wonderful Counsellor’, ‘Mighty God’, ‘Everlasting Father’ and ‘Prince of Peace’?”
“This picture of the Messiah the prophets painted before he was born is beginning to take shape for me, ” said Ahmed, “but does it really say that God would come to the world he himself created?”
“John the Baptist (Yahya Ibn Zakaria) lived at the same time as the Messiah, ” said Hamdi. “He was sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, so that people would repent and come to faith in him. When John was asked who he himself was and why God had sent him, he replied with a quote from the prophet Isaiah, chapter 40, where it is written:
‘A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it.” ‘ (5)
“The picture from the prophet Isaiah portrays the visit of a great king. People were to build a new and straight highway for him through the wilderness. But who is this visiting king, Ahmed?”
“Well, according to the prophet, he is the Lord, our God, ” said Ahmed quietly.
“The picture becomes even clearer, ” continued Hamdi, “when we read further in the same passage, where it is written:
‘You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, “Here is your God!” See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.’ (6)
“The Messiah did indeed come as a shepherd for all believers. He himself said,
‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’ (7)
“But, Ahmed, who is it, according to the prophet, that will come as a shepherd?”
“I have to admit that it’s shown to be the Lord God himself, ” answered Ahmed, now quite shaken by the prophet’s words.
Hamdi continued, “As you understand, Ahmed, all these prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus, the son of Mary. Before the Messiah was born, the Angel Gabriel came to Zechariah, the future father of John the Baptist. The angel explained to Zechariah that he would have a son and told him what a special task his son would have. The Angel Gabriel said:
‘…he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.’ (8)
“Who is it, according to the Gospel, that John the Baptist will go before, Ahmed?”
“The Lord their God, ” answered Ahmed.
“When John the Baptist was still newly born, ” continued Hamdi, “Zechariah prophesied over him, his new-born son:
‘And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven.’ (9)
“Do you see, Ahmed, that Yahya Ibn Zakaria, according to the words of the prophet Isaiah, the Angel Gabriel and his father Zechariah, was to go before the Lord, and that the one to come was God himself?”
“Yes, I can see that and I can suppose that all this was confirmed when the Messiah actually came, ” said Ahmed seriously.
“Yes, in detail, ” said Hamdi. “When the Virgin Mary gave birth to the Messiah in Bethlehem, the town of David, the Angel of the Lord appeared to some shepherds outside the town and said to them:
‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.’ (10)
“The fact that the Messiah is the Lord himself is confirmed again and again in the Gospel. He himself said:
‘I and the Father are one.’ ” (11)
“I already had a great love and respect for Jesus, the son of Mary, ” said Ahmed, “but now for the first time, I think I can see the full picture of who the Messiah really is and why he was born into the world. I am truly grateful that you took the time and effort to explain this to me, Hamdi.”
“Ahmed, ” said Hamdi seriously, “by faith in the Messiah, God offers forgiveness for everything and eternal life. The Messiah, who himself conquered death and raised the dead, says:
‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.’ (12)
“Ahmed, do you want to receive the gift of God to you by faith in the Messiah?”
“Yes, I feel as if he is standing and knocking on my door right now, ” said Ahmed with tears in his eyes. “How can I receive God’s gift?”
“It isn’t difficult, ” said Hamdi. “Pray to God in your own words. Confess everything. God knows all about us anyway. Receive forgiveness through the Messiah’s sacrifice for you. Pray that God will come into your life by his Spirit and give you strength to follow the Messiah as his disciple. Pray this prayer in the name of the Messiah. He, by his sacrifice, is the mediator between you and God the Father. When you receive the Messiah in this way, by faith, as God’s gift to you, a miracle takes place in your life. The Bible says that you are born again. You receive a new life from God. You enter into a new, personal relationship with God through the Messiah. So God becomes your father and you his child, as it is written in the Gospel concerning all those who received the Messiah:
‘Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.’ ” (13)
When they had prayed together and thanked the Lord, Hamdi said with a big smile, “Welcome to the family! Now, through the Messiah, we are brothers in God’s great family.”
“How can I ever thank you, ” said Ahmed full of joy.
“Thank God, and do it every day, ” answered Hamdi. “Seek the fellowship of others who follow the Messiah in the same way as you. Now you can really pray the prayer the Messiah taught his disciples to pray:
‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.’ ” (14)
Appendix
Bible Quotations
New International Version (NIV)
The Lamb of God
Romans 6:23
John 1:29
Revelation 3:20
The Sacrifice of God
1 Timothy 2:5-6
Hebrews 9:22
Isaiah 53:4-7
Psalm 22:14-18
Mark 10:45
Sin
Genesis 2:16-17
Romans 5:12
Genesis 3:15
The Son of Abraham
Genesis 12:1-3
Genesis 17:19-21
Genesis 28:13-14
Isaiah 11:1,2,4,10
God is One
John 1:1-4
John 1:14
Luke 1:35
John 6:33,35
John 6:51
God and Man
Micah 5:2
Luke 2:4-7
John 8:56-58
Isaiah 9:6-7
Isaiah 40:3-5
Isaiah 40:9-11
John 10:11
Luke 1:15-17
Luke 1:76-78
Luke 2:10-11
John 10:30
John 11:25-26
John 1:12
Matthew 6:9-13
The Names and Titles of Christ in Islam and the Bible
Gerry Redman
Gerry Redman
Contents
Introduction
A. The Biblical View
Lord Jesus Christ
Son of David
Son of God
Son of Man
Servant of the Lord
Prophet
Word of God
Priest
Saviour
B. The Islamic View
‘Isa Bin Maryam
Prophet
Al-Masih
Servant
Word
Spirit
Conclusion
References
Introduction
Whilst both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm unique titles to Jesus, of which some are similar in meaning, there are also important differences between the nomenclatures ascribed to Him in the distinct holy books. To some extent this reflects the negative thrust of Islamic Christology, the emphasis of which is to deny (in the Islamic estimation, ‘to correct’) more than to affirm. On the other hand, the Biblical titles of Jesus point to the continuity of His ministry with the salvation-history revealed in the Old Testament – that is, His names and titles demonstrate that He is the fulfilment of prophecy, the culmination of the divine plan of redemption. As we shall see, the same is not true of Islamic Christology. This in itself points to the historical picture of Jesus in the Bible as being the genuine article. In this paper we will examine and compare the names and titles of Jesus in Islam and the Bible.
A. The Biblical View
1. Lord Jesus Christ
(a) Jesus: ‘Jesus’ is Greek and Latin for ‘Joshua’, Hebrew for ‘YHWH Saves’, appropriate as a description of the work of Christ – He is the Saviour. The name points to the human Jesus, a true Man, a Palestinian Jew of 1st century A.D. He was a Galilean, and tri-lingual because of that. He would have been as equally at home in Aramaic and Koine Greek, given the cosmopolitan nature and geographical position of Galilee, which bordered on Gentile areas. As a pious Jew, he would also know Hebrew – primarily as liturgical language, no doubt.
Thus the name indicates His true humanity and divine commission – not a demigod, but true man, man as we are, save without sin. It should be noted that the final Victory is one where Man is exalted – Philippians 2:9-10 – it is at the name of Jesus, not Christ, that every knee bows: we may also be encouraged by the fact that a man is reigning now over the Earth – Acts 2:32, 33-35, and especially v36.
(b) Lord: This is used in differing, but not contradictory ways.
(i) Honorific: i.e. ‘Sir’ – e.g. Matthew 21:30; John 4:19; 9:35. Morris writes ‘Minus the article the Greek term was an ordinary form of polite address, much like our “Sir” It is used in this fashion by the son who said “I go, Sir” (Mt. 21:30)…’. 1 In such cases, the term does not necessarily indicate faith, and often does not.
(ii) Authority: i.e. ‘Master’, indicating ownership – Luke 16:3; Colossians 4:1. Milne states ‘This title occurs in NT times in the general sense of “master” or “owner”…’ 2 Paul uses it to indicate that we are the slaves of Christ – Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1.
(iii) Deity: ‘YHWH’ – the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name. In practice born of reverence, Jews preferred the circumlocution adonai, ‘lord’ as the Divine Name was considered too sacred to utter. Adonai was rendered by kurios (kuriov) in the Septuagint.
The claim by Christadelphians that Jesus is never expressly termed ‘Lord’ in sense of ‘YHWH’ until after the Resurrection is questionable. Luke 3:4,.quoting Isaiah 40:3-5, is unintelligible unless Jesus is YHWH, and it clearly has present reference. John 20:28; Romans 1:4, etc. merely indicate that the resurrection openly establishes the Lordship of Christ in terms of deity (Acts 2:36 means ‘king’), not that he becomes divine: Matthew 16:18 states that Jesus was Messiah in His contemporary state, not future, yet Acts 2:36 seems to indicate that the Resurrection ‘made’ Him Messiah; clearly the sense is one of public declaration. If Jesus was Messiah before resurrection, He was also YHWH before that event. Several texts in the Epistles and Revelation explicitly identify Jesus with YHWH:
Romans 10:13 looks back to v9 and v12, where Jesus is expressly termed kuriov; v13 quotes from Joel 2:32 –’whoever shall call on the name of the Lord (i.e. YHWH) shall be saved’. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18 in respect to the Ascension of Christ Whilst the Hebrew text does not mention YHWH, v18 of Psalm 68 speaks of yah ‘elohim; Paul applies this to Christ. Philippians 2:9-11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, which looks back to v21, where the subject is YHWH. Not only is Jesus termed kuriovby Paul, but the wording – that every knee shall bow to Jesus – reflects the wording of Isaiah 45:23, where it is to YHWH that every knee bows. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25 (LXX) in its discourse on the Son, identifying Him as kuriov, yet in the Psalm YHWH is the subject. We may also note that the eschatological Last Day in the Old Testament – Day of YHWH – has become the Day of the Lord Jesus (Christ) in the New Testament – 1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Peter 3:10, 12. The renowned New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie observed about the New Testament usage of the title ‘In view of the frequent use of the title in OT citations, it is probable that the LXX usage of kyrios should be regarded as a key to an understanding the term when applied to Jesus (i.e. as an appelative for God). In NT usage the implication is that the same functions assigned to God are assigned to Christ.’ 3
(iv) Messianic King
Mark 12:35-37, quoting Psalm 110:1 identifies Jesus as the Messianic King, and this would also seem to be the import of Acts 2:36, given the parallelism of ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’.
(c) Christ (Messiah)
Christos, Greek for Maschiach – ‘Anointed One’ Priests, Kings and Prophets were anointed with oil, symbolising the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 61:1, Zechariah 4:1-6 – i.e. the impartation of grace for office and visible appointment to such, together with establishment of particular relationship with God – 1 Samuel 16:13; 24:6; 26:9; 2 Samuel 1:14.
Prophets – 1 Kings 19:16, cf Psalm 105:15; Isaiah 61:1. High Priests – Leviticus 4:3, 5; 16:6.15; cf Exodus 28:41. The King was called the ‘Anointed of YHWH’ – 1 Samuel 24:10. 2 Samuel 7:12ff connects the promise of eternal Davidic dynasty with the coming of Mashiach, clarified in Ezekiel 37:21ff and Zechariah 9:9ff. Christ was anointed by God the Holy Spirit at His Baptism, Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; cf. Isaiah 11:2; 42:1. Together with His offices of Priest and Prophet, the term emphasises His role as the Perfect Official – the Restorer and Deliverer of Israel – Luke 24:21; Acts 4:26.
In terms of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, the Qumran Essene community, authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, expected two figures, the Anointed of Aaron and the Anointed of Israel (1QS 9:11) – the former Priestly, the latter Kingly, and thus inferior to former, (remembering that Qumran was a priestly community). The common hope of most Jews awaited a political/military deliverer who would overthrow the Romans and establish the Davidic Kingdom. Because of this, Jesus was reluctant to employ the term Messiah publicly, especially early in His ministry, so as to avoid misinterpretation. Jesus considered Himself not only the Bringer of the Kingdom of God, but its embodiment – Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:15, Once He had explained His concept of Messiahship, He was willing to accept the term, e.g. John 4:25-26; Mark 8:29, He had to clarify three points in particular:
That His Messiahship was characterised by universalism, rather than particularism – John 4:19-23, especially v21; Luke 13:29.
His kingdom was spiritual, rather than political – John 18:36.
He emphasised that the way to the Crown was the Cross – that the Messiah must suffer – Mark 8:31; John 12:32-34, a concept foreign to the Messianic concept held by current Judaism. For this reason, Jesus used the term ‘Son of Man’, which, whilst associated with authority, was not so linked to nationalistic aspirations.
Guthrie’s New Testament Theology examines the Hebrew background to the Messianic concept, and explains it as follows:
In the Old Testament much is said, especially in the prophets, about the coming messianic age which offered bright prospects to the people of God (cf. Is. 26-29; 40ff; Ezk. 40-48; Dn. 12; Joel 2:28-3:21), but little is said about the Messiah. The title is nowhere used of the coming deliverer. Indeed the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself. But though the absolute use of the term ‘Messiah’ does not occur, there are various uses of the word in a qualified way, such as the Lord’s Messiah (i.e. anointed one). The idea of anointing a person for a special mission appears in a variety of applications, but mainly of kings and priests (Lv. 4:3ff), also of prophets (1 Ki. 19:16) and patriarchs (Ps. 105:15) (cf 1 Sa. 24:6ff; 26:9ff), and even of a heathen king, Cyrus (Is. 45:1). This use of anointing to indicate a specific office became later applied in a more technical sense of the one who, par excellence, would be God’s chosen instrument in the deliverance of his people. The OT without doubt prepares the way for the Messiah and many OT messianic passages are cited in the NT.
During the intertestamental period, the meaning of the term underwent some modifications, in which the technical sense of the Lord’s anointed one becomes more dominant (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17-18). The hope of the coming Messiah took many different forms, but the predominant one was the idea of the Davidic king, who would establish an earthly kingdom for the people of Israel and would banish Israel’s enemies. The Messiah was to be a political agent, but with a religious bias. The concept was a curious mixture of nationalistic and spiritual hopes…
In the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, both which were contemporary with the emerging church, the term occurs, and as in the intertestamental period seems to be linked with the idea of the Davidic son, specifically so in 4 Ezra 12:32-34.40 In the Targums there a frequent technical use of the word mesia, although in view of the difficulty of dating, the value of this evidence is doubtful.
From this brief survey of the background, it becomes clear that whereas the idea of a coming Messiah was widespread among the Jews, the origin and character of the coming Messiah was not clearly understood. Different groups tended to visualize a Messiah who would be conducive to their own tenets – priestly groups like Qumran in priestly terms, nationalist groups in political terms. In determining the approach of Jesus to the term ‘Messiah’ we must bear in mind that he would be concerned with the most popular understanding of the term and there is little doubt that popular opinion leaned heavily towards hope of a coming political leader who would deliver the Jewish people from the oppressive Roman yoke. When seen against this prevalent notion, it is understandable why Jesus avoided the use of the term. 4
We can see why Jesus was reticent about employing the term in public, because of the possibilities of misunderstanding. His kingdom was not of an earthly, political character, and he rejected the invitation to become a monarch of this nature, as can be inferred both from His rejection of Satan’s temptation to become the global ruler on the Devil’s terms, Matthew 4:8-10, and of the attempt of some Jews to install Him as their King, John 6:15. It is for this reason that He commanded His disciples to be silent about His Messianic identity, Matthew 16:20. A further problem was the means by which He would commence His Messianic reign – namely, His death. Immediately after the Petrine confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah in Matthew 16:16, Jesus begins to inform His disciples about His coming death, something they find it hard to understand. The Jews also did not understand, believing that the Messiah ‘remained forever’, John 12:34. This misunderstanding remained until after Jesus’ resurrection, when He informed the disciples about the necessity of His first enduring death as the means to obtaining His reign, Luke 24:26, and their misconceptions were not fully removed until after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then they realised how it was only after His death, resurrection and ascension that He could begin His cosmic reign.
An essential aspect of Messianic identity is Davidic ancestry. In 2 Samuel 7:12-14, we encounter the promise to David that his offspring will be king – ‘I will establish your offspring after you… 13 …I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son…’ Psalm 72:17 celebrates the eternal, universal reign of the Davidic King: ‘His name shall endure for ever; His name shall continue as long as the sun: All nations shall be blessed in him; And men shall call him blessed’. It is significant, as we shall see, that another, closely-related title of Jesus is ‘Son of David’. This in itself proves the so-called Gospel of Barnabas to be fraudulent, since the forgery claims that Muhammad, rather than Jesus, is the Messiah, leaving aside the fact that the Qur’an appends this title only to Jesus, it is obvious that Muhammad, not being a descendant of David, could not claim this prerogative.
2 Samuel 7:14 states that the son of David would also be the son of God, reiterated in Psalm 2:7, which Acts 13:33 states is fulfilled in the Resurrection. We should note that the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 7:12 says ‘anastasw to sperma mou meta se [anastaso to sperma mou meta se] which may be translated ‘I will resurrect your offspring after you…’ 5 Most importantly, it is clear that the throne of David is simultaneously the throne of the Lord God – 1 Chronicles 29:23 – ‘Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king…’ [Significantly, the Kingdom is stated to be both God’s and Christ’s – Ephesians. 5:5]. It is clear that the aspect of divine sonship involved here is synonymous with kingship – when the son of David mounted the throne, then he became the son of God in this sense. As the Heir of David the King, he was the Heir of God, but he was only inaugurated as such and entered into the full exercise of his power when he ascended the throne. This necessitated His death and resurrection, and thus His Ascension into heaven. In this context, we should note the import of Matthew 16:16 and John 20:31, where the titular use of ‘Christ’ is obviously synonymous with ‘Son of God’.
This causes problems for Muslims, since the very title ‘Son of God’ is anathema to them. Yet it can be seen from the Old Testament references the inter-relation of the two terms is not a Christian invention, still less a ‘Pauline’ or Nicene innovation. If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, then He simultaneously claimed to be the Son of God. All of this is particularly significant since the Qur’an nowhere explains the meaning of Al-Masih. The Arabic, like the Hebrew, means ‘anointed’, but we are never told as what. We can only learn this from the Christian Scriptures. This in itself demonstrates the dependence of the Qur’an upon the Bible. Of course, this immediately raises problems for Muslims, since we can see that the Biblical definition of a Messiah is at variance with important aspects of Islamic Christology.
R. H. Fuller observes some important aspects of the Messianic hope of the Old Testament. In regard to Isaiah 7:10-16, he suggests that the term ‘Immanuel’, which of course is used of Jesus in Matthew 1:23, ‘refers to an ideal king of the Davidic line.’ 6 He ‘will reign as the true embodiment of God’s presence with his people…’ 7 We can see how this can be linked with Jesus’ identification with the Temple, the traditional place of divine indwelling, now superseded in His person – John 1:14; 2:19 (Mark 14:58); Colossians 2:9. Jesus, being the ultimate Davidic King, eternally reigns, and perpetually brings the presence of God among His people. This, of course, points to the incarnation. Significantly, the Davidic King in Isaiah 9:6-7 is portrayed as an eternal monarch, and he is explicitly termed ‘Mighty God’:
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
These texts are rich with implications for Messianic identity, pointing to a figure who is not simply human, even if he is the scion of David. This is especially true of the title ‘Mighty God’, used of YHWH in Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18. The fact that this divine title is ascribed to the ultimate Davidic King – the Messiah – is a clue to the fact that the Messiah would be simultaneously divine-human. Again, this causes problems for Muslims in that this portrayal is not the result of Christian ‘innovation’, but rather is present in the Old Testament. The learned Old Testament scholar Alec Motyer comments on the passage and its meaning:
Wonderful Counsellor is (lit.) ‘wonder-counsellor’ and ‘wonder’ … means something like ‘supernatural’. The two possibilities are either ‘a supernatural counsellor’ or ‘one giving supernatural counsel’… The decisions of a king make or break a kingdom and a kingdom designed to be everlasting demands a wisdom like that of the everlasting God. In this case, like God because he is God, the Mighty God (‘el gibbor), the title given to the Lord himself in 10:21<22>. Plainly, Isaiah means us to take seriously the ‘el component of this name as of Immanuel… Mighty (gibbor, ‘warrior’) caps the military references in verses 3-5.
God has come to birth, bringing with him the qualities which guarantee his people’s preservation (wisdom) and liberation (warrior strength). Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace describe the conditions the King’s birth will bring. Father is not current in the Old Testament as a title of the kings. Used of the Lord, it points to his concern for the helpless (Ps. 68:5<6>), care or discipline of his people (Ps. 103:13; Pr. 3:12; Is. 63:16; 64:8<7>) and their loyal, reverential response to him (Je. 3:4, 19; Mal. 1:6). For similar ideas used regarding the Davidic King see Psalm 72:4, 12-14; Isaiah 11:4. Probably the leading idea in the name Father here is that his rule follows the pattern of divine fatherhood. As eternal/of eternity’, he receives such an epithet [as] could, of course, be applied to Yahweh alone’… When the people asked for a king they had in mind that a continuing institution would provide them with a security greater and more reassuring than the episodic rule of the judges. But total security requires more even than this stop-go rule and is achieved in a king who reigns eternally… The focal point of the kingdom is David’s throne… In the light of this, we understand that ‘son’ in verse 6 must mean ‘son of David’. Here is the Old Testament Messianic enigma: how can a veritable son of David be Mighty God and ‘Father of eternity’? This was precisely the tension in Old Testament truth which the Lord Jesus tried to make the blinkered Pharisees face in Matthew 22:41-46. 8
In Matthew 22:42ff, Jesus presents a question to the Jews about the Messiah which points to eternal, divine origins of the Messianic Son of David:
42 What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, The son of David.
43 He said to them, Then why did David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet? (Psalm 110:1)
45 If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?
As R. T. France explains, ‘the point of the pericope is not that Jesus is not Son of David, but that he is more than Son of David.’ 9 The implications are that Jesus is the divine Messiah. Another indication of the divine nature of the Messiah is seen in Psalm 44:7f where the Davidic King is addressed as ‘God’ by God; this text is applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8f to Jesus. He is the divine Davidic King. This is also indicated by a point we noted previously that Guthrie observed about the Messianic Age – that ‘the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself.’ The nature of God is revealed in His acts. There is a relationship between the functional and ontological aspects of deity – what God does reveals who He is. When God brought destructive miracles upon the Egyptians, they were revelations to both the Egyptians and the Israelites as to the person and character of God – e.g. Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 8:22. The miracles of Jesus are called signs – John 20:30. They demonstrate His unity with the Father – John 14:9ff. In Acts 7 Stephen reviews the historical acts of God to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. It follows from this that if Jesus causes the arrival of the Messianic Age, then He is God Himself. Again, the inference we draw is that the Messiah is divine.
2. Son of David
This title is, of course, closely related to the term ‘Messiah’ such as to be virtually a synonym. The linkage of the term ‘Messiah’ with the Davidic line has its foundation in divine promise to David conveyed through the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:16, and is witnessed in the canonical prophets (Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23f, 37:24, Hosea 3:5, etc.). It is also found in the intertestamental literature of Judaism (Ecclesiasticus 47:11, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:57; Psalms of Solomon 17:21 – ‘Behold O LORD, and raise up to them their king, the son of David… their king the Anointed [i.e. Messiah] of the LORD), in the Qumran literature and in 4 Esdras 12:32ff in the first century AD. The term does not merely imply descent from David, but rather that Jesus is His Heir – i.e. King-Messiah – Matthew 20:30-31. It indicates that He was the One to restore the Davidic State – Amos 9:11, looking back to 2 Samuel 7. This restoration was not just ‘political’, it was spiritual bringing the people to a holy relationship with God. This Jesus effects by the Cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.
Jesus accepted this title when others offered it, but did not employ it Himself because of likely misconceptions, as we observed in our examination of the term ‘Messiah’. The True Israel – those with faith in Jesus – acclaim Him as ‘Son of David’ – Matthew 21:9, 15, the gospel presenting the Davidic Kingdom as embodied in Christ – cf. Mark 11:10. Matthew points out that Jesus was born of the house of David, 1:20, in Bethlehem, 2:1ff. What is especially interesting is that the term is associated with ‘healing power, either requested ([Matthew] 9:27; 15:22; 20:30f) or experienced (12:22f; 21:14f)… Mercy and healing are apparently understood to be the proper activities of the son of David…’ 10
This conception of the miracle-working Son of David points back to the expectation of God effecting cosmological wonders, especially the granting of light to those in darkness, and similarly sight to the blind – Isaiah 9:lff, 29:18, 35:5, 42:7, 16, 43:8, 61:1ff. This also includes spiritual darkness; in Matthew 12:22ff, Jesus exorcises a demon, leading to the multitudes asking ‘can this be the Son of David’, which is followed by Jesus’ assertion that His exorcism has made the Kingdom of God immediate, v28, indicating that as Son of David, He causes the Kingdom to come in. 11 This can be specifically linked to Messianic identity; in Matthew 11:2ff, we read of the ‘deeds of the Christ’:
2 Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else? 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.
The miraculous activity and preaching of the divine ‘good news’ reflects the passages in Isaiah we have already noted.
We also infer from Luke 1:68ff that the heir of David is the agent of salvation and redemption (cf. Acts 13:22ff). This Davidic heir causes the people to serve God in holiness and righteousness. The restoration of the Davidic State required – and effected – an ethical quality in the lives of its subjects – Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:17- c.f. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16. This in itself points to the spirituality of the Kingdom Jesus brought. Hence, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, recognised as Son of David, Matthew 21:9, He immediately cleanses the Temple, indicating the holy nature of His Reign. What is especially noteworthy is the linkage of the holy reign with miraculous activity. After Jesus cleanses the Temple, the blind and lame come to Him there for healing, v14. It can be seen that the Son of David simultaneously effects holiness and miracles. By doing so, He establishes the Kingdom of God.
3. Son of God
Three categories of person are given this title in the Old Testament: angels, e.g. Job 38:7, but this is always in the plural and played no part in the formation of Christology – Hebrews 1:5ff. The two others are:
a) Israel
Grogan points out that ‘In Exodus 4:22f. God appeals to Pharaoh as one father to another.’ 12 Israel was YHWH’s firstborn son – cf. Isaiah 1:2; 30:1; Hosea 11:1. The nature of this sonship is adoptive and its basis is election of purpose (i.e. redemptive mission – to be a blessing to the world – cf. Genesis 28:14; Exodus 19:6) expressed in Covenant relationship, and requiring obedience as its terms. Hence when Israel departed from terms of Covenant, the filial relationship with YHWH was cancelled – Hosea 1:9, The essence of sonship was obedience – Exodus 4:23 – the words of God through Moses to Pharaoh were ‘Let my son go, that he may serve me‘; Israel’s response to the divine revelation of the law was ‘All that the LORD has spoken will we do, and be obedient’, 24:7. Chesed, covenant-love, was not the experience of the infidel – Hosea 1:6. Cullmann writes: ‘In all these texts the title “Son of God” expresses both the idea that God has chosen this people for a special mission, and that this his people owes him absolute obedience.’ 13
This theme of obedient sonship is seen in the New Testament, in the life of Jesus. He is the Elect, i.e. Israel, because He is the Beloved Son – ‘o agaphtov ho agapetos – Mark 1:11, which is generally viewed as reflecting Isaiah 42:1 (and Psalm 2:7), and as such, is contrasted in the parable of the Wicked Tenants with infidel Israel of His day – 12:1-11, especially v6. Note especially the rejection of old Israel by God for killing His true Son – v9. As a result, as the Renowned Biblical scholar Alan Richardson observed, ‘The old Israel is rejected and is no longer God’s beloved “son”; the final act of disobedience is the killing of him of whom it might surely have been said, “They will reverence my son” (Mark 12:6).’ 14
Like Israel, the Son comes ‘out of Egypt’ to perform His mission and establish a new aspect of the eternal covenant, Hosea 11:1/Matthew 2:13-15. To quote Richardson again, ‘As Israel of old, the “son” whom God called out of Egypt, was baptized in the Red Sea and tempted in the Wilderness, so also God’s Son the Messiah is baptized and tempted; Matthew’s quotation of Hos. 11 (Matt, 2:15) contains profound theological truth…’ 15 Connected with this is the ‘love’ theme in the Gospel of John – 3:35 – ‘The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.’ The son of Abraham was described as agaphtov – Genesis 22:2, 12 LXX. The ultimate Son of Abraham is greater – He is the beloved of God Himself. Similarly, the son of Abraham was meant to be sacrificed, only to be replaced by a lamb; Jesus, the unique, beloved Son of God, is the Lamb of God who gives His life to remove the sin of the world – John 1:29, 36. Further, the very phrase employed in John 1:29 echoes the words of Isaiah 40:9 – ‘Behold your God’.
Another parallel is that Israel alone possessed the knowledge of YHWH, by virtue of its election, Amos 3:2 – ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth…’ Likewise, in the ‘bolt from Johannine blue’ Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 Jesus is described as possessing the unique knowledge of the Father – ‘no-one knows the Father except the Son’. The true knowledge of God is possessed only by the obedient Son. This demonstrates that Jesus is the ultimate Israel.
The setting of the Temptation by Satan in the desert, Matthew 4:1ff, is in the nature of fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus endures the same temptations as Israel faced whilst in the desert with Moses, but whereas Old Testament Israel miserably failed the test, Jesus passes with flying colours. Deuteronomy 8:2ff, looking back to Exodus 16:2-3, recalls how God tested Old Israel with hunger, a test, like the others, which would reveal whether Israel knew itself to be, and thus whether in truth it was the People of God. By its moaning and desiring to return to Egypt, Israel displayed itself devoid of faith and thus fails. Jesus, on the other hand, although hungry, does not respond to Satan, but quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 to display that His is the true Son of God, unlike the failed old ‘son’.
The Temple pinnacle temptation was to put God to the test. Faith in God does not require props, or constant dynamic displays. By threatening to stone Moses at Massah, Israel drew from the LORD the act that proved them to be His people – Exodus 17:1-7, so Satan tempts Jesus to seek outward evidence that He is God’s Son by forcing the hand of the LORD, but Jesus refuses, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. The third temptation reflects the collapse into total lack of faith that characterised Israel in Exodus 34 when Moses was up the mountain. Israel committed idolatry. Deuteronomy 6:13-14 forbids the worship of other gods, and Jesus quotes this in passing the test here. The significance of this is that Israel was to secure its national existence by no compromises with the heathen, especially their gods. They were not to be a nation like any other, but rather to be a holy nation. Jesus refuses to the invitation to become a ruler like any other through the means Satan offers – obeisance to him, compromise with the forces controlling the world.
The consequence of all this is that ‘…Israel itself, the people of God, is seen as finding its “fulfilment” both in Jesus himself and in the community which is to result from his ministry.’ 16 Jesus is the ultimate Son of God – the fulfilment of Israel. This is a case of typological correspondence – Jesus is ‘something greater’ – than David, Matthew 12:3-4, so He is the ultimate Davidic King; greater than the prophet Jonah or the wisest of kings, Solomon, 12:41-42; greater than the temple, v6. Jesus is the climactic manifestation of that which they imperfectly represented. 17
(b) Davidic King
The King, of Davidic lineage, is termed Son of God in an adoptive sense – 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 89; 27f. Jesus is such, John 1:49, but as He impresses upon Nathanael, He is more – He is supernatural and pre-existent, v51 – ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.’ This reflects Genesis 28:12, of which a tradition interpreted the Hebrew as referring not to the ladder – ‘on it’, but ‘on him’, which is linguistically possible. The Midrash Bereshith Rabbah 68:18 reflects this tradition. The idea is that the ascending and descending angels symbolised the connection of the earthly Jacob with the heavenly image of the true Israel – remembering that Jacob’s name was later changed to ‘Israel’. The noted Biblical scholar Barnabas Lindars writes about this verse:
The meaning of 1.51 in its context must be deduced from the remaining words about the angels. There is widespread agreement today that John has composed the saying in such a way as to recall Jacob’s dream (Gen. 28.12), ‘And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it’.It is also recognized that the movement of the angels ‘upon the Son of Man’ has a parallel in rabbinic exegesis, in which ‘on it’ (the ladder) is taken to mean ‘on him’ (Jacob). This is possible in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. In the rabbinic exegesis the angels are familiar with the heavenly archetype of the righteous man, and are now delighted to discover the earthly reality in Jacob. It may be conjectured that the ‘greater things (John 1.50) which Jesus’ audience will see are something that belongs to a similar line of exegesis. They will see an act in which the Son of Man on earth reflects a heavenly reality. There is a sense in which this is true of all the acts of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. But it is especially true of the passion, in which death and glorification are two sides of a single reality. 18
In John 1:51, Jesus describes Himself as ‘the Son of Man’, which we will see describes a heavenly being. Jesus thus corrects or improves Nathanael’s perception – indeed Jesus is the royal Messiah, the Son of God in this sense, but He is something more – He is a heavenly being. Likewise, He corrects Nicodemus’ perception of Him as merely a teacher sent from God, John 3:2 – rather, He is the one who was actually of divine generation, being ‘born above’, John 3:3, who descended from heaven, 3:13, indicating that He is not just a human being.
(c) Messiah
Scholars have debated whether the Messiah was so-termed, but the context of 2 Samuel 7:14, together with the many linkages of ‘Son’ and ‘Christ’ would seem to underline this. The New Testament scholar Verseput notes that ‘the messianic reference of 2 Sam 7.14 – “he shall be my son” – was not entirely overlooked by first century Judaism. The Qumran text of 4QFlor 1.10 explicitly applies this promise to the eschatological “scion of David”, while 1QSa 2.11 may allude to Ps 2.7 in regard to the begetting of the Messiah.’ 19 Various texts such as Matthew 16:16; 26:63f; Luke 4:41; Acts 9:20,22; the expression of the High Priest in Matthew 26:63 indicates that contemporary Judaism identified the Messiah as such, in a moral-religious sense. Christ’s resurrection appoints Him, as the Son of God with power – Romans 1:4. It vindicates His claims and ministry. Moo notes an important consideration of this verse:
In speaking this way, Paul and the other NT authors do not mean to suggest that Jesus only becomes the Son at the time of His resurrection. In this passage, we must remember that the Son is the subject of the entire statement in vv. 3-4: It is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son. The tautologous nature of this statement reveals that being appointed Son has to do not with a change in essence – as if a man or human Messiah becomes Son of God for the first time – but with a change in status or function. 20
That to which Moo is referring is the structure of Romans 1:1-4, which testifies to the simultaneous deity and humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was in His divine nature eternally begotten by the Father, and in human nature, of the seed of David:
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord…
To these aspects we add two categories of the term ‘Son of God’ that are unique to Jesus:
(i) Nativistic sonship
Matthew 1:18-24; Luke 1:35; John 1:13 – paternity by God through the creative act of the Spirit in Mary’s womb. What the virgin birth of Jesus in this regard does is to demonstrate His supernatural origins, cf. John 3:3. Jesus had no human father – His paternity was of a higher order.
(ii) Trinitarian sonship
Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Second Person of the Trinity – He is God; this is the primary meaning of the term as used by Jesus and New Testament writers. Significantly, at the Baptism, Jesus is hailed as the beloved Son of God by the heavenly voice (bat-qol). The baptism of Jesus is the climax of the ministry of John the Baptist, and it is significant how the ministry of the latter is described in Matthew 3:3 – ‘For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the LORD, make His paths straight.”‘ The quote from Isaiah 40:3 is unambiguously directed towards YHWH; yet here, John Baptist applies it to Jesus. Hence when the bat-qol describes Jesus as the beloved Son of God, the syntax and the theme of John presaging the ministry of Jesus indicates that the reference is not simply to concepts of royal Messiahship; something greater is contemplated. Jesus possesses a unique filial relationship to God.
There are several places where the absolute term The Son – rather than the technical phrase ‘Son of God’ – is employed with respect to Jesus. Whilst Israel and the reigning Davidic King could be described as the ‘Son of God’, the absolute term is unusual, and the contexts in which it is employed do not allow for the metaphorical usage associated with either the nation or the monarchy. We have previously noted that Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22, ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him.’ The use of absolute terms ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ points to an intimate relationship that goes beyond any adoptive sense. What is especially interesting is the reciprocal nature of the intimate knowledge Father and Son possess of each other. It would be expected that God the Father would have intimate knowledge of Jesus as He would of any individual.
However, two bold, surprising claims are made here; firstly, that Jesus, as the Son, possesses a corresponding knowledge of God, this in itself indicating that Jesus is not just human, since God is incomprehensible, with one clause in the verse agrees. Secondly, the text asserts that just as the Father is incomprehensible, so is the Son. So much so, that only the Father possesses such knowledge. This in itself points to the absolute term ‘the Son’ as indicating deity. Ladd writes:
In the process of revelation, the Son fills an indispensable role. ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ (11:27). ‘All things’ refers to ‘these things’ in verse 25, namely, to the entire content of the divine revelation. God, the Lord of heaven and earth, has imparted to the Son the exercise of authority in revelation; it involves the act of entrusting the truth to Christ for communication to others. The ground of this impartation is Jesus’ sonship; it is because God is his Father (v.25) that God has thus commissioned his Son. Because Jesus is the Son of God, he is able to receive all things from his Father that he may reveal them to others. The messianic mission of revelation thus rests upon the antecedent sonship.
What is involved in this relationship is made clear in verse 27: ‘No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.’ Something more is involved in this knowledge of God than a mere filial consciousness. Jesus knows the Father in the same way that the Father knows the Son. There exists between the Father and the Son an exclusive and mutual knowledge. God possesses a direct and immediate knowledge of the Son because he is the Father. It is very clear that this knowledge possessed by the Father is not an acquired knowledge based on experience, but a direct, intuitive and immediate knowledge. It is grounded in the fact that God is the Father of Jesus. In the same sense Jesus knows the Father. His knowledge of the Father is thus direct, intuitive and immediate, and is grounded upon the fact that he is the Son. Thus both the Father-Son relationship and the mutual knowledge between the Father and Son are truly unique and stand apart from all human relationships and human knowledge. Christ as the Son possesses the same innate, exclusive knowledge of God that God as the Father possesses of him.
Because Jesus is the Son and possesses this unique knowledge, God has granted to him the messianic mission of imparting to men a mediated knowledge of God. Man may enter into a knowledge of God only through revelation by the Son. As the Father exercises an absolute sovereignty in revealing the Son, so the Son exercises an equally absolute sovereignty in revealing the Father; he reveals him to whom he chooses. This derived knowledge of God, which may be imparted to men by revelation, is similar but not identical with the knowledge that Jesus has of the Father. The Son’s knowledge of the Father is the same direct, intuitive knowledge that the Father possesses of the Son. It is therefore on the level of divine knowledge. The knowledge that men gain of the Father is a mediated knowledge imparted by revelation through the Son. The knowledge of the Father that Jesus possesses is thus quite unique; and his sonship, standing on the same level, is equally unique. It is a derived knowledge of God that is imparted to men, even as the sonship that men experience through Jesus the Son is a relationship mediated through the Son.
It is clear from this passage that sonship and messiahship are not the same; sonship precedes messiahship and is in fact the ground for the messianic mission. Furthermore, sonship involves something more than a filial consciousness; it involves a unique and exclusive relationship between God and Jesus. 21
France echoes this observation, stating that ‘… “the Son” is seen to be in a unique relationship with God which is his by virtue of who he is, in contrast with the knowledge of the Father which others may indeed come to share, but only as a result of his mediation.’ 22 Jesus, as the Son, is unique. This must be emphasised, since whilst it is true that previous kings of Israel (and Israel as a nation) could claim metaphorical or adoptive divine sonship, Jesus is asserting something special – that He is uniquely the Son, that He possesses a unique knowledge of the Father, and that His own nature is unique such that only the Father knows Him.
Jesus also distinguishes Himself in His address to the Father. He uses the term ‘my Father’ distinctly; He calls God ‘My Father’, Matthew. 11:27; Luke 2:49; and ‘your Father’, Matthew. 5.16, 45; Luke 12:30; but never ‘our Father’, save as giving a prayer-form to disciples. He speaks in John 20:17 of ‘ my Father’ and ‘your Father’. The Jews recognised He claimed equality with God by the title – John 5:18. Again, the emphasis is on uniqueness. It has been noted that Jesus normally referred to God as ‘abba. This means ‘father’, and it has been claimed that it may also denote ‘daddy’, although this is now challenged. Although not unprecedented in Judaism, it not common for Jews to regularly address the Almighty in this intimate way, yet it was precisely by this form that Jesus generally spoke to God. The learned Biblical scholar James Dunn has observed ‘…Jesus regular approach to God as “Abba” appears to be unusual for his day.’ 23 Richardson comments with regard to Mark 14:36, ‘The use of ‘abba makes it difficult to deny that Jesus thought of himself as uniquely God’s Son, or to suppose that the church derived the idea of his Sonship from any other source than Jesus himself.’ 24
Another indication of the special character of the absolute term is found with relation to the end of the world. The date of the last day, Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32, is known by ‘not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’. Ladd observes, ‘The force of this saying is found in the fact that such things ought to be known to angels and to the Son as well as the Father. The point is that Jesus classes himself with the Father and the angels – all partaking normally of supernatural knowledge. At this point, contrary to expectations, the Son is ignorant.’ 25 Further, the use of the absolute term in the context of heavenly beings is significant, likewise a unique character the divine sonship of Jesus that is not comparable to the adoptive sonship of the Old Testament Davidic Kings.
We earlier noted the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-6). The vineyard clearly represents the Land, the lord thereof is God, and the tenants are Israel – Leviticus 25:23 ‘…the land is mine: for you are aliens and my tenants’, cf. Isaiah 5:1-7. The servants sent by the lord of the vineyard are clearly the prophets, as Dunn recognises. 26 What is important in this context is that after the servants, the lord of the vineyard sends his ‘beloved son’ (‘uion agaphton) – the same term used at the Baptism and the Transfiguration in respect to Jesus. Again, the term ‘my son’ (‘uion mou) is employed in the Marcan text, v6. It would seem, therefore, that Jesus is distinguished from previous servants of God not simply by being the last or the greatest, but by being God’s Son. Ladd comments:
In the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mk. 12:1-12), sonship is again differentiated from messiahship and provides the antecedent ground of the messianic mission, After the visit of the several servants had proven fruitless, the landowner sent his son to receive the inheritance. It is because he was the son that the owner expects this last mission to be successful, and his sonship is quite independent of and anterior to his mission. It is because he is the son that he becomes the heir of the vineyard and is sent to enter into his inheritance. 27
A clear indication of the deity of the Son and the Trinity is found in the use of the absolute term in Matthew 28:19, where baptism is enjoined in the name (note the singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Father is divine, and it is clear from Matthew 1:18; 1:20; 3:11; 12:32 that the same is true of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the absolute term ‘Son’ is used in concert with ascriptions of the Deity. This becomes even more apparent in the Gospel of John. The use of the absolute term is found on the lips of Jesus several times there as well. 28 A clear indication of deity is found in John 5:23 ‘that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.’ The way one honours the Father is to worship Him – John 4:21ff. Hence, the same honour should be given to the Son – i.e. He should be worshipped, which means He must be God.
In John 5:21we read, unsurprisingly, that the Father ‘raises the dead’. What is arresting is that this statement is made in the context of analogy – ‘For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.’ That is, the Son possesses what is normally seen as a divine prerogative – the action of resurrection, including the choice of whom to raise from the dead. The object of faith and obedience is not said to be first the Father, but the Son – 3:36 ‘The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.’ It is faith in the Son that leads to the resurrection of the righteous – 6:40 ‘For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’
Furthermore, it is emphasised that the divine sonship of Jesus is unique – John 3:16 ton ‘uion ton monogenh – monogeneshas the sense of ‘unique’. William Walker observes ‘It is now generally agreed that monogenhv should be translated as “only” rather than “only-begotten”… monogenhv, as applied to Jesus, should be translated as “only one of its kind” or “unique”…’ 29Jesus is not just any son of God – He is the unique Son. As the New Testament scholar Walter Kümmel writes, ‘Thus the relationship of Father and Son appears to be that of complete equality, so that the Son stands beside God as a divine being and cannot actually be distinguished from God.’ 30 Kümmel also comments with respect to 8:38a (‘I speak the things that I have seen with my Father’), that ‘the Son’s present seeing and hearing has its ground in the Son’s pre-existent being with the Father.‘ 31
Hence, when the New Testament epistles take up this title, as in Romans 1:3-4; Galatians 4:4 (which indicates pre-existence); Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 1:2, 5, 8; 3:6, such usage is not a Pauline innovation, but rather reflects what Jesus Himself asserted – that He was the unique eternal Son of God. Ultimately, only God Himself – in the person of the Son, could effect the work of redemption.
4. Son of Man
This was the favoured self-expression of Jesus – used over eighty times by Him, and apart from only two occasions, by Him alone. The term is frequently misunderstood as an ascription of humanity. In fact, the term indicates that Jesus is a heavenly being. The existence of the Similitudes of Enoch, a Jewish apocalypse, does seem to indicate that there was a tradition of what Ladd describes as ‘a messianic title of a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth…’ 32 The text of the Similitudes (62:7) presents the ‘Most High’ (i.e. God) as having ‘preserved him [i.e. the Son of Man] in the presence of his might…’He existed prior to creation, 48:2f. He is also described in 48:10; 52:4 as the ‘anointed one (Messiah) of the Lord of spirits’. The Son of Man later sits on his ‘throne of glory’, 62:5. The same chapter, v11, reveals his role in judgment.
A later Jewish work, 4 Esdras (Apocalypse of Ezra), displays a Son of Man (Syriac barnasa) identified with the Messiah (7:78, 29; 12:32), an apocalyptic Redeemer, who rides upon the clouds. Furthermore, God speaks of him as ‘my Son’, 13:32, 37, 52. He is described in 13:26 as the one ‘whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation’. In 7:28-29, God refers to ‘my son the Messiah’, who will die. In 12:32-34 we read of ‘the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will set them living before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But he will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people, those who have been saved…’ These works give an indication that the New Testament usage of the term was not innovative, nor was the connection between the Messiah and the Son of Man, nor the idea that this figure was also God’s Son.
(a) Origins of the Term
Psalm 8:4 – the parallelism would suggest that Son of Man simply means ‘man’. With this would agree the natural rendering of the Aramaic term bar nasha ‘a man’, ‘Man’, ‘the son of the man’. The psalm is used in Christological fashion in Hebrews 2. That this is not the meaning of the term as used by Jesus can be illustrated from an examination of Luke 9:58 – ‘And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.’ The great Biblical scholar T. W. Manson observed ‘…the simple meaning “man” is ruled out, since men in general have somewhere to lay their heads: the homeless man is the exception.’ 33
Ezekiel 37:3 – used vocatively ninety times in Ezekiel. Cf. similar usage in Daniel 8:17. In this case it would seem to indicate ‘Prophet’. Significantly, it is used of two men who had heavenly visions – Daniel and Ezekiel.
Psalm 80:17 – the context suggests that the term is equivalent to ‘Israel’. In this respect many scholars have seen equivalence between Son of Man and the Remnant of Israel, as we shall see. The Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) on this identifies the Son of Man as ‘King Messiah’.
Daniel 7:13, 14ff – a heavenly, supernatural being who comes to God to receive power and authority over all humanity. The contrast is with the beasts, representing the pagan nations, whilst the Son of Man represents, though is not identified with the Saints of the Most High – i.e. faithful Israelites. F. F. Bruce writes ‘…for Daniel the “one like a son of man” is not the symbolical personification of the saints but their heavenly representative.’ 34 In a sense, therefore, the Son of Man is the heavenly Israel – remembering the Midrash (rabbinic commentary) Bereshith Rabbah we observed earlier. It is clear that this is the usage employed by Jesus, so that this is the meaning intended by Him – e.g. Matthew 26:63-64; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:67-70 – as in Daniel 7, the Son of Man comes on the clouds. Matthew 28:18ff also reflects this – Jesus has been given cosmic authority. Stephen saw the Son of Man in heaven, at God’s right hand, i.e. the place of authority – Acts 7:56.
(b) Significance of the Term
(i) It stressed the heavenly origins and nature of Jesus – John 3:13-14. Jesus descended from heaven. There is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus is an angelic figure – in fact this is specifically rejected in Hebrews 1:4-7, 13. However, when we consider other aspects of the Gospel of John, especially Jesus’ clear affirmation of deity in 8:58, and the assertion of the Evangelist under divine inspiration in 1:1 of the deity of Jesus, we need have no doubt that when Jesus employed the term ‘Son of Man’, He was asserting His heavenly nature – i.e. that He was God.
To this we may add Luke 15:3-7; 19:10, which present the Son of Man as Shepherd of Israel – cf. Ezekiel 34:16; the Son of Man separates the Sheep from the Goats – and gives the kingdom to the saints – Matthew 25:31f, 34 – cf. Ezekiel 34:17, (and v13, 25). It is clear therefore, that far from indicating His humanity, the term implied His deity.
(ii) The term was His public substitute for Messiah – Mark 8:29, 31; John 12 v34; unlike the latter, the title ‘Son of Man’ possessed no ready-made Jewish ideas of nationalist aggression. It also allowed Jesus to indicate that He was the heavenly Messiah – E. J. Young in his commentary on ‘Daniel’ points out that ‘Among the Jews the Messiah came to be known as anani “Cloudy One” or bar nivli “Son of a Cloud.”‘ 35 Note also the connection of clouds with deity – Isaiah 19:1; Psalm 104:3. The noted Jewish scholar of early Judaism, Geza Vermes, observes the following points about the Messianic connotations of the Danielic figure in Jewish circles:
In the earliest comment available, that of Rabbi Akiba (died in AD 135), the mention of ‘thrones ‘in Daniel 7:9 is said to indicate that there will be two of them, one occupied by God, the other by ‘David’, the royal Messiah… A commentary on Genesis identifies the King Messiah as Anani, the last scion of the family of David mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:24, by interpreting his name from Daniel 7:13, Anani = ‘clouds’ (‘anane): i.e. Cloud-Man. The same explanation is incorporated into the Targum of 1 Chronicles 3: 24:
Anani is the King Messiah who is to be revealed.
The second tour de force is that of the Babylonian Rabbi Nahman bar Jacob of the early fourth century AD, who obtained the obscure Messianic title, bar niphle (‘son of the Fallen One’ in Aramaic = the ‘son of David’) from Amos’s allusion to the raising up of the fallen tent of David. His Galilean interlocutor, Rabbi Isaac the Smith, was not impressed, no doubt because for him niphle was not an Aramaic but a Greek word meaning ‘cloud’ (nephele). It is in fact likely that in Galilee, where Jews were to some degree Hellenized, Daniel 7:13 was the source of the half-Aramaic, half-Greek Messianic title, bar nephele, ‘son of the cloud’. 36
In Mark 14:62 the High Priest questions Jesus ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus replies ‘I am: and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Bruce writes about this statement:
It is as though Jesus meant ‘If “Christ” (“Messiah”) is the term which you insist on using, then I have no option but to say “Yes”; but if I may choose my own words, I tell you that you will see the Son of man…’ In this reply the language of Daniel 7:13f. is fused with that of Psalm 110:1, where one whom the psalmist calls ‘my lord’ is invited in an oracle to take his seat at Yahweh’s right hand until his enemies are subdued beneath his feet. 37
The conflation of the Davidic King with the Son of Man figure shows that Jesus both wished to avoid nationalist concepts of Messiahship by employing the Danielic term, and also to underline that He was not simply human. It is clear that the High Priest understood what Jesus was claiming, since he then accuses Jesus of ‘blasphemy’. Rowe notes that the Hebrew equivalent of bar nasha is ben ‘adam. 38 Rowe observes that in various Psalms, especially 80:17, this phrase is used of the Davidic King. As with the figure in Daniel 7:13-14, he is so closely associated with Israel as to be their representative. 39 Rowe notes that C. H. Dodd, an important Biblical scholar, in his book According to the Scriptures (p. 101f), saw that Psalm 80:17 with its identification of ‘”God’s right-hand Man” (the one who “sits at God’s right hand”) with the divinely strengthened “Son of Man,” might well be regarded as providing direct scriptural justification for the fusion of the two figures in Mark 14:62.’ 40 It can be inferred from this, and from the other Jewish traditions identifying the Son of Man with the Messiah and as the divine Son that the New Testament portrayal of a divine Messiah was not arbitrary or the result of Hellenising or pagan influences as Muslims claims; rather, it reflected existing Palestinian Jewish traditions, including, of course, those in the Old Testament.
(iv) The Son of Man is connected with judgment – cf. Daniel 7:26. The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins – Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24. Jesus has authority to judge because He is Son of Man – John 5:27. This shows the influence of Daniel 12:2, especially v28f. The Son of Man specifically judges Israel (i.e. the generation to which Jesus came) – Matthew 24:30, referring to the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, presents the Roman destruction of the city as the vindication of Jesus’ Messiahship (the same point is there in Acts 7:55-56) – cf. Matthew 26:64. The ‘Great Tribulation’ of AD 70 displays that Jesus is enthroned in heaven (not ‘sky’ as NIV) – cf. Acts 2:30, 33, 34-35, 36 – and note v40, cf. Matthew 24:34: that is, the Judgment on the Jews of AD 70 establishes that Jesus is the Messianic King. The Son of Man is also the universal judge – Matthew 25:32, despatching the Lost to Hell and the Righteous to their inheritance – i.e. Heaven.
(d) The Son of Man is a royal figure – He is given authority and sovereignty – Daniel 7:14; Jesus received this upon the Ascension – v13, Acts 2:30 – He sits on a throne. He judges from a throne, Matthew 25:31, as King, v34. Again, this universal authority reflects Messianic expectations, as witnessed in Psalm 2:8. Moreover, He gives the kingdom to the saints – Daniel 7:18, 22, 27; Matthew 25:34; Luke 21:28, 31. Note that this occurs through judgment – Daniel 7:22, 26-27; Luke 21:27-28.
(e) The Son of Man is associated with suffering. Whilst the actual figure in Daniel does not suffer, we must remember he represents the Saints who are enduring harassment. In Daniel 7:21ff, we encounter the ‘little horn’, usually considered a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Coele-Syria, who began the religious/cultural persecution of Judæa in 168-167 BC, of which the most serious abuse was the desecration of the Temple in 167 by the erection of a pagan altar to Zeus – the ‘Abomination of Desolation’. 41 Bruce informs us what this meant in practice:
The idea of centralization of the worship was abolished along with the other distinctive features of the old order; altars in honour of ‘the lord of heaven’ were now set up throughout Judaea – in the market place of Jerusalem and in every town and village throughout the territory. The inhabitants of each place were required to sacrifice at these local altars, and severe penalties were imposed on those who refused, as also on those who persisted in observing those Jewish practices whose abolition had been decreed by the king. What followed was in effect a thorough-going campaign of persecution on Religious grounds – perhaps the first campaign of this kind in history. To circumcise one’s children, to be found in possession of a roll of the sacred law, to refuse to eat pork or the meat of animals offered on these illicit altars, were capital offences. 42
This persecution, which involved brutal and often indiscriminate execution, was resisted by the guerrillas known as the ‘Maccabees’, more properly the surname of Judas, the son of the priest Mattathiah who began the resistance. After a four-year fight they prevailed against Antiochus, and eventually in 142 BC Judæa won its independence. Bruce notes the reference to this in the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees 13:41 – ‘In the 170th year [of the Seleucid era] the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel.’ 43 The Saints of the Most High, after their suffering, were vindicated by victory, and received the kingdom. The text of Daniel 7:21ff predicts this outcome:
21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom… 25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he will intend to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. 26 But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Wright comments on the chapter: ‘But when the “most high”, the “Ancient of Days” takes his seat, judgment is given in favour of “the saints”/”one like a son of man” (verses 13, 18, 22, 27); they are vindicated and exalted, with their enemies being destroyed, and in their vindication their god himself is vindicated…’ 44 Later in the Book of Daniel, 9:25, we read of an ‘anointed one, a prince’. The Old Testament scholar John Goldingay suggests that since non-Israelite rulers in Daniel are otherwise described, the likelihood is that here we encounter an Israelite figure. 45 Later, this ‘anointed one’ is ‘cut off’, v26, as Rowe states, ‘presumably by an untimely death.’ 46 Rowe also comments that saints of the Most High ‘suffer persecution and apparent defeat at the hands of the final king (vv. 21, 25; cf. Rev. 13:7).’ 47 It is at this point that Rowe observes that ‘in some of the psalms the Davidic king is said to experience suffering, while in Psalm 80, as ben adam, he is identified with Israel in their tribulation prior to his exaltation.’ 48 Earlier, Rowe noted the suggestion that ‘the king appears in situations of profound suffering, as in Psalm 22. A consistent line of scholarship has maintained the likelihood that the king took part in a temple ritual… in which he suffered humiliation before being restored to his throne.’ 49 Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings proposes a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, p. 58ff, and this seems to be borne out by the references in Enoch of the Son of Man being the ‘light of the Gentiles’, 48:4, and the ‘Chosen’, 46:2, terms usually attributed to the Servant, Isaiah 49:6; 41:8. In 4 Esdras 16:35 the subject is described as ‘servant of the LORD’. This suggests the existence of a tradition linking the Danielic and Isaianic figures.
From this, it can be understood that once the equation of the Son of Man with the Messiah is grasped, the New Testament concept of the suffering Messiah, as in Mark 10:45 (‘For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’) is not a Christian innovation, but reflects Israelite history and Old Testament doctrine. The suffering Son of Man/Messiah that was Jesus died to ransom His people, but His suffering was vindicated when He rose again (and note the resurrection references in Daniel 12), and then came to God to receive universal royal authority, as does the son of man figure in Daniel 7. Just as the foes of the saints are destroyed in Daniel, Matthew 24:30 predicts the divine vengeance on the city where the Lord was crucified – and the days of vengeance did indeed invest Jerusalem in AD 70, the sign that Jesus is the Son of Man who ascended to heaven to receive cosmic kingship. It is important to note how this was achieved. Jesus spoke of His crucifixion as an exaltation and glorification, John 8:28; 12:23; 13:31. The cross was His avenue to the throne, and even on the cross He dies as King of Israel, John 19:19.
5. Servant of the LORD
In the prophecy of Isaiah, we encounter a figure called ebed YHWH – the Servant of the LORD. The ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah, 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 deal with the activities of this figure. At times the figure appears to be Israel, at others he seems to be an individual. In Isaiah 42:1ff, the Servant appears to be an individual who is commissioned for service by being anointed with the Spirit, who brings forth justice (mishpat) to the Gentiles. In 49:1ff, at first the figure appears to be an individual, then is identified as ‘Israel’ in v3, and then in v5 is commissioned to return Israel to YHWH! It would appear from this description that the Servant is a prophet, and it should be noted that the phrase ‘my servants, the prophets’, is a frequent occurrence in the Old Testament – e.g. Jeremiah 44:4. In Isaiah 49:6, his commission is greater than a particular call to Israel – he is to be a light to the Gentiles. In 50:4ff, he seems to be definitely an individual, and in v6 is presented as suffering – ‘I gave my back to those striking me, and my cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not cover my face from humiliation and spitting.’ Despite this, the figure trusts in the vindication of YHWH, vv. 7-9.
The paradox becomes greater in 52:13-15. God declares that His Servant will be ‘exalted’ (or glorified) and ‘lifted up’, the Septuagint employing the very words (dokew and ‘uqow) Jesus uses in texts such as John 12:23, 32 to describe His crucifixion, which will provide salvation for all humanity. 50 In the Isaianic text the Servant is simultaneously exalted whilst suffering, v14 – again, a parallel with Jesus in the gospel texts mentioned. In v15 it is stated that it is precisely through this means that he will sprinkle many nations (‘many’ is a Semitism for ‘all’). Motyer comments: ‘…the Servant “shall sprinkle… many nations”; his work is priestly, and many nations receive his priestly ministry…’ 51 Thus, the Servant is not just a prophet, he is simultaneously a priest. In 53:1-12, the Servant becomes a figure whose suffering is seen by others as the judgment of God, yet paradoxically, he suffers not for any wrong-doing of his own, but for the sin of everyone else, vv. 5, 12, and this by the determinate plan of God – vv. 6, 10, and through his suffering those for whom he is undergoing this scourging are declared righteous, v11.
Hence, when John 12:38ff quotes Isaiah 53, and v41 declares that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke about Him, the Gospel was not being arbitrary. Further, whilst other prophets may have suffered as a consequence of proclaiming their message to a sinful or apostate people, only this Servant suffers in the predestination of God as the very means of bringing salvation to those same sinners. We never encounter another person proclaimed to be a prophet whose suffering is seen as salvatory for others. Whatever privations Muhammad and his followers may have endured in Mecca prior to the Hijrah, it is never claimed that this suffering in itself was the actual means of salvation for those persecuting the Muslims. However vehemently Muslims assert the prophethood of Muhammad, they never claim that he was simultaneously a priest. Muslims are always loud in their denunciation of the idea of representative or vicarious suffering/sacrifice. 52 Yet it is precisely by the suffering of the Servant that redemption for all humanity is effected. His suffering does not bring salvation, justification, righteousness or anything similar for Himself, but rather for others. This figure cannot be Muhammad, but it clearly fits the Gospel portrayal of Jesus. As such, it demonstrates that the New Testament claims of His death being a priestly, sacrificial self-offering reflect the Old Testament and Jewish tradition.
(a) The Servant and the Son of Man
We earlier noted the suggestion in Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings that there is a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, and parallel references in Enoch and 4 Esdras. 53 One of the reasons Bruce suggests this identification is that the sufferings of the Isaianic Servant ‘are explicitly said to procure the removal of sin for others… there is some reason to think that the Daniel texts we have been considering , and some others associated with them, had the Isaianic Servant Songs in view and were indeed intended to provide an Interpretation of them.’ 54 Bruce finds this association in the references to the ‘wise’ in Daniel:
One of the designations of the faithful in the time of trial depicted in Daniel’s visions is maskilim, the ‘wise’ or the ‘teachers’ (i.e. those who acquire wisdom or those who impart it, the latter activity naturally following from the former). The reference is especially to those who communicate to others the insight which they themselves have gained into the times of the end; ‘none of the wicked shall understand, but the maskilim shall understand’ (Dan. 12:10). Daniel himself is given such insight: when Gabriel is about to impart to him the revelation of the seventy heptads, he says, ‘I have come out to make you wise (le haskileká)… know therefore and understand (wetaskél) that… there are to be seven heptads…’ (Dn. 9:22, 25).
When the minds of many are shaken by the apostates, ‘those who make the people wise (maskilê ‘am) shall make many understand’, although their faithfulness involves them in severe persecution (Dn. 11:33). So severe will the persecution be, indeed, that some even of the maskilim will fall away, but their defection will but serve to refine those who remain faithful (Dn. 11:35). And when at last the righteous are delivered and the faithful departed are raised to everlasting life, ‘the maskilim shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness (masdiqê hárabbin) like the stars for ever and ever’ (Dn. 12:1-3).
It would be rash to draw too certain inferences from the coincidence between these instances of the hiph’il conjugation of skl and the opening words of the fourth Servant Song, hinneh yaskil ‘abdî, ‘behold, my servant will deal wisely’ (Is. 52:13); but that we have to do with more than a mere coincidence is suggested by the statement in Isaiah 53:11 that the Servant will by his knowledge ‘make the many to be accounted righteous’ (yasdiq… lárabbîm) -i.e. he will fulfil the role assigned to the maskilim in Daniel 12:3. But if Daniel is thus providing an interpretation of the figure of the suffering Servant, it is a corporate interpretation. 55
To Bruce’s observations I would add another. As we noted at the beginning of this section, the Servant at certain times seem to be Israel, whilst at others the figure appears to be an individual. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the Saints of the Most High – in other words, faithful Israel. Israel was depicted as God’s son, and so when Jesus was described as the Son of God, one aspect of the term referred to His being the true Israel, a point emphasised in the Gospel of Matthew by the reference to Him as ‘the Son of Abraham’, 1:1, and by the Wilderness Temptations. In the Gospel of John, Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the true Vine’, 15:1, in a context of sonship – ‘my Father is the vine-dresser’. By this Jesus did not mean that other vines were impostors, but that He was the true Israel. In Psalm 80:8, 14, Israel is described as the ‘vine’ God brought ‘out of Egypt’.
Parallel to the latter clause, we find Israel depicted as the son of God He rescued out of Egypt – Hosea 11:1 ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.’ This is interpreted in Messianic terms in Matthew 2:14-15 ‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.”‘ We have already examined the connection between Psalm 80 and the Son of Man figure, and it is significant that a variant of v15 in the psalm is ‘son’, rather than branch. At any rate, the representation of Israel as God’s Son, the link between faithful Israel and the Son of Man, and the fact that the Suffering Servant is depicted as Israel provides a connection between the different figures. Like the picture in Daniel, there is suffering, vindication and exaltation (cf. Isaiah 53:12).
(b) The Servant and the Messiah
There are indications in Isaiah itself that suggest a Messianic connection with the Servant. In 49:8 we read the following ‘Thus says the LORD, In an acceptable time have I answered you, and in a day of salvation have I helped you; and I will preserve you, and give you as a covenant for the people…’ As the Old Testament scholar Martens elaborates, ‘…the servant songs tapped the traditions of the exodus. Israel in exile is promise a return after the pattern of the earlier exodus… As at the exodus, Yahweh will have compassion on his afflicted (49:13; cf. Ex. 6:3)…. The servant delivers from a captivity which more than physical.’ 56 Earlier in Isaiah, we also read of the Second Exodus, but in this case, the agent is clearly a Messianic figure – ‘stem of Jesse’, a reference to David’s father. Motyer writes ‘The reference to Jesse indicates that the shoot is not just another king in David’s line but another David.’ 57 In this respect, we should note Grogan’s observation that the Servant in some ways ‘seems to sum up in himself elements of the three great offices of prophet, priest and king… like a king he wins victories and divides spoil (Isaiah 53:12) and is exalted to a place of great authority (Isaiah 52:13).‘ 58 Obviously, by definition, the Messiah is a king. Mark 1:11(the Baptism) conflates a messianic psalm, Psalm 2, with a Servant passage, Isaiah 42:1 – the Son is the Servant with whom God is pleased.
Like the Servant in 42:1; 61:1, the figure in Isaiah 11 is anointed with the Spirit, and like the Servant, whilst effecting the exodus, he also gathers the nations (Gentiles) to him:
1 And there will come forth a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots will bear fruit.
2 And the Spirit of the LORD will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD…
10 And it will come to pass in that day, that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, who will stand as a sign of the peoples; and his resting-place will be glorious.
11 And it will come to pass in that day, that the LORD will set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, who remain, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he will set up a standard for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
It should also be noted in 11:4 that the Davidic figure destroys the wicked – i.e. the enemies of God. We have previously noted the Isaianic references in John 12, and two aspects of the ‘lifting-up’, which is explicitly identified with the means of Jesus’ death in v32, is that this exaltation is the means of the vanquishing of the Devil, v31 ‘Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’ Simultaneously this exalted death is the instrument for the gathering of all humanity to Himself – v32 ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.’ Again, in v20, Gentiles come and request to see Jesus, at which point He declares the time had come for the Son of Man to be glorified, v23, another allusion to His death. His crucifixion is the means of bringing the Gentiles as well as the Jews into a covenant relationship with God. In Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos. This is accompanied by the bat-qol in v35 identifying Jesus in terms of the Servant as ‘My Chosen’, as well s being God’s Son. Jesus death is the ultimate exodus that delivers people from spiritual darkness, in the way Martens suggested the Servant effects in the Second Exodus from Babylon.
(c) The Servant and Miracles
Both Islam and the Bible present Jesus as performing miracles, so this point is not contentious. What is interesting for this study is that just as the Messianic term ‘Son of David’ is associated with healing and deliverance, the Servant figure is likewise. In Matthew 8:16-17, we read the following, with reference to Isaiah 53:4:
16 ‘And when evening arrived, they brought to him many demon-possessed people: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick: 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.’
It follows that it is a common function of the Son of David and the Servant to heal and exorcise, indicating a Messianic connotation with the Servant figure. So, when Jesus heals or drives out demons, He does so as Messiah – as Son of David, and as the Servant of the LORD. This is important for the Christian-Muslim debate. When Jesus died on the cross, He did so to ‘exorcise’ the Devil – to cast out his dominion, John 12:31. This exorcising action is effected by the Isaianic paradox – i.e. by the suffering of the Servant. Similarly, the spiritual healing Jesus wrought by His suffering is demonstrated by 1 Peter 2:24, quoting Isaiah 53:5 – ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin, and live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.’ Jesus clearly saw Himself as the representative suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:12 – ‘numbered with the transgressors’, as witnessed in Luke 22:37 ‘For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, “And he was numbered with transgressors”: for that which refers to me has its fulfilment.’ Jesus definitely saw Himself as the one who would suffer death for sinners to bring them redemption.
(d) The Servant and ‘the Anointed One’
France points to another Messianic connection with the Servant to be found in Isaiah:
Isaiah 61:1-3 describes a figure closely similar to the Servant as depicted in Isaiah 42:1-7: both are endued with the Spirit of Yahweh, open blind eyes, and bring prisoners out of darkness. Both are, in other words, sent and equipped by Yahweh to deliver the oppressed and wretched, and both are characterized by their gentleness. This similarity has many to regard Isaiah 61:1-3 as a fifth ‘Servant Song’. 59
As France observes, Jesus identifies Himself with this figure in the Nazareth synagogue, at the beginning of His public ministry. 60 Jesus claims the immediate fulfilment of the passage – ‘To-day this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears’, Luke 4:21, which France describes as ‘a deliberate identification of his work as that described in Isaiah 61:1-3. He is the Lord’s anointed; the Messiah has come.’ 61 To France’s suggestions we should add that the pericope in Luke follows the Wilderness Temptations, when Jesus is assaulted for being the Son of God, which itself follows the Baptism, where the bat-qol describes Jesus as the ‘beloved Son, with whom I am pleased’, reflecting Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42:1. There is thus a logical progression in the events of Jesus’ ministry, as both Servant and Messiah, and as the Anointed Deliverer.
It is also significant that after being anointed by the Spirit at the Baptism, Jesus is said to enter the Wilderness being full of the Spirit, Luke 4:1, where he battles the Enemy, and then after His victory in the desert, He returns ‘in the power of the Spirit into Galilee’, 4:14. The implication in v23, and suggested by Gospel parallels (Matthew 4:23ff; Mark 1:23ff), is that Jesus had been performing ‘the deeds of the Messiah’ as we examined earlier – works of healing and exorcism. As France notes, the pericope identifying these acts, Matthew 11:5/Luke 7:22, is based on Isaiah 61:1 and 35:5-6 – ‘God’s time of salvation has come. Jesus is the one anointed to be the bringer of that salvation.’ 62 The two Isaianic texts are also linked by the common theme of divine judgment, retribution or vengeance, 35:4; 61:2. A further point of significance is that 35:4 warns ‘behold your God’, indicating a divine epiphany, just as 40:3, quoted of the ministry of John Baptist preparing the way for Jesus, Matthew 3:3. This indicates that the anointed figure we encounter in Isaiah is also divine.
(e) The Servant and Mark 10:45
A text that both conflates the Son of Man and Servant figures in pointing to the redemptive death of Jesus is Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28) ‘For the Son of man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’, which reflects Isaiah 53:12 ‘he bore the sin of many’. Guthrie observes ‘The idea of suffering would naturally link with the Isaianic figure.’ 63 We may compare this verse with Mark 8:31 ‘And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again’; cf. also Luke 19:10 – ‘For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.’ At first glance this seems strange, for, as we have seen, the Son of Man, in Daniel does not suffer himself. However, he does represent people who are suffering, and as the Isaianic figure is presented, it is through such suffering that He enters into His glory (cf. Luke 24:25-26). Mark 10:45 does indeed seem to presents us with Jesus’ death being representative/vicarious, which definitely fits the description of the Servant figure. Thus the description of the Anointed One/Messiah/Son of Man/Servant is that he enters His reign by a sacrificial death which secures redemption for sinners.
Lindars writes about this text, and its Isaianic connotations, especially with respect to its sacrificial aspects:
The sacrificial significance of lutron in the present passage is fixed by the words which immediately follow it, ‘for many’ (anti pollon). An astonishingly similar phrase occurs in the formulaic passage 1 Tim. 2.6, ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’ (ho dous heauton antilutron huper panton); cf. Titus 2.14. Seeing that the sacrificial connotation of lutron derives from the idea of a ransom-price (e.g., for manumission of a slave), the most likely Aramaic equivalent would be kopher… The word ‘ransom’ (lutron) should be regarded as interpretative. It is not a quotation from Isa. 53:10, but… the ransom idea is a legitimate way of interpreting the prophecy as a whole… the feature which gives to the saying its sacrificial connotation, i.e. the prepositional phrase ‘for many’ (anti pollon), also occurs in Mark’s version of the eucharistic blessing of the cup (Mark 14:24, huper pollon), and this is reflected in Paul’s version of the blessing of the bread (1 Cor. 11:24, huper humon, ‘for you’). 64
The problem of ‘ransom’ (lutron) not being an exact equivalent of m#) (asham), the latter normally meaning an ‘offering for sin’, is answered by the fact that lutron usually translates into Hebrew as Kopēr, ‘a covering’, similar to the Aramaic term Lindars mentions. The noun in related to the verb kipper which in Leviticus 5:16 expresses the effect of the m#) – the term employed in Isaiah 53:10. France, explaining Mark 10:45 in terms of its Old Testament background, makes the following observations:
Firstly, the meaning of substitution is not absent from m#):aaa while in Numbers 5:7, 8 it is a restitution to the one wronged (though, presumably, except in cases of actual theft, the restitution of an equivalent), in other cases it signifies the sacrifice presented to make atonement for the sinner; he is guilty (m#)) but the presentation of an m#) in his place removes his guilt. This is hardly distinguishable from the substitution of an equivalent, or, therefore, from the meaning of lutron. So in Isaiah 53:10, ‘the Messianic servant offers himself as an m#) in compensation for the sins of the people, interposing for them as their substitute.’ lutron or whatever Aramaic word lies behind it, is therefore not far from equivalent to m#). Secondly, Isaiah 53 as a whole presents the work of the Servant as one of substitution, in that in his suffering and death he bears the sins of the people, resulting in their healing; God places their sins on him, and bruises him for their iniquities. This idea of substitution is admitted to be central to lutron, and is even more obvious in anti [i.e. ‘instead of’]. Even if no linguistic echo were established, dounai thn quchn autou lutron anti pollwn is a perfect summary of the central theme of Isaiah 53, that of a vicarious and redeeming death.
pollwn (‘many’). This is probably the most commonly noticed allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark 10:45. mybris used in Isaiah 53:11, 12 to describe the beneficiaries of the Servant’s sacrifice (LXX polloiv, pollwn). Jeremias describes it as ‘a veritable keyword in Isa. 53’. Most scholars take it for granted that its occurrence in Mark 10:45 is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53; it is hardly the word unless it had some such purpose. The other allusions to Isaiah 53 in this verse suggest that this too is a feature drawn from that chapter, where it is no less peculiar, and rendered conspicuous and memorable by its repetition.
The cumulative effect of these parallels in word and thought between Mark 10:45 and Isaiah 53 is sufficient to demand a deliberate allusion by Jesus to the role of the Servant as his own…The fact that the allusion occurs almost incidentally, as an illustration of the true nature of greatness, far from indicating that the redemptive role of the Servant was not in mind (for it is specifically the redemptive aspects of Isaiah 53 to which Jesus alludes), is in fact evidence of how deeply his assumption of that role had penetrated into Jesus’ thinking, so that it emerges even in an incidental illustration. ‘It is as if Jesus said, “The Son of Man came to fulfil the task of the ebed Yahweh“.’ 65
Similarly, Guthrie argues for the propriety of Mark 10:45 reflecting the Servant passages, and also points to Isaianic references in the Eucharistic words of Jesus ate the Last Supper:
There is, of course, no mention of ransom (lytron) in Isaiah 53, but there is a close connection between ransom and vicarious suffering. There is no great step from the servant making himself an offering (āšām) for sin (Is. 53:10), and the Son of man giving his life as a ransom (or equivalent substitute). Yet another pointer in the same direction is the use of ‘many’ both in Isaiah 53:12 and in Mark 10:45.
Some reference must be made to the possibility of an allusion to the servant concept in the words of institution at the last supper (Mk. 14:24 et par). Although the major background is clearly Exodus 24 and Jeremiah 31, it is possible that Isaiah 53 may also have contributed. The references to the covenant, to the ‘pouring out’, and to the ‘many’ all find parallels in the servant songs. It is not too much to claim that Jesus is here giving a definite theological explanation of his own. His statement is a contributory factor in our understanding of his function as servant of Yahweh. 66
The Eucharistic words of Jesus are an essential sign of the historicity of the Cross, an indication, if one were needed, that the Islamic denial of the Crucifixion is unhistorical. Jesus clearly foresaw that the redemption of sinners and the fulfilment of the Covenant demanded His death. Against the Muslim argument that such predictions were vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the event), the obvious response is that the nature of the Servant of the LORD as prophesied in Isaiah demanded such suffering, and demonstrated that this Passion would be both redemptive and vicarious/representative. Centuries before the advent of the New Testament Church, Israel was expected a Suffering Servant – one whose Passion would bring salvation for sinners. It really would require a miracle of ingenuity to invent such close correlation between the picture of the Servant in Isaiah and what Jesus predicted at the Last Supper in Mark 14:24. To quote France again:
The phrase ‘the blood of the covenant’ is… a typological reference to Exodus 24:8. However, the Servant is twice referred to as a covenant to the people. O. Cullmann goes so far as to rank the re-establishment of the covenant as one of the two ‘essential characteristics’ of the Servant. There are, of course, many other Old Testament references to the covenant, and this alone could not constitute an allusion to the Servant theme, but it does not stand alone. The following words are toekcunnomenon uper pollwn (‘which is poured out for many’; Mt. to peri pollwn ekcunnomenon).
The word ekcunnomenon is reminiscent of Isaiah 53:12 hreh ‘he poured out his soul’. But whereas in Isaiah 53 hreh is a strange and rather mysterious metaphor, in Mark 14:24 ekcunnomenon is the natural word for the shedding of blood, and need not in itself demand an Old Testament background. Like the reference to the covenant, its allusion to the Servant idea is only clearly established by its conjunction with the more obviously allusive phrase uper (peri) pollwn.
‘uper pollwn is as strange an expression for Jesus to use here as was anti pollwn in Mark 10:45, and the allusion to Isaiah 53 is as widely recognized here as there. In fact the two references reinforce each other. While ‘uper (and still more the Matthean peri) is not so clearly substitutionary as anti, it is a very appropriate word for the vicarious death of the Servant. So not only the word pollwn but the whole idea of ‘dying on be-half of’ which is central to Mark 14:24, renders an allusion to the Servant theme virtually certain.
The connection of these words with the covenant idea is significant. In Isaiah 42-53 Yahweh makes his Servant a covenant to the people, and this involves his vicarious death for their redemption. Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, whose primary purpose is to explain to the disciples how his coming death is to benefit them, are drawn not only from Exodus 24:8 (and probably Jeremiah 31:31), but also from Isaiah 53. His work is to re- establish the broken covenant, but this can be done only by fulfilling the role of the Servant in his vicarious death. To make this point Jesus chooses words from Isaiah 53 which are as deeply imbued as any with the redemptive significance of that death, in that they highlight its vicarious nature.
Thus here, if anywhere, we have a deliberate theological explanation by Jesus of the necessity for his death, and it is not only drawn from Isaiah 53, but specifically refers to the vicarious and redemptive suffering which is the central theme of that chapter. 67
(f) The Servant and the Triumphal Entry
Another Messianic connection, one indicating that the Messiah would suffer and die to establish His ministry, is found in the figure of the Shepherd-King of Zechariah 9-14. The Entry into Jerusalem, with Jesus riding humbly on an ass, Mark 11:1ff; Matthew 21:1ff; Luke 19:29ff, reflect the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9-10 – ‘9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king comes to you; he is just, and endowed with salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10 … he shall speak peace unto the nations…’ Humility, of course, is a characteristic of the Suffering Servant, and contrasts with the usual royal perceptions. 68 More suggestive analogies are found with respect to Zechariah 12:12 and 13:7. In Zechariah 12:10-12, we find the following reference to mourning:
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and they will weep bitterly for him, like the bitter weeping for his first-born.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves.
France points out that this figure is both Messianic and causes salvation to be effected through his murder, and thus provides a link with the Isaianic figure of the Suffering Servant. He also suggests this provides the basis for Matthew 24:30 – ‘then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’:
Whatever the explanation of the strange first person yl) the one pierced is clearly connected with the Messianic figures of 11:4-14 and 13:7; in the former passage the subject is the rejection of the good shepherd by the people, and in the latter his smiting by the sword of God… these passages predict the hostile reaction of Israel to the Messianic king of 9:9-10, involving not only contemptuous rejection, but (whether figuratively or literally) his murder. It is only after they have murdered him that the memory of his martyrdom will cause their repentance, and thus, after thorough purification, their final salvation. It seems, then, that in this martyrdom with its issue in the salvation of God’s people Jesus saw a prediction of his own fate. 69
Hence, here we have a picture of a suffering Messianic figure. It should also be noted that the one pierced in the Zechariah passage is God. However, In John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7 the object of piercing is clearly Jesus, referring to the spear piercing Him on the Cross, John 19:34. The interchange between the figures of God and David in the Zechariah passage is significant for the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament. The other Zechariah text, 13:7, is further evidence both of a suffering Messianic character and also an indication of the divinity of the figure: ‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, says the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered…’ France comment that this shepherd ‘is described by Yahweh as ytym(…rbg…y(r (‘my shepherd, the man that is my fellow’, RV), implying a close relationship with Yahweh.’ 70 Later, France observes that this designation indicates a peculiarly close relationship to YHWH:
Yahweh describes him as ytym(…rbg…y(r (RSV ‘My shepherd… the man who stands next to me’). tym(implies kinship; its only other use in the Old Testament is to describe a ‘fellow-Israelite’, and it is probably derived from a root denoting ‘family connection’. This figure is thus more than Yahweh’s ‘associate’ or even ‘companion’; he is his ‘kinsman’. Thus the two passages Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 together suggest a relationship between Yahweh and his representative, the smitten Shepherd-King, which amounts at least to a close ‘kinship’, even to identification. And these two passages are both applied by Jesus to himself. In neither case is the phrase in question actually cited) but the identification of himself with this Messianic figure, which Jesus’ allusions take for granted, could not have been made without an awareness of the implication that he was closely related to Yahweh, and that his suffering was the suffering of Yahweh himself. 71
Similarly, Fairbairn, the great expert on Biblical typology, observed how this passage indicated that this shepherd was divine, and that this was one aspect of what Jesus was claiming in Matthew 26:31, since the passage claims that the figure is the LORD’s fellow ‘or rather His near relation – for so the word in the original imports; and hence, when spoken of any one’s relation to God, it can not possibly denote a mere man, but can only be understood of one who, by virtue of His divine nature, stands on a footing of essential equality with God.’ 72 The other point of course, is that this is ‘a Messianic personage’, as France suggests, and the text clearly indicates that He is made to suffer by God:
The terminology strongly suggests this exegesis, and it is strengthened by the close correspondence with 12:10, for in both passages the wounding of a figure closely associated with Yahweh leads, through mourning or refining, to salvation.
Jesus’ application of the passage is explicit. He is this Messianic shepherd, and as such he is to be smitten. His Messianic work is to be accomplished through suffering, for only so can the predicted salvation come. 73
It can be seen from this that when Jesus, in His Eucharistic words at the Last Supper cited this prophecy as being of Himself, clearly with relation to the Cross (Matthew 26:31 ‘Then Jesus said to them, All of you will fall away because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’), He was not being arbitrary in presenting an image of a suffering Messiah. It should be remembered that in the Old Testament, Israel is portrayed as the Flock of which YHWH is ‘Shepherd ‘- i.e. ‘Ruler’ – e.g. Psalms 23; 78:52; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3. The term is also used of the Kings – under God, Kings were shepherds of Israel -1 Samuel 17:34-36; Jeremiah 23:1-4. Interestingly, it appears to be a definite Messianic term – Ezekiel 34:23 predicts a Davidic Shepherd, as does Jeremiah 23:4f. By this title, then, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, seen especially in His calling of the Gentiles, John 10:16. He was also making an implicit claim to deity. Most pertinently, This displays that there was a tradition that a Messianic figure would suffer, representing His people.
McKenzie comments on this representative royal role ‘…the Jerusalem king became the representative of Israel before Yahweh, the leader of his people in cult and the recipient of the divine oracles by which the will of Yahweh was communicated to Israel.’ 74 The King caused the people to be either holy or sinful. For example, under Manasseh, the people were led astray – 2 Kings 21:7-9; 2 Chronicles 33:7-9. The Rule of an evil king caused the people to forsake the covenant and thus cease to fulfil the purposes of God. When, chastised and repentant, Manasseh obeyed the covenant, the people likewise conformed to the covenant – 2 Chronicles 33:15-17. Hence Kingship in loyalty to the Davidic Covenant causes the People of God to be holy. In this light, we can understand the import of Jesus dying as the representative ‘King of the Jews’ – in connection with the Servant theme, His crucified glorification, representing sinners, enables their sanctification.
(g) The Servant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Gentiles
A further point in connection with this is how both the Servant figure and the Davidic King are related to the incoming of the Gentiles. The Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel 7:19, promises that the Dynasty will be eternal, and David’s response is to exclaim that this is the ‘Law for Humanity’ – tôrat hā‘ādām – not just for Israel. Walter Kaiser suggests the best translation for this is ‘charter for humanity’. 75 Personally, I feel that the obviously covenantal aspects of the promise are best served by retaining the reference to ‘law’. Certainly, Kaiser is correct when he argues that ‘the ancient plan of God would involve a king and a kingdom. Such a blessing would also involve the future of all mankind.’ 76 The Kingdom of Israel was ultimately to be worldwide. We find indications of this in Psalms 2:7-8; 72:8-11, Amos 9:11-12, and of course, in Zechariah 9:9-10. This concept of the Davidic King being the ‘Law for Humanity’ parallels the ministry of the Servant in being ‘a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles’, Isaiah 42:6.
To conclude on the Suffering Servant/Messiah theme, Vermes notes rabbinical traditions of a slain Messiah connected with the figure of Zechariah 12, including the Targum on the passage. 77 Chilton observes that the Isaiah Targum ‘The Targum shows us that the term “servant” could he taken as a designation of the messiah (cf. 43:10). This is particularly the case at 52:13 and 53:10. The Targum indeed interprets 52:13-53:12 as a whole so as to insist on the glorification of the messiah, but it also …refers to the possibility that the messiah might die (53:12 “he delivered his soul to death”).’ 78 Kümmel observes that 4 Ezra 7:29 states that ‘my servant the Messiah shall die’. 79 There does seem to have been a definite Jewish tradition, both in the Bible and in interpretations based upon it, of a suffering or slain Messiah. Jesus could appeal to the Biblical traditions of a lowly, humble Shepherd King, who would suffer, be vindicated, and then enter His glory, whilst securing redemption for sinners by his action, including the Gentiles. France notes that the emphasis of Jesus falls ‘almost exclusively on Zechariah 9-14, Isaiah 53, and Daniel 7, …where it can plausibly be claimed that the suffering of the Messiah is predicted.’ 80
(h) The Servant and the sword
Before ending this section, we should return to the character of Jesus in Luke 22:37, the verse followed by the enigmatic reference to ‘two swords’, and preceded by the apparent injunction of Jesus to purchase a sword. Of course, we never encounter Jesus engaging in political violence as did some of His contemporaries, nor did he wield the sword like Muhammad. Muslims often find this pacifism incomprehensible, especially since all prophets brought the same message, and presumably believed in jihad, as indeed the Qur’an affirms the Injil does – Surah Tauba 9:111. However, the fact that we encounter a reference to the Suffering Servant in this passage in Luke argues against what the Qur’an affirms. Bruce explains the meaning of this difficult text:
Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally. He goes on to tell how, a few hours later, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples let fly with a sword -probably one of the two which they had produced at the supper table – and cut off an ear of the high priest’s slave. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ and healed the man’s ear with a touch (Luke 22:49-51).
So what did he mean by his reference to selling one’s cloak to buy a sword? He himself was about to be condemned as a criminal, ‘reckoned with transgressors’, to use language applied to the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:12. Those who until now had been his associates would find themselves treated as outlaws; they could no longer count on the charity of sympathetic fellow-Israelites. Purse and bag would now be necessary. Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow-members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.
But Jesus does not envisage bandits as the kind of people against whom his disciples would require protection: they themselves would be lumped together with bandits by the authorities, and they might as well act the part properly and carry arms, as bandits did. Taking him literally, they revealed that they had anticipated his advice: they already had two swords. This incidentally shows how far they were from resembling a band of Zealot insurgents: such a band would have been much more adequately equipped. And the words with which Jesus concluded the conversation did not mean that two swords would be enough; they would have been ludicrously insufficient against the band that came to arrest him, armed with swords and clubs. He meant ‘Enough of this!’ – they had misunderstood his sad irony, and it was time to drop the subject. T. W. Manson rendered the words ‘Well, well’. 81
A modern New Testament expert, Professor Richard Hays of Duke University, has also examined the text in depth, and his conclusions are similar to those of Bruce about the rejection of militant attitude in the passage:
Again in this passage the reference to a sword has a figurative purpose. On the night of his arrest, just after his last supper with the disciples, Jesus reminds his followers of an earlier phase in their mission when they could rely on the goodwill and hospitality of those to whom they preached; however, they must now be prepared for a time of rejection and persecution. They will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of the fact that they must now expect to encounter opposition. As I. Howard Marshall observes, ‘The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition which Jesus and the disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.’ The disciples, however, give continuing evidence of their incomprehension of Jesus’ destiny by taking the figurative warning as a literal instruction: ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ Jesus’ response is one of impatient dismissal, indicating that they have failed to grasp the point: ‘Enough, already!’ Joseph Fitzmyer explains that ‘the irony concerns not the number of the swords, but the whole mentality of the apostles. Jesus will have nothing to do with swords, even for defense.’ The truth of this reading is confirmed by the subsequent scene at Jesus’ arrest: The disciples ask, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’ and one of them, without waiting for an answer, cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. Jesus, however, rebukes him (‘No more of this!’) and heals the injured slave (Luke 22:49-51). Here again, literal armed resistance is ex-posed as a foolish misunderstanding of Jesus’ message.
Such a misunderstanding is particularly ironic in view of Luke 22:37: the purpose of the figurative remark about buying a sword was to warn the disciples that the Scripture was about to be fulfilled. The passage cited is Isaiah 53:12: ‘And he was counted among the lawless.’ It should not escape the attention of Luke’s readers that this citation comes from the concluding verse of Isaiah’s prophetic description of the suffering servant, whose life was ‘handed over to death’ for the sake of the sins of many. This is the sort of dramatic irony that Luke, as an author, savors: while Jesus is trying to instruct the disciples about his destiny as the righteous sufferer, they are brandishing swords about, as though such pathetic weapons could promote God’s kingdom. No wonder Jesus impatiently puts an end to the conversation. 82
There are other indications that the Suffering Servant is a passive figure in this sense. In Matthew 12:14ff, we encounter the fulfilment of Isaiah 42:2-3. Jesus demonstrates that He is no Zealot, and is uninterested in the kind of militant confrontation that the Hadith presents of Him. The Suffering Servant is no Mujahid:
14 But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. 15 And Jesus perceiving it, withdrew from there: and many followed him; and he healed them all, 16 and warned them not to make him known: 17 in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet it might be fulfilled, saying, 18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved with whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare justice to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he not will not break, and smouldering flax he will not quench, until he leads justice to victory. 21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope.
Clearly, Jesus’ attitude and conduct reflects the picture of the Servant in Isaiah, demonstrating that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus is neither arbitrary nor contrived. Jesus acted exactly as the Old Testament prophecy predicted He would behave. The Islamic picture of Jesus, whereby after His Second Coming He literally slays the Antichrist with a lance, is wholly innovative and contradictory to the ancient traditions of how the Servant would conduct himself.
6. The Prophet
Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts another prophet like Moses; Acts 3:22-23 explicitly identifies this with Jesus (22 Moses said, ‘the LORD God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers. You will listen to everything he says to you. 23 ‘And it shall be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet, will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’), and 7:37 (This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, ‘God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers’) implicitly makes this identification.
It has been a consistent polemic of Islamic apologetics that Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts Muhammad, rather than Jesus. 83Essentially, this rests upon the phrase ‘from among your brothers’. On the basis that Ishmael and Isaac were brothers, and on the claims that Arabs were descended from Ishmael, and so were brothers of the Israelites, the claim is presented that Muhammad is the eschatological prophet foretold in the passage. 84 Of course, the immediate objection is that even if the racial identification were correct, this would not be evidence that Muhammad was the prophet in question. Secondly, and a point that totally undermines the Muslim claim, it should be remembered that Isaac had two sons, Jacob, who became Israel, and Esau, also known as Edom, the father of the Edomites, later called the Idumeans, who were Judaised under the Maccabeans. Hence, the racial brothers of the Israelites were actually the Edomites/Idumeans, rather than the Ishmaelites. Logically, according to the Islamic position, the prophet should have come from this people, rather than the Ishmaelites/Arabs.
However, this ignores Deuteronomy 18:15 – ‘the LORD shall raise up to you a prophet like me from among you, of your brothers; you shall listen to him.’ The prophet is to come from the midst of the Israelites, and clearly this does not apply to Muhammad, though it does fit the picture of Jesus. Moreover, the Hebrew word used for ‘brother’ is x)= (‘âch). The term is also used elsewhere in Deuteronomy, notably in 17:15, where, permission having been granted Israel to establish a king over them, they are told of the restrictions upon his identity. Primarily, he must be the one chosen by the LORD. Secondly, he must be from ‘among your brothers; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.’ Clearly, the Kings of Israel had to be Israelites, and since the same terminology is employed here as in 18:15, 18, this demonstrates that the prophet had to be an Israelite. It is noteworthy that when King Herod Agrippa, c. 40-41 AD, read the passage about the ethnic identity of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, ‘he burst into tears, as he bethought himself of his Edomite ancestry.’ 85Clearly, the reference to ‘brother’ was recognised as meaning ‘fellow-Israelite’.
(a) The Prophet and the Law
R. E. Clements observes that the text in Deuteronomy 18:15 is in the iterative imperfect tense, which ‘expresses a distributive sense.’ 86 For this reason he translates it ‘Yahweh your god will raise up for you from time to time a prophet like me from among you, from your own kin. Him you shall listen to.’ However, the Jews came to believe that an ultimate prophet ‘like Moses’ would arise from among them. Clements notes that ‘Early Jewish interpretation regarded the passage in an eschatological sense and took it to indicate the coming of of a special prophet in the future who would be like Moses, and who would fulfil a particular task in connection with the law.’ 87 Of course, this is what Jesus actually does perform such a work. Jesus claims authority to give a new Law – so like Moses, He is the Law-giver – the new Moses, antitype of the old. Moses was the Giver of the supreme revelation to Israel – the Torah: the parallel of John 1:17 suggests that Jesus brings a superior Torah (and we may link this with Hebrews 8:6). This is underlined by the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:lff, e.g. v21, where Jesus, while not abolishing the Law, supersedes it by fulfilling it, rendering the perfect obedience to it, and dying on behalf of sinners, so that His faultless obedience could be accounted to sinners.
The Law was the revelation of the mind of God: it was His revelation to Man. The Torah was called the Ten Words (dabarim), Deuteronomy 4:13, and 5:5 terms it the ‘word of the Lord’. John 1:1 states that Jesus is the Word of God – the embodied expression of the mind of God, clearly associated with the Law, v17, and revelation, v18. This should be linked with 2 Samuel 7:19 – where, as we have seen, David responds to divine promise of an eternal dynasty by exclaiming ‘this is the Law for Mankind!’ – (tôrat hā‘ādām). Since Jesus is the eternal Davidic King, He is the embodied Torah. Moreover, torah basically means ‘a body of teaching’ – and Jesus is the Great Teacher – John 3:20. Jesus was
(b) The Prophet as the Servant and Taheb
The death of Jesus as the Righteous One who fulfilled the Law, and thereby being the one who would ‘fulfil a particular task in connection with the law’ is emphasised by two factors. As we have seen, Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos – an obvious parallel with Moses. The bat-qol, identifying Jesus as ‘My Chosen’, in echo of the Isaianic Servant, points to how this special function of ‘the prophet like Moses’ involved His death for others, as the Servant. Fuller notes that the Isaianic Servant was considered ‘to be the eschatological prophet like unto Moses’. 88 he also observes ‘certain Mosaic functions are later ascribed to the Davidic Messiah…’ 89
Fuller also observes that the Samaritans had a Messianic expectation, though not linked to David, since they only accepted the Pentateuch as the canon. This Samaritan Messianic figure was called the Taheb, the ‘one who restores (or ‘returns’)’, and Fuller quotes Cullmann (Christology, p. 19) as observing that this figure ‘performs miracles, restores the law and true worship among the people, and brings knowledge to other nations’. 90 It should be remembered that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, so clearly the passage in Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him if miracles are an essential function of the eschatological prophet. 91
The incident with the Samaritan woman in John 4:7ff should be understood in this light. When Jesus informs her that she has had several husbands, and is living with one who is not her husband, she replies, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’, v19. Later, in v25, she states ‘I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ): when he comes, he will declare all things to us. 26 Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am he.’ Clearly, in this case, Jesus was claiming to be the ‘Mosaic Messiah’ – the ultimate prophet, for that is how the woman would have understood it, and indeed, this is how she presents it to her compatriots – v29, on the basis of Jesus supernatural intuitive knowledge. It should be remembered that there is a special emphasis in the Gospel of John on Jesus as the divine revealer – His miracles are called shmeia ‘signs’, 2:11. Jesus is the specific revealer of God – 1:18.
(c) The Revelatory death of the Mosaic Prophet and ‘Righteous One’
Even the death of Jesus is revelatory – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’, cf. Exodus 6:7; 7:5, where the exodus is a simultaneous revelation to the Israelites and Egyptians that the God of Israel is YHWH – ‘I am’. A further parallel is found in John 19:18 where Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyenenteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’. This is an allusion to Moses’ arms being upheld by Aaron and Hur in Exodus 17:12 LXX, where Israel battled the enemy (Amalek), and prevailed as long as Moses kept his arms up. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified (even to the point of physical resemblance, His arms being raised), therein destroying the enemy – Satan. Fuller comments on the New Testament picture of Jesus – ‘Jesus as the Mosaic servant-prophet – the Redeemer and saviour – leads the eschatological people of God into the promised land of the kingdom of God.’ 92
Fuller also observes that another title associated simultaneously with the Davidic Messiah, the eschatological prophet and the Servant was that of ‘o dikaiov ho dikaios ‘the Righteous One’. 93 This was a title of the Messiah, Zechariah 9:9 – ‘…your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation’; Jeremiah 23:5 (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:35). It was also employed of the Servant, Isaiah 53:11 – ‘my righteous servant’. Barclay observes that the existence of the righteous averts the vengeance of God – Genesis 18:23-33. 94 Jesus is the Righteous One – Matthew 27:19; Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Peter 3:18 – ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God’; 1 John 2:1 – ‘if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’.
(d) The prophetic silence and the bat-qol
One of the indications that Jesus was the ultimate prophet was the prophetic silence that had existed for four centuries. Dunn observes ‘The gift of prophecy was commonly thought to have ceased after the post-exilic period…’ 95 Especially significant in terms of Jesus’ experience of the bat-qol at both the Baptism and Transfiguration is the observation by Vermes that the bat-qol had been the only instrument of divine revelation during this prophetic silence. 96 He notes on the same page the famous decision by Judas Maccabaeus to remove the defiled Temple altar stones ‘until a prophet should arise who could be consulted about them’, 1 Maccabees 4:46. By contrast, the claimed prophetic ministry of Muhammad began totally in private – no public ‘heavenly voice’ confirmed his calling. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus meant ‘that Jesus was both called and charismatically endowed to be God’s messenger…’ 97
The theological import of this is the context in which the heavenly voice speaks – eschatological fulfilment, the public announcement of Jesus’ ministry as divine Son, Messiah and Suffering Servant. The prophetic clock was now ticking again. The only prophet to immediately precede Jesus was John the Baptist, who proclaimed that he was only preparing the way for the one following him. Jesus claimed to be a prophet, Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33. He was also recognised as ‘that prophet’ – the eschatological prophet. John the Baptist declined that designation, John 1:21, but Jesus was seen as fulfilling that role – 6:14 ‘This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world.’ Likewise the multitude in 7:40 exclaim ‘This is truly the prophet.’ The essence of a prophet was of a Man anointed with the Spirit, Hosea 9:7, commissioned by God to bring a message either condemning or encouraging, but always aimed at producing faith – cf. John 8:26-30. David saw his prophetic words as the work of the Spirit, 2 Samuel 23:2. Micah ascribes his prophecies to the Spirit, 3:8. Zechariah says that the ‘law’ (torah) and ‘words’ (dabarim) which the Lord spoke through the former prophets were ‘sent by His Spirit’.
Thus we see that the Spirit inspires the revelation of God; He is the author of prophecy. The Servant, the Superlative Prophet, who brings with His message social liberation and righteousness, Isaiah 61:1ff, does so because He is anointed with the Spirit, v1 (Isaiah 42 tells of how, because He is anointed with the Spirit, He brings Justice to the Gentiles, i.e. makes them worshippers of YHWH). We have already seen that in Luke 4:18f, Jesus declares Himself to be the fulfilment of Isaiah 61:1f. Significantly, Dunn observes that in the Qumran scroll 11QMelch, ‘the figure of Isa. 61:1 had been identified with the eschatological Prophet.’ 98 Dunn further notes that within Judaism, ‘to possess the Spirit of God was to be a prophet’. 99David Hill, Reader in Biblical Studies at Sheffield University, echoes this – ‘Within the Judaism of the time, the possession of the holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, was regarded as the mark of prophecy…’ 100 It is thus significant that John 3:34 records of Jesus ‘For He whom God sent speaks the words of God: for He does not give the Spirit by measure.’ In addition to Jesus’ possession of the Spirit, Dunn makes the important observation that Jesus’ actions were in themselves prophetic:
Jesus may have consciously set himself within the prophetic tradition by performing symbolic actions: the entry into Jerusalem, the purge of the temple, and above all the last supper (perhaps also the more obscure meal in the desert – ‘feeding the five thousand’ and the puzzling ‘cursing of the fig tree’) come to mind here. It is possible that Jesus thought of himself as the eschatological prophet, view of his application of Isa.61.1 to himself, but it would be more accurate to say that he saw his ministry as the fulfilment of several eschatological prophecies. 101
Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman demonstrated His possession of the gift of prophetic insight. Dunn comments: ‘This “ability” to lay bare “the thoughts of the heart” was regarded by Paul as the distinctive charisma which marked out the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14.24f…), and it appears to have been regarded as the mark of the prophet by Jesus’ contemporaries in the same way, if Luke 7.39 is any guide.’ 102 Jesus also predicted the future – e.g. Matthew 24:3-35. Of particular interest is that He predicted His own death and resurrection – Luke 9:22 presents Jesus as saying ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.’ In a sense, the Last Supper was a prophetic enactment of His death on behalf of sinners. Barclay makes the important observation that ‘the prophets were characteristically martyrs’, noting how Jezebel slew the prophets, 1 Kings 18:13; 2 Kings 9:7, cf. Jeremiah 2:30. 103 Jesus noted how the paradoxical characteristic of Jerusalem, the supposed holy city, was that it slew the prophets and messengers of God – Matthew 23:37. Jesus knew that Jerusalem would treat Him, as the ultimate prophet, in the same way – Luke 13:33.
(e) The Prophetic message of Jesus
The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God, i.e. the sovereign reign of God. He was the proclaimer of its restoration – Mark 1:15. This verse reflects Isaiah 52:7ff, which immediately precedes the Servant Song at v13. Ladd notes that ‘The prophets had promised a time when the good news would be proclaimed that God was visiting his people… A herald would appear publishing peace, announcing good tidings of salvation, saying to Zion, “Your God reigns…” In the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus claimed that this gospel was no longer hope but event (Luke 4:18).’ 104 Jesus was both prophet and prophetic fulfilment. Moreover, the message of the kingdom was intrinsically a case of realised eschatology – ‘The gospel is itself the greatest of the messianic signs. The gospel was not a new teaching; it was itself event. Preaching and healing: these were the signs of the presence of the kingdom.’ 105 We have already noted the connection of these factors with the ministry of the Son of David and the Servant., and the ‘deeds of the Messiah’ in Matthew 11:4-5.
The Kingdom of God was characterised by the intervention of the Spirit against demonic power, and thus by the miraculous – Matthew 12:28. Ladd comments ‘The meaning of Jesus’ exorcism of demons in its relationship to the Kingdom of God is precisely this: that before the eschatological conquest of God’s Kingdom over evil and the destruction of Satan, the Kingdom of God has invaded the realm of Satan to deal him a preliminary but decisive defeat.’ 106
Jesus was the embodiment of this doctrine – Luke 17:21 – ‘the kingdom of God is in your midst’. Its dynamic expression culminated in the death of Jesus as King on the cross. We have already seen how the Cross exorcises Satan, demonstrating the dynamic, sovereign nature of the crucifixion, and the salvation its effects. Hence, Jesus as the ultimate prophet is a charismatic warrior against sin, Satan and sickness, bringing us back to the Servant and Anointed One figures of Isaiah. In this regard, His prophetic enactment of His death at the Last Supper was entirely in keeping with His being the Ultimate Prophet.
(f) Jesus as Apostle
Only once in the New Testament is Jesus explicitly termed an Apostle, in Hebrews 3:1 ‘Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.’ It is significant that the term is parallel with ‘High Priest’. Barclay explains ‘The Greek word apostolos is really an adjective. It comes from the verb apostellein, which means “to send forth”…’ The nuance is similar, though not totally equivalent to the Muslim concept of rasul. Of course, even if the exact term is not employed, the concept is certainly present elsewhere in the New Testament, especially where apostellein is used. Jesus declared that He had been ‘sent’ – Matthew 10:40 ‘He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him that sent me.’
What is particularly striking, and an example of how Jesus united all these distinct but frequently related titles in Himself is how He could say that He was sent as the Son. The parable of the wicked tenants is especially helpful in this context. There, after the sending of several messengers, clearly the prophets, the prophetic climax is reached when the Son is sent. Moreover, this ultimate prophet, who is the Son, is killed. Jesus was clearly predicting His death as the ultimate prophet and divine Son. Again, we encounter this concept of the commission of the Son in the Gospel of John, e.g. 3.17, 28; 5.36; 6.29, 57; 8.42; 10.36; 12:49; 13:20; 14:24; 17.3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25. We have previously noted the emphasis on revelation in the Fourth Gospel. On the one hand, this can be associated with the message Jesus brought – John 7:16 ‘Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me’, cf. 3:34. The miracles attested His commission by the Father – 5:36. On the other, His ministry needs to be considered – as emphasised earlier, what is of special import is that Jesus was commissioned as the Son, who could be co-honoured with the Father, 5:23, and that the Son was sent to die – 3:16-17, so that those for whom He died could be saved. Jesus was sent to die.
Barclay observes an important aspect of the background to the term ‘apostle’ in Jewish usage:
Amongst the later Jews the word was in common use in its Hebrew form shaliach, which also means one ‘who is sent’. In all religious matters the Sanhedrin was the supreme governing body of all Jews not only in Palestine but also all over the world. When the Sanhedrin wished to despatch an instruction, a command, a warning to Jews in any part of the world, the bearer of it was known as a shaliach or apostolos… Saul, for instance, was the shaliach or apostolos of the Sanhedrin when he went to Damascus to organise a campaign of persecution against the Christians (Acts 9.1, 2). In Acts 28.21 the Jews of Rome say that they have received no letters from Judaea concerning Paul. That is to say, no shaliach or apostolos had come from the Sanhedrin with instructions as to how Paul was to be treated. 107
This understanding of apostolicity in Jewish usage aids our understanding of the revelatory ministry of Jesus. Jesus came as the representative of the Father to convey His will, John 4:34 ‘Jesus said to them, My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.’ However, there is an even more pertinent nuance to the phrase that Barclay demonstrates:
It is here that a new and very important element enters the meaning of the word. To the Jew the apostolos or shaliach was not only a messenger; he was a delegate who for the time being and for the particular duty assigned to him exercised all the power and the authority of the Sanhedrin. Hence the rabbis said: ‘The one who sends (that is, his apostolos or shaliach) is the equivalent of the man himself.’ ‘A king’s ambassador is as the king himself.’ An apostolos is more than a messenger; on him power and the authority of the one who sent him. 108
This helps us understand the import of Matthew 9:6 ‘But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he said to the paralytic), get up, and take up your bed, and go home.’ The One sent acted on the authority of the One who sent Him. The evidence was that the man was healed. To come back to the ‘prophet like Moses’, Barclay’s comments on the shaliach at this point are most illuminating:
To four great prophets the name of Shaliach was given, to Moses, to Elijah, to Elisha and to Ezekiel. It was given to them because God had in a very special way delegated his power to them so that they were able to perform miracles and to do the things which only the power of God could do. Moses brought water out of the rock; Elijah brought the rain, and restored to life one who had died; Elisha also restored one to life, and also opened a mother’s womb; and, based on Ezekiel 37, the rabbis said that Ezekiel would receive the key to the graves at the resurrection of the dead. The apostolos was not only the messenger of God; he exercised the power of God which had been delegated to him. It is in fact significant that in the passage of Hebrews in which Jesus is called apostolos the very next verse begins with a reference to Moses. By the power of God Moses delivered the people from Egypt; by the power of God Jesus delivered men from sin.
It is also to be noted that the writer to the Hebrews join in this same verse the two titles Apostle and High Priest. And one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ And so the apostolos brings to men not only the power but also the mercy of God.
So, then, the word apostolos as applied to Jesus means that Jesus was uniquely sent by God, and that Jesus is delegated by God to bring to men both the power and the mercy of God. 109
It can be seen here that when Jesus indicated that the Father had sent Him to die, the priestly aspect of His ministry was inter-connected with that of His prophetic commission. To ensure that no one misconstrued that it was purely this commission which made Him equal to the Father, Jesus in his prayer in John 17:5 could speak of His pre-existent glory that He enjoyed with the Father. Finally, the concept of the shaliach helps us with an issue often problematic for Muslims – the fact that the gospels and epistles were not directly written by Jesus Himself, but by His apostles/disciples. In John 20:21, Jesus says ‘…as the Father sent Me, so I send you.’ Each Evangelist was the shaliach of Jesus, and so could speak (and write) on His authority. He commissioned them with His Spirit for this purpose. Thus, the New Testament most definitely is the revelation of Christ.
(g) Final thoughts on Deuteronomy 18
Hill comments on the employment of Deuteronomy 18 in the life of Jesus as follows, showing how the ministry of Jesus was seen as fulfilling this prophecy:
It is probable that we should understand the words ‘listen to him’ (Mark 9.7 and par.) as an intended allusion to the ‘him shall you heed’ of Deut. 18.15, and it is in the Transfiguration narrative of Matthew (17. 1-9), together with the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7) that the Mosaic-prophet theme comes to the fore with clarity, though not to the exclusion of other imagery and not just as ‘a second edition of Moses, as it were, on a grand scale, but one who supersedes him’. In John’s Gospel we find, as one aspect of the portrayal of Jesus, clear indications that he is the fulfilment of the Deuteronomic passage. The sayings in 7.40 and 6.14 are based on the expectation of the prophet like Moses. In the former verse the people affirm ‘This is really the prophet’, because it was expected that the prophet like Moses would repeat the miracle of the dispensing of water at Horeb: and if we adopt the reading of P66 in John 7.52 (as. in our view, we should) then what is contested is that the eschatological prophet (like Moses) will come from Galilee. After the miracle of the loaves it is said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’ (6.14), for what has been experienced is reminiscent of the miracle of the manna. In connection with this verse it should be noted that ho erchomenos is exactly the same expression as used in the Baptist’s question to Jesus: ‘Are voui he who is to come (ho erchomenos)?’ (Matt. 11.3, Luke 7.19) …this suggests that ho erchomenos had titular significance, possibly designation Messiah (cf. the LXX and Targumic interpretations of Gen. 49.10, and the Jewish interpretation of Hab. 2.3), but more probably a designation of the expected eschatological prophet. 110
7. The Word of God
John 1:1 presents Jesus as the ‘Word’. The context makes it clear that this means the divine Word, to the point that the Word is said to be God – ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ This is not a self-designation of Jesus, but rather a description employed by John of Jesus, though such depiction entirely agrees with Jesus’ own presentation of Himself as the ultimate revelation of God. Ladd states that John used it because it was ‘a term widely known in both the Hellenistic and the Jewish worlds in the interests of setting forth the significance of Christ.’ 111Ladd notes that Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus (6th century BC) and the Stoics employed the concept of the Logos. The Alexandrian Jew Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 42) used the concept as a bridge between the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds. 112
For Philo, the Logos is the first-born son of God – protogonov ‘uiovprotogonos huios – to the extent that he even calls the Logos a ‘second god’ – deuterovyeovdeuteros theos. Guthrie observes other interesting aspects of Philo’s concept:
The logos has no distinct personality. It is described as ‘the image of God… through whom the whole universe was framed’. But since it is also described in terms of a rudder to guide all things in their course, or as God’s instrument (organon) for fashioning the world, it seems clear that Philo did not think of logos in personal terms.
Philo speaks of the logos as God’s first-born son protogonos which implies pre-existence. The logos is certainly regarded as eternal. Other descriptions of the logos as God’s ambassador (presbeutēs), as man’s advocate paraklētos) and as high priest (archiereus), although offering interesting parallels with Jesus Christ, do not, however, require pre-existence.
The logos idea is not linked with light and life in Philo’s doctrine as it is in John’s…
There is no suggestion that the logos could become incarnate. This would have been alien to Greek thought, because of the belief in the evil of matter.
The logos definitely had a mediatorial function to bridge the gap between the transcendent God and the world. It can be regarded as a personification of an effective intermediary, although it was never personalized. Philo’s logos has, therefore, both parallels and differences from John’s logos… 113
However, Ladd observes that ‘Philo’s Logos concept is employed in the interests of a dualistic cosmology that removes God from immediate contact with creation, whereas John uses the Logos concept to bring God in Christ directly into his creation.’ 114 Neither is the Logos personally distinct in this conception, and it should be remembered that Hellenistic thought regarded matter as evil, so the Johannine concept of incarnation would be foreign to Philo, as well as to Greek philosophy in general. Fuller observes that the Gospel Logos doctrine ‘is not derived from the Greek philosophical tradition. The Logos of Heraclitus and the Stoics was the immanent principle of law and order in the universe, whereas the Logos of the prologue [of John] is a transcendent being who comes into this world from outside.’ 115 Nonetheless, the existence of the Philonic Logos shows that there was a tradition of the personified (though not personalised) Logos in Judaism. The Christian concept was neither arbitrary nor contrived.
This becomes more explicit when we consider the Old Testament background to the Logos. The Hebrew term for ‘word’ is rb1d1 dabar. The great Old Testament scholar, Professor Edmond Jacob of Strasbourg University, observed ‘That God reveals himself by his word is a truth confirmed by every one of the Old Testament books. It is by his word that he reveals himself as the living God…’ 116 He notes that the term has a ‘dynamic’ quality:
This dynamic quality of the word already appears in the names by which it is denoted. The most usual term and the one which has become classical for the word is dabar, which must probably be associated with a root which in Hebrew has the meaning of: to be behind and to push; dabar could then be defined as the projection forward of what lies behind, that is to say, the transition into the act of what is at first in the heart. The realistic character of dabar is always strongly stressed, so that the term will denote thing as well as word (Gen. 20.10; 22.1, 20; 40.1; 48.1 etc.) and no term throws into clearer relief the fact that the Hebrew mind did not distinguish between thought and action. Realism and dynamism are features equally characteristic of the root ‘amar; derived from a root having the sense to be raised up or to be clear, the word would be the visible manifestation of the thought and of the will. In distinction from dabar, the stress with ‘amar is chiefly upon the spoken word; the expression lemor which introduces speeches is generally preceded by dabar (wayedabber lemor) which alone possesses creative dynamism. 117
This dynamism is realised in the creative power of the divine word. The obvious texts that relate to this are Genesis 1:3ff, Psalms 33:6, 9 and 47:15ff. It was by His word that God created the universe. Guthrie observes that there is a corollary to this creative aspect of the divine word:
But not only is the Word creative: it is also sustaining. Such passages as Psalm 147:15-18; 148:8 show God’s providential care for his creation through his powerful Word. Indeed that Word is so powerful that it cannot fail to accomplish its purpose in the world (Is. 55:11; Ps. 147:15). Moreover, judgment is executed by the Word of God (Ho. 6:5). In these senses the Word of God is seen as the powerful agency of God. 118
Immediately, we can see parallels with the Logos concept in the Gospel of John. Jesus was the Word that created the cosmos – John 1:3 – ‘All things were made through him; and without him nothing was made that has been made.’ Jesus definitely accomplished the divine commission – 17:4 ‘I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do’; in 19:30 He exclaims from the cross tetelestai ‘It is finished’. It is worth noting that what Isaiah 55:11 asserts about the word of God (‘So shall my word be that goes forth from My mouth: it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish what I desire, and it shall succeed in the matter for which I sent it’) may provide the background to the Johannine motif of Jesus coming from, and going to God. 119 Jesus is also the Agent of divine judgment – 5:22. We also encounter Jesus as the Judge in the Synoptic gospels, e.g. Matthew 25:31ff.
We earlier noted the emphasis in the Gospel of John upon the revelatory nature of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus reveals the Father, 1:18; 17:26. His miracles are called ‘signs’; even His death is revelatory. In this respect, the concept of the Logosideally fits the nature and ministry of Jesus. Both Islam and the Bible hold that God is incomprehensible apart from His self-revelation. The only totally adequate revealer of God is God Himself, who can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite – John 1:14 – ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us’.
In this respect Jesus reveals the nature of God in terms of His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2 – ‘God has in these last days spoken by His Son’. To encounter Jesus is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation – ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’, John 14:9. However, the bodily revelation of Jesus is itself not the completion of the divine revelation, because He is not eternally bodily present on the earth, and because the transformation He works is not complete apart from the divine indwelling, which is effected by the Holy Spirit. Since all three persons share the same essence of deity, whenever the Spirit indwells a person, the latter has experienced the inward revelation of the Triune God. The revelation of God was effected by the Word entering the human scene by dwelling among us; ultimately, this is secured by His dwelling within us – John 14:16-20 – the triune God, through the Holy Spirit, dwells within everyone born of the Spirit.
The Father reveals the Son by sending Him, the Son reveals the Father by His presence and work, (Matthew 11:27), the Spirit reveals the Son and thus the Father by applying this work with His presence. Revelation points to the Triune nature of God. We know what God is like when we experience the Father, by the Holy Spirit, revealing the Son in our lives. This revelation is in conformity to the way God made men – as beings capable of intelligent relationship, especially love. Man is made in God’s image, and is social – made for relationship and fellowship. The expression of divine love and desire for fellowship is effected through divine revelation. The theanthropic Person of Jesus is the climactic expression of revelation in that in a unique way, God comes to Man. The perfect Man who is also God can express in human terms the mind of the Creator.
We have noted earlier that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Law – the Torah. Indeed, he specifically fulfils the Davidic covenant of the Torah for Humanity. It is noteworthy that the Ten Commandments are actually entitled the dabarim of the LORD.Jacob notes that in Judaism, the authority of the dabarim ‘became merged with that of God himself.’ 120 Indeed, Morris observes that in some Targums, ‘the Word’ (represented in the Targums by the technical phrase Memra’, equivalent to Biblical Hebrew ‘amar, a synonym for dabar) is employed as a periphrasis for God, and that in a Genesis Targum, the First Couple heard ‘the voice of the Word of God’ walking in the Garden, Genesis 3:8. 121 The structure and wording of John 1:1 very obviously reflects Genesis 1:1, so, in the light of Targumic usage, when we read in v14 that the Word became flesh, we can understand that the Gospel is not being arbitrary or contrived in presenting the Word as God; the distinctive element is that the divine Word was incarnated.
This is strengthened by links between the divine Name YHWH and Memra’. C. T. R. Hayward, suggests that Memra’ directly represented the name which God Himself revealed to Moses from the burning bush, YHWH (or ‘HYH, vocalised as ‘ehyeh), translated as I AM/WILL BE THERE (cf. Exodus 3:14b, ‘Say to the people of Israel: I AM THERE: (‘ehyeh) has sent me unto you.’). He notes that Codex Neofiti I in the Palestinian Targum renders Exodus 3:12 (‘And He said For I will be there (‘ehyeh) with you, rm( hyh) yk…’) as ‘And he said: For I will be there, My Memra’ with you, rm( yrmm ywwh) swr)…’ Other Targums read, ‘And He said: For My Memra’ will be for your support…’ 122 Hayward suggests that this employment of Memra’ as representing the Name ‘HYH was the original usage of the term, and only when this original meaning had been lost, did it come to be used as a replacement of YHWH. The expression ‘Name of the Memra’ of YYY‘ (‘YYY’ being a Targumic representation of the ‘Tetragrammaton‘ – YHWH), frequent in Codex Neofiti, ‘reveals that the spheres of meaning and content’ of Memra’ and YHWH ‘are not coterminous. Memra is not a replacement for YHWH.’ He infers from this that Memra’ is ‘God’s Name’ ‘HYH which by midrashic exposition refers to His presence in past and future creation, history and redemption. Memra’ is God’s mercy, by which the world is created and sustained.’ Hayward applies this perception to John’s use of logov and concludes:
St, John may have presented Jesus as the Memra’, the revealer of God’s merciful, active presence in creation, redemption, and covenant, as having come in flesh to tabernacle among men. Jesus personifies God’s ‘HYH, the living proof that the God revealed to Moses at the bush is with His people … As Memra’, Jesus would represent God’s ‘HYH the self-naming of God, one with God kai Yeov ‘hn ‘ologov …Jesus has manifested God’s Name to men, according to John 17:6. St. John, then, if our hypothesis be correct, depicts Jesus as the Memra’, who is God’s Name, manifesting God’s glory, full of the grace and truth of the covenant, dwelling with us in the flesh, which Jesus himself describes as a Temple (2.19), the very dwelling place of the Memra’ … if the Memra’s effect on the prologue is left out of account, an essential element of the Logos-doctrine will have been passed over in silence.’ 123
It should be noted that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan II on Exodus 3:14 reads ‘And the Memra’ of the LORD said to Moses…’ Where this becomes particularly relevant for the debate with Islam is the relationship between Logos and the ‘I AM’ sayings of Jesus. John 8:58, of course, clearly affirms the pre-existence of Jesus, and given the crowd’s reaction of attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy, it is clear that they understood Him as claiming deity. Granted that Jesus does not explicitly proclaim Himself as Logos, the fact is that He does employ egw eimi ego eimi of Himself, as in 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 58; 13:19; 18:5. Given that ‘the Word’ had become a representation of the divine Name YHWH, it can be observed that John’s usage was effectively reflecting Jesus’ own assertion of His identity as YHWH.
Similarly, H. Mowvley has suggested Exodus 33:7ff as a background to John’s use of Logos. The Tent of Meeting was where God used to speak to Moses, and ‘… just as Moses met God and heard his word in the Tent of Meeting, so men may now meet him and hear him in the flesh of Jesus.’ Behind John’s use of ‘eskhnwsen in 1:14, Mowvley sees reference to the Tent of Meeting in Exodus 33. Similarly the reference to his glory recalls the reference to the shining of Moses face (LXX dedoxastai‘h ‘oqiv tou crwmatov tou proswpou ‘autou) when he went in before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. 124 The Biblical scholar M. D. Hooker sees the Prologue as concerned with the exegesis of the Divine Name and having a background in Exodus 33-34. 125 Ladd observes that ‘eskhnwsen ‘is a biblical metaphor for God’s presence.’ 126
With regard to the Palestinian Targum, represented by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Codex Neofiti I, Martin McNamara has noted the Palestinian Targum’s treatment of Numbers 7:89, a passage relating to the same matter as Exodus 33:7ff. The Hebrew Text of Numbers 7:89 reads, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the Voice speaking with him from above the mercy-seat that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and he spoke with him.’ Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan reads thus, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he heard the Voice of the Spirit that conversed with when it descended from the highest heavens above the mercy-seat above the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and from there the Word (Aramaic dibbēra’) conversed with him.’
Codex Neofiti I uses dibbēra’ twice in its paraphrase, ‘And when Moses used to go in to the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he used to hear the Voice of the Word speaking with him … from there the Word used to speak with him.’ In similar fashion, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrases Exodus 33:11, ‘Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend’, as follows ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses, speech to speech. He used to hear the Voice of the Word (dibbēra’) but the Glory of the countenance he used not to see, as a man speaks with his friend. And after the Voice of the Word had ascended, he returned to the camp and related the words to the congregation of Israel.’ 127 Again, we can see how the term ‘the Word of God’ was a synonym for YHWH Himself.
John’s employment of the term Logos also adequately conveyed a major emphasis of the Gospel we have already considered – the emphasis on Jesus’ ministry, including His death, as revelatory. In Exodus 3:14 God revealed Himself to Moses, specifically with a redemptive aim – to liberate the people of God from their demonic oppressors. We must remember that the conflict between YHWH (through Moses) and Pharaoh is presented as a cosmological conflict between YHWH and the false gods of Egypt – the demonic powers of darkness – Exodus 12:12. When YHWH brought the plagues upon the Egyptians, He demonstrated His superiority over the nature-gods of Egypt. When the Angel of death takes the life of every Egyptian first-born son not covered by the blood of the lamb, YHWH demonstrates His power over the living god of Egypt, Pharaoh. The deliverance from Egypt is presented as ‘redemption’ – Exodus 6:6, one that involves judgment. Equally, the redemption the Logos effects is a judgment against the demonic forces, John 12:31, whereby Jesus delivers people from the grasp of Satan. Just as the Exodus event was a revelation to Israel and the Egyptians, Exodus 6:7; 7:5, the death of Christ is both revelatory and redemptive, as well as being a judgment – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’.
Guthrie comments on the relationship between the revelatory and legal characteristics of the dabarim:
Yet the more frequent idea of the Word in the OT is as the means of revelation. In the work and writings of the prophets, the expression ‘Thus says the Lord’ or similar words abound. Each prophet was conscious of being the mouthpiece of God… A development from this prophetical idea is when the ‘Word’ came to sum up the whole message of God to man as in Psalm 119:9, 105. It is virtually identified with the law, but the important feature is the emphasis on the divine revelation in its application to the psalmist’s way of life. 128
This becomes very pertinent to the Gospel of John when we consider tendencies within Judaism to regard the Torah as the pre-existent ‘first-born of God’, as God’s intermediary, Agent of creation, and means of spiritual life – the latter especially pertinent, since the Gospel asserts of Jesus in 1:4 that ‘In him was life; and the life was the light of men.’ We can see how this personification prepared the way for the incarnation, and how this explains the background of the Johannine concept, proving that it was not a contrived innovation:
The third Jewish source which has sometimes been appealed to is the rabbinic idea of the Torah,which was regarded as an intermediary between God and the world. There are several parallels between this and the Logos of John’s prologue.
First, the Torah was believed to have been created before the foundation of the world; in other words, its pre-existence is asserted. Secondly, the Torah lay on God’s bosom. Thirdly, ‘my daughter, she is the Torah.’ Fourthly, through the first-born, God created the heaven and the earth, and the first-born is no other than the Torah. Fifthly, the words of the Torah are life for the world.
In John’s prologue, however, the superiority of Jesus Christ, as the divine Logos, to Moses the law-giver is expressly brought out (Jn. 1:17). Moreover, whereas the law was ‘given’ through Moses, ‘grace and truth’ the distinguishing marks of the new law, ‘came through Jesus Christ’. In other words John’s assertions go beyond the assertions of the rabbis. Jesus more than fulfilled the function of the pre-existent Torah. 129
Indeed, the concept of the dabar in general was, in the progressive revelation of God, undergoing a personification that approached personalisation. Jacob observes this tendency:
The other attempt at crystallization appears in the tendencies towards making an hypostasis of the word. Although it is impossible to speak of an hypostasis of the word in the canonical hooks of the Old Testament, it must he recognized that many of the affirmations point in that direction. To speak of the word as a reality which. falls and which unlooses catastrophe (Is. 9.7), or as a devouring fire (Jer. 5.14; 20.8; 23.29), or as a reality which is present with someone like one person with another (2 Kings 3.12), is to look upon it less as an effect than as an active subject akin to the angel or the face of Yahweh. The same hypostatic function of the word, which receives its full development in the pseudepigrapha, has its roots in the Old Testament without any need to admit foreign influences. The tendency to hypostatize was more obvious in the case of wisdom than of the word, but it is the latter which provided a foundation for the theology of wisdom. 130
From all of this, we can understand what was involved in the Logos concept. Essentially, YHWH – the Word – became incarnate, John 1:14, to reveal Himself and redeem sinners. Moreover, the aim of the incarnation, revelation and redemption was similar to that of the Exodus – to bring Man into a spiritual relationship with God, one by which Man would enjoy personal knowledge of God through Jesus, John 10:14ff. 38. Because of the Incarnation, and through the reception of the Holy Spirit, human beings can know God, because in the person of Christ God has revealed Himself – His person, John 1:18, not just His will. Islam, by contrast, cannot wholly address this issue. Sunni Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which is almost a part of God – His Speech in fact. The purported revelation of Qur’an, according to Sunnis, is virtually equivalent to the Incarnation in Christianity, only that in the case of Islam, the Word became a Book, rather than flesh. In Islam, God reveals His will, not His person. Thus a Muslim, even if he memorises the Qur’an, never enters into an intimate, supernatural relationship with the person of God. Rather, he merely attempts to obey the divine precepts.
Moreover, as any Muslim will affirm, the Qur’an only truly exists when untranslated; that is, it is only really the Qur’an when it is in Arabic. The language of the Qur’an is an essential part of the revelation – S. 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:44; 42:7; 43:30. Thus, despite its claim to be ‘mercy for mankind’, the Qur’an is contextually limited by time and space, especially in terms of accessibility. There is not the same revelatory action of interaction between God and Man, especially since the Qur’an is effectively limited to those who know Arabic. Jesus, however, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is universally accessible, whatever the language or ethnic group, and this is demonstrated by His easy movement from Aramaic to Greek when He deals with Gentiles like the Centurion, and through the Spirit He still speaks to people of any language. The Word became Man, not specifically Meccan/Quraish (or any other language).
8. Priest
In the Old Testament the functions of Priest and King were rigidly separated, the former being reserved to the tribe of Levi, the latter to Judah, cf. 1 Samuel 13; 2 Chronicles 26:16ff. Clearly, Jesus, in order to be the Davidic King, had to spring from Judah, yet in order to offer sacrifice, He had to be a priest. Moreover, He had to be an eternal priest – Zechariah 6:12-13 states that the Messiah, who will build the Temple, will be a priest on his throne, uniting the two offices – ’12 …Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD; 13 Indeed, He will build the temple of the LORD; and He will bear the glory, and will sit and rule upon His throne; and He will be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”‘
We can see from this that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as simultaneously a priest and king was not arbitrary or innovative, but rather a question of fulfilled prophecy. Before going further, we should note the following:
In contrast to the Prophet, the Priest is Man’s representative to God.
He has to be appointed by God – Hebrews 5:4, cf. 7:28.
He offers sacrifice – 7:27.
He blesses the people – Leviticus 9:22; cf. Luke 24:50-51.
He makes intercession for them – Hebrews 7:25.
The priestly ministry of Jesus does not depend upon ancestry, but life – v16.
Unlike the Aaronic, His is an eternal ministry – vs. 3, 8, 17, 21, 24-25, 28.
His ministry – i.e. the once-for-all sacrifice, v27, effects ‘perfection’ i.e. what Paul terms justification, which contrasts with the imperfect Levitical order – v11.
Based on Psalm 110:4, Jesus’ ministry is a royal priesthood – Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17.
The last-mentioned is crucial: Psalm 110 is the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. 131 We have seen its usage at the trial of Jesus before the High Priest, where in answer to whether Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, He responds ‘I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’, Mark 14:61-62. This conflates Daniel 7:13ff with Psalm 110:1 – Jesus will sit at the right hand of God, i.e. enjoy the place of authority. We encounter the idea of the glorified Son of Man in Mark 13:26, in the Eschatological Discourse foretelling the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Hence, the sign of the heavenly Son of Man is in juxtaposition to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and thus to the end of the sacrificial system of Judaism. This conclusion of the Jewish sacrificial cultus is also a theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8:13.
The important point is that the ministry of the priestly order of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. Hebrews 7:6-8 points to Melchizedek, the Jebusite Priest-King of Salem, who received tithes from Abraham and blessed him, Genesis 14:18ff. The argument of the epistle is that Jesus derives His office from this priesthood – 7:17. Because Levi, in the loins of his ancestor, was blessed by Melchizedek, the latter priesthood is superior to the former, v9. Centuries after the incident with Abraham, Jerusalem, the city of Melchizedek, was conquered by David. As Bruce writes,
David thus became successor to the dynasty of which Melchizedek was the most illustrious representative. David belonged to the tribe of Judah, and so, therefore, did his descendant the Messiah, ‘great David’s greater Son’. There was therefore complete appropriateness in identifying Christ, of the tribe of Judah, with the one acclaimed by the divine oath as ‘a priest for ever after the order of Meichizedek’. And part of the argument of the letter to the Hebrews is designed to show that the priest of Melchizedek’s order is greater in every way than a priest of Aaron’s line. 132
Hence, the claim that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek is sound. Muslims might object that Jesus Himself does not use the self-designation of ‘priest’, but the fact is that He does employ the motif of Psalm 110 and apply it to Himself, indicating that He did see Himself as the Messianic priest-king after the order of Melchizedek. Moreover, inasmuch as He conflated the ministry of Isaianic Servant with that of the Son of Man and Messiah, He claimed a priestly ministry, the most obvious example being Mark 10:45. He had come to make a sacrificial offering to God on behalf of the people. Furthermore, He had been sent to do so by God the Father – John 3:16-17. We noted earlier the concept of shaliach/apostolos, and that, as we observed previously, one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ The idea that Jesus was sent to perform a priestly ministry entirely agrees with this concept.
What is especially distinctive about the sacrifice Jesus offers is that unlike the Aaronic High Priest, He does not offer an animal, nor have to do this annually, and neither need He offer a sacrifice for Himself. Rather, He is Himself the sinless offering for the sins of the people. We have previously noted the connotations of the ‘Shepherd’ concept, but for our purpose here, we need only consider John 10:11 – ‘I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’ The Messianic priest-king had come to sacrifice Himself for the sake of His sheep. We should also remember Mark 12:36-37, which quotes Psalm 110:1, and points to the deity of Jesus. The ‘Shepherd’ title was used of both God and the King. This points to a difference between the God of Islam and the God of the Bible. The former is depicted as demanding that His worshippers be ready to sacrifice their lives for Him; the latter is revealed as the God who takes human nature to die for human beings, specifically for sinners.
When Abraham was to sacrifice his son, he said ‘God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering’. God indeed does precisely that, substituting a ram for Isaac – v13. The Binding of Isaac became known as the ‘Akedah. The daily sacrifice of a lamb in the Jerusalem temple was termed the Tamîd.The Midrash Leviticus Rabbah connects the Passover with the ‘Akedah– ‘When I see the blood of the Paschal Lamb… I will remember the blood of the ‘Akedah.‘ The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 22, states ‘And now I pray for mercies before Thee, O Lord God that when the children of Israel offer in the hour of their need the Binding of Isaac, their father, Thou mayest remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all their need.’ Of course, the Passover lamb recalled the deliverance from Egypt, whereby the wrath of God did not fall upon those protected by the blood of the lamb. Guthrie asserts that the paschal lamb was intended as a sin-atonement, and draws attention to Pesahim 10:6 in this regard. 133
When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming to be baptised, He exclaimed ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’, John 1:29, cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19. Although the Baptist’s designation would draw on the cultic sacrifices we have examined, and thereby present Jesus as the priestly offering, it should also be noted that ‘the Lamb of God’ is also an allusion to the Servant in Isaiah 53:7 – ‘as a lamb that is led to the slaughter…’ Philip the deacon explains this passage as referring to Jesus in his encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:32ff. Guthrie observes that Isaiah 53:12 refers to the Servant bearing ‘the sins of many’ i.e. ‘all’ – which is the same as saying He bore the sins of the world. 134 Ladd observes that the Aramaic word talya may be translated as either ‘lamb’ or ‘boy, servant’. 135 There would appear to be a conflation of these closely-related concepts to underline that Jesus is the High priest who offers Himself for the life of the world. This is demonstrated by another passage in which Jesus stresses His heavenly origins, and that He came to die so that others might have eternal life – John 6:51 ‘I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ That this was a priestly action is confirmed by John 10:15-18 – Jesus freely lay down His life for His sheep.
9. Saviour
This term in many ways sums up what has gone before. It has already been noted that Jesus means ‘YHWH saves’. Luke 2:11 presents Jesus as ‘Saviour’. The term is richer in meaning than is often appreciated. The Gospel of Luke has a strong emphasis on the restoration of the Kingdom, and of its liberating nature – 21:28, 31. In the Old Testament, the Judges have the title yasha – ‘saviours’, Judges 3:9, 15. The Septuagint terms Othniel and Ehud as soter – Greek for ‘saviour’, a title also given them by Nehemiah 9:27 – ‘en oiktirmoiv sou toiv megaloiv ‘edwkav ‘autoiv swthrav kai ‘eswsav ‘autouv ‘ek ceirov ylibontwn‘autouv. The context makes it clear that the deliverance involved is political/military liberation from alien oppression.
The same thought is apparent in Luke – note the liberation motif in 1:68-71, 2:30, and 3:6 – the idea of being rescued from ones enemies. Cf. 1 Samuel 11:13; 14:45; 19:4.
‘Saviours’ are characterised by charismatic endowment by the Spirit – ‘The typical charismatic figures …are all heroes, most of them military leaders, who deliver Israel from its foes.’ 136 Jesus was likewise endowed with the Spirit – Luke 3:22; 4:18. Immediately upon being so-endued, He was deliberately impelled by the Spirit to enter the desert to combat Satan.
The saviour by His act wrought liberty and unity; the New Testament sees this in universal terms – John 4:42 – ‘Saviour of the World’, cf. Luke 2:31-32. His action unites Jew and Gentile – John 11:50-52. In this respect, Jesus is the ultimate and anti-typical Saviour – the ‘saviours’ of the Old testament typified His ministry. This provides a connection with the ministry of the Servant.
John 12:31-33 sees the Cross as a military engagement against Satan. Salvation is also from sin, Psalm 51:14; and from death, Hebrews 5:7. These are our foes.
God is Saviour – Psalms 24:5; 18.45:15,21; Luke 1:47; Titus 3:4, etc. Jesus is the Ultimate Saviour because He is divine.
The dramatic nature of salvation is seen in John 19:18, which we examined earlier – the crucifixion of Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyen enteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’, an allusion to Exodus 17:12 LXX. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified, therein destroying the enemy – Satan.
B. The Islamic view
1. ‘Isa bin Maryam
It is uncertain how the term ‘Isa emerged. The usual idea is that it derived from the Syriac Yeshū, which in turn derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua. 137 Normally, Arab Christians normally refer to Jesus as Yasu. In Christ in Islam, Ahmed Deedat makes a tremendous faux-pas about the origins of the name ‘Isa: ‘Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus.’ 138 In fact, Yeshua(0#$2334^w&hy” in the Old Testament is normally translated ‘Joshua’; ‘Esau’ r#51(9 means ‘rough’. The names have no connection with each other. The Greek for ‘Joshua’ is ‘ihsouv ‘iēsous, and this is not only used in the New Testament with regard to the Messiah, but is also used of Joshua the conqueror of Canaan and Joshua the High Priest (among others) in the Septuagint, e.g. Joshua 1:10′kai ‘eneteilato ‘ihsouv toiv grammateusin tou laou legwn‘ Zechariah 3:3’kai ‘ihsouv ‘hn‘endedumenov ‘imatia rupara kai ‘eisthkei pro proswpou tou ‘aggelou‘ Hence, since the Greek form is ‘ihsouv the ‘Latinised’ form to which Deedat objects is no arbitrary innovation of either the so-called ‘Christian nations’ or even the actual Christians themselves.
Deedat further compounds his incompetence by stating that ‘The word is very simply “ESAU” a very common Jewish name used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”‘. In fact, it is only ever used of the brother of Jacob, which rather undermines Deedat’s assertions. Every reference in Genesis is to this individual. In Christ in Islam and Christianity, Gilchrist comments on Deedat’s blunder on this issue:
The Jews just simply did not call their children by this name. Jacob and Esau were enemies for most of their lives and their descendants, the Israelites and the Edomites, were often at war with each other. No Jewish children were ever named after the brother of Jacob, the father of the Israelites, for he stood against Jacob and was rejected by God (Hebrews 12:17). It is thus a fallacy to suggest that the original name of Jesus was Esau. 139
Zwemer considers the theory of one Dr Otto Pautz that ‘Isa did indeed derive from Esau, because the Jews in Medina caricatured Jesus in this way, although Zwemer rightly is guarded about this speculative hypothesis. 140Gilchrist finds this theory attractive:
For reasons that have never been apparent Muhammad chose to call him Isa. Deedat’s interpretation of this name as “Esau” tends to lend support to the suggestion made by some that the Jews in Arabic cunningly misled Muhammad by subtly perverting the true name of Jesus into the name of their forefather’s irreligious brother. If Deedat’s conclusion is correct, it militates heavily against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an.
There can be no doubt, however, that Esau is no nearer to the original and true name of Jesus than Muhammad’s Isa. This fundamental error sets the tone for the whole of Deedat’s treatment of the contrast between Christ in Islam and Christianity and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Jesus of the Bible, rather than the Isa of the Qur’an, is the true Jesus. 141
Cotterell also notes this theory that ‘the Jews referred contemptuously to Jesus as ‘Isā because of the obvious near-homophony with Esau (Hebrew ‘Esā), the despised brother of Jacob… Nöldeke suggest that Muhammad adopted the name in good faith, unaware of the pejorative overtones.’ 142 This would be in keeping with the Qur’an’s borrowing from a mixture of Jewish and Christian canonical and apocryphal sources. Another theory noted by Zwemer is that ‘Isā was probably formed to rhyme with Moses – Musa. 143 The Qur’an is indeed fond of such rhyming techniques. The difficulty, as Zwemer observes, is that ‘Isā is used in five cases of conjunction with Musa. However, Zwemer’s objection is not insurmountable. Rhythmic considerations may well have been the original impetus for its usage, and thereafter the name simply continued to be used elsewhere. It would be interesting to know what name the Arab Christians of Najran used for Jesus. Significantly, a Christian inscription to Rahman has been found in Yemen, and Muslims also employ this term for Allah. Perhaps archaeology may eventually be able to assist in this question.
The term ‘son of Mary’ does not exist as a title in the Bible, but only once as a description – Mark 6:3 ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?’ The reference to Jesus as the ‘brother’ of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon demonstrates that the usage is not titular. With regard to its Qur’anic usage, the term is used both as a proper name and as a title in Islam. An example of its titular usage in the Qur’an is found in Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:57 ‘When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!’ In the hadith, there seems to be greater emphasis on its titular employment, e.g.:
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658
Narrated by Abu Huraira
Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?
Zwemer notes that in the twenty-five places where ‘Isā is used, in sixteen He is called the Son of Mary. 144 It has been frequently observed that much of what Islam asserts about Jesus is negatory in character, informing us much more about what He is not than what He is. With respect to the Incarnation, Islam denies the deity of Christ:
Surah Al-Baqarah 2:116116 They say: ‘Allah hath begotten a son’; Glory be to Him. Nay to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth; everything renders worship to Him.
Surah An-Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him…
The term ‘Son of Mary’ is not actually explained in the Qur’an or Hadith, but it appears to be related to the Islamic dogma of the virgin birth, as well as a polemical denial of the eternal divine sonship of Jesus. Yusuf Ali makes this suggestion:
401 …Jesus is no more than a man. It is against reason and revelation to call him Allah or the son of Allah. He is called the son of Mary to emphasize this. He had no human father, as his birth was miraculous. But it is not this which raise him to his high position as a prophet, but because Allah called him to his office. The praise is due to Allah, Who by His word gave him spiritual strength-“strengthened him with the Holy spirit. The miracles which surround his story relate not only to the “Clear Signs” which he brought. It was those who misunderstood him who obscured his clear Signs and surrounded him with mysteries of their own invention.(3.62)
Cotterell also examines a possible Ethiopian origin for the term, but finds the evidence inadequate:
The suggestion that the title ‘Son of Mary’ originated in Abyssinia, and indicated a high view of Mary rather than a low view of Jesus, fails at two points. Firstly, it is supposed that the title was brought back from Abyssinia by returning Muslim refugees, after the first hijra. However, the title occurs in Meccan Suras, decisively in Sura 19 which, according to tradition, was recited to the Abyssinian Nagash (Eth. negūs, ‘king’) by the refugees. Secondly there is no evidence that the title ‘Son of Mary’ was used by the Abyssinian church: it does not appear in the Ethiopic Qiddase. In any event the use of the title by the Abyssinian church is highly unlikely since its strong monophysite position ensured that the deity of Christ all but eclipsed his humanity. 145
In the Arabic Infancy pseudo-gospel, ‘Son of Mary’ is used of Jesus a few times, (although not necessarily in a titular sense, save possibly when Satan addresses Him in v34). This may be the source of the term in the Qur’an, especially since this apocryphal work presents Jesus as speaking in the cradle. This is an attractive proposition since the work has a high Mariology, referring to the mother of Jesus as ‘Lady Mary’. For example, in v3, the following is said of her ‘Thou art not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women.’ Islam appears to give a higher status to Mary than does the Bible. Surah 21:91 presents the virgin birth as being as much about Mary as it is about Jesus. They are jointly held to be a sign from Allah:
Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.Surah An-Muminun 23:50And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.
The elevation of Mary herself to being a sign is perhaps an attempt to compensate for any pressing need for Jesus to be born of a virgin. This remains a major failing inadequacy of Islamic polemics – its failure to explain why Jesus had to be virgin-born. Yusuf Ali comments about this verse (21:91):
The virgin birth of Jesus was a miracle both for him and his mother. She was falsely accused of unchastity, but the child Jesus triumphantly vindicated her by his own miracles (xix. 27-33), and showed by his life the meanness of the calumny against his mother.
If the Infancy pseudo-gospel was indeed the source for this title, then whoever authored the Qur’an engaged in the most deliberate editing of a text to fit his/their presuppositions, since the text begins with the affirmation ‘In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God’ and as soon as Jesus is born, He speaks, saying ‘I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.‘ The absence of any canonical background for the titular use of ‘Son of Mary’ demonstrates the contrived nature of the term, in contrast to the firm basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition for the titles of Jesus. Clearly, the historical Jesus is the Biblical one.
2. A Prophet/Apostle
The Qur’an presents Jesus both a prophet and an apostle:
Surah Maryam 19:30He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet…Surah Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah…
According to Islam, Allah has sent messengers/apostles to every people. Every apostle (rasul) is a prophet (nabi) but not every prophet was an apostle. Surah Yunus 10:48 states that every nation has received a messenger. Islamic fiqh says the following about messengers:
AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)
MESSENGERS AND MUHAMMAD
He sent Messengers to mankind to establish a plea against them. He completed their mission, admonition and prophethood with His prophet Muhammad – may Allah be pleased with him and please him – whom he made the last of the Messengers, giving glad tidings, warning and calling people to Allah, with His permission. The Prophet was an illuminating lamp and Allah revealed to him His book, which is full of wisdom. He explained through it His true religion and guided by it along the right path.
With regard to the distinction between prophets and apostles, the comments of Yusuf Ali on S. 19:51 are helpful:
Moses was (1) especially chosen, and therefore prepared and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, in order that he might free his people from Egyptian bondage; there may also be a reference to Moses’s title of Kalimullah, the one to whom prophet (nabi), in that he received inspiration; and (3) he was a messenger (rasul) in that he had a Book of Revelation, and an Ummat or organised Community, for which he instituted laws.
Zwemer comments on the distinction as follows:
The number of prophets and apostles sent by God, according to Moslem teaching, amounts to 124,000. Others say 240,000, and others 100,000. These statements show that the words, prophet and apostle, in Moslem usage have not the same dignity, which we infer from their usage in the Old and New Testaments. Three hundred and thirteen are said to have been apostles who came with a special mission. A prophet, according to Moslem teaching, is a man inspired by God, but not sent with a special dispensation or book; while an apostle is one who comes either with a special dispensation or to whom a special book has been revealed. All apostles are prophets, but not all prophets are apostles. Jesus was both. 146
The Muslim author Suzanne Haneef appears to agree with this. She defines a prophet as one receiving divine revelations ‘…which constitute a source of guidance for men. If the revelation is in the form of a written scripture, the prophet is in addition a “messenger” (rasul) as well.’ 147 In the same passage she rejects predictive activity as part of the definition of prophethood. Vos defines the activity of the Biblical prophet (Hebrew nabhi) as ‘an authorized spokesman for the Deity’, in whose word ‘a divinely-communicated power resides.’ 148 This is the same as saying that a prophet was inspired by the Spirit of YHWH. Abraham is said to be a prophet, Genesis 20:17 and 2 Kings 16:13ff defines prophets as those servants of YHWH who attempt to restore the people to the covenant-law.
However, it is quite clear from the Old Testament that there was a predictive element, and from what we have seen earlier, much of this concerned the Messianic Age. Whilst there is some affinity between the Biblical and Islamic concepts of prophethood, the concept of apostleship held by Islam does not exactly correspond to the Biblical usage of the term, as can be inferred from what is said of the apostolic commission of Jesus. The Shaliach concept is rather different from the Muslim idea, and one suspects Muslims would find the notion objectionable. This in itself allows us to say that the Islamic concept of apostleship lacks Biblical and Jewish traditional background, being simply an innovation by Muslims.
As to the question of the prophetic message of Jesus, Muslims hold that He came to confirm the Shari’ah, the same legal-code revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Islamic exegete Mawdudi comments:
…Jesus did not bring any new religion but followed the same way that was followed by all the Prophets before him and invited people to the same. He believed in what was intact in his time from among the original teaching of the Torah. The Injil also testifies the same (Matthew 5:17, 18 ). The Qur’an reiterates this fact over and over again that each and every Prophets who was set by Allah to any part of the world, confirmed the message of all the Prophets who had gone before him and exerted his utmost to complete the work which they had left as the holy heritage, for he did not come to refute them or efface their religion or establish his own religion instead. Likewise Allah did not send down any of His Books to refute any of His own previous books, but to support and confirm them. 149
That is, the message and ministry of Jesus was the proclamation of Islam and the Shari’ah, as stated in Surah Maida 5:49:
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
In our examination of the Biblical concept of the Eschatological Prophet, we saw how the ministry of Jesus fulfils the law. He did not come simply to repeat it. Interestingly, the Qur’an appears to be self-contradictory in this regard, perhaps reflecting its borrowing from Christian sources which address this issue of fulfilment. Surah 3:50 states ‘(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.’ Unlike the Biblical concept of fulfilment, this seems very arbitrary.
One difference between the Islamic and Biblical views is that Jesus is portrayed solely as a local prophet – to Israel – e.g. S. 3:49 – ‘And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel’; S. 61:6 – ‘And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.”‘ Jamal Badawi asserts this restrictive mission – ‘MISSION specifically TO THE ISRAELITES (3:49, 5:75, 61:6)’. 150 Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.429 states that ‘…Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I [Muhammad] have been sent to all mankind.’
This reflects the traditional Muslim view as suggested by Badawi that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, although none of the texts Badawi mentions explicitly restrict the ministry of Jesus to Israel. Indeed, S. 5:110 could be interpreted as commissioning Jesus to speak to humanity as a whole – ‘When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity…’ {Pickthall). Moreover, Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91 states – ‘We made her and her son a Sign for all the worlds‘ (the proper translation of the Arabic – even though Yusuf Ali renders it ‘for all peoples’). The phrase is used of Muhammad in v107 of the same chapter. Only the Hadith establishes the unique claims of Muhammad to universal prophethood. It follows that Islam is intrinsically inconsistent with regard to this issue. This inconsistency becomes more glaring when consider the Return of Christ. If Jesus was only sent to Israel, why at His return does He become the ruler of the global Islamic State? Surely this prerogative should be restricted to Muhammad?
It is important to recognise that Jesus is viewed purely as a prophet, rather than as the Prophet. Given that S. 33:40 presents Muhammad as ‘the Seal of the Prophets’, it is clear that in Islamic terms, such a description would apply only to him. In regard to Jesus, the Qur’an effectively belittles Him – S. 5:75 ‘Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him.’ Jesus does nothing out of the ordinary, beyond bringing the Injil. There is nothing distinctive about Him as a Messenger that is not true of other prophets according to Islam (at least not before the Second Coming). This naturally involves Islam ignoring what is involved in being the Eschatological Prophet. We have seen the connection of the term with the Suffering Servant, whose passion is of a vicarious nature, something that Islam does not claim for Muhammad. It is noteworthy that Baagil, rather ludicrously, attempts to apply Isaiah 42:1 to Muhammad, but in doing so, he ignores the vicarious suffering that brings salvation in the other Servant Songs, and Muslims do not believe that Muhammad experienced a representative Passion that brings salvation to those with faith in him. 151 The term also has Messianic connotations, and the Qur’an is clear that only Jesus is termed ‘Messiah’. Whilst Muslims, such as Deedat, like to claim that Deuteronomy 18 is a prophecy of Muhammad, it is instructive that the Qur’an makes no such explicit assertion. To be sure, it does claim that the Torah predicted his coming, S. 7:157, but no specific verse or passage is identified as the source of this.
Another aspect of the Prophet in regard to the Servant and Messiah is the performance of miracles. We have already noted that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, and thus, on that basis, Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him, since miracles are an essential, identifying function of the Eschatological Prophet. The Qur’anic Jesus does indeed perform miracles, but again, according to Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504 ‘Every Prophet was given miracles…’ (with the exception of Muhammad). The performance of miracles is viewed as a general prophetic function. The Islamic Jesus performs some miracles found in both apocryphal and canonical texts, and does so as an Apostle:
Surah Al-i’ Imran 3:49
“And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.
3. Al-Masih (Messiah)
Islam believes that Jesus is the Messiah, e.g. S. 3:45, although it never explains or comments on the term, demonstrating that the term has been lifted from the Bible, and that Islam remains dependent upon Christian sources for an explanation of the title. Yusuf Ali comments: ‘Christ: Greek, Christos = anointed: kings and priests were anointed to symbolise consecration to their office. The Hebrew and Arabic form is Masih. (3.45)’ Given that neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever define the term, it is quite legitimate to point to the Biblical and traditional Jewish concepts as providing the only basis for the title – which, as we have seen, involves a Messiah who is the Son of God, divine Himself, and one who vicariously suffers for His people. Deedat comments on the term:
The word “Christ” is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning “to rub”, “to massage”, “to anoint”. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices… Christos means “Anointed”, and anointed means appointed in its religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God’s Messenger. Every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the “anointed” ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah… Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. 152
In presenting the concept this way, Deedat is forced to ignore the Biblical and Jewish traditional concept of a climactic Anointed figure, whether royal, prophetic or priestly. No one (and nothing else) in the Bible is ever presented as the Maschiach in the titular sense, a major failing of Deedat’s polemic. Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an present John the Baptist as ‘anointing’ Jesus; in the Bible, the Holy Spirit does that, as God’s Son, Messiah, Prophet and Servant, with its priestly connotations. There is nothing in the Qur’an to indicate that Jesus is King in the sense of a reigning executive. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Jesus ever rule. Nor is any implication that He was ‘anointed’, the meaning of ‘Messiah’, ever presented in either the Qur’an or the Hadith. Again, Deedat has to obscure the meaning by making it just mean ‘appoint’. No one in the Qur’an is ever presented as ‘anointed’, something Deedat also ignores.
At any rate, the Islamic use of the title is itself logically inconsistent, since a king is only a king if he reigns, and in the Qur’an, Jesus never does. The Hadith presents Jesus as ruling after His Second Coming, but He does so as Amir or Imam, rather than Messianic King. Moreover, even in this respect Islam is glaringly lacking in logical progression. There is no indication, and definitely no prediction in the Qur’an that Jesus would ever reign in any sense. The Hadith presents the Islamic Jesus ruling after His return, having slain the Antichrist and destroyed all other religions:
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.656Narrated by Abu Huraira
Allah’s Apostle said, “… the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu Huraira
Allah’s Apostle said, “…son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.
Another problem for Islam is that the Messiah, as Son of David, is specifically required to perform miracles. This, the Islamic Jesus does, it is true, but not as Messiah, but rather as an Apostle. We encounter no ‘deeds of the Messiah’ such as characterised the eschatological expected figure of Biblical hope and Jewish tradition. In fact, we see nothing in the Qur’an distinctive about the Messianic ministry of Jesus. Indeed, it is fair to say that in the Qur’an, Jesus has no ‘Messianic’ ministry – He does nothing as the Messiah. If the term were excised, the Qur’anic account would read just as well. The term is totally redundant and superfluous to His function and ministry in the Qur’an. This in itself demonstrates the borrowed nature of the term. The distinctive Christian belief over against Judaism is that Jesus is the Messiah, and Islam, claiming Muhammad was the climactic prophet in the line of Moses and Jesus, had to incorporate the title when it claimed Jesus as a prophet. However, by its ignorance of the connotations of the term, it has emptied the title of its meaning. Small wonder Deedat attempts to widen its employment, to play down its significance. This renders him dangerously close to heresy, since no one else in the Qur’an is entitled Al-Masih. Unwittingly, the Qur’an affirms the uniqueness of Jesus in this respect. This, and the emptiness of the Qur’anic use of the term indicates the Qur’an’s borrowing from Christian sources.
Largely as a result of a polemical debate with Medinan Jews, Islam denies the crucifixion, and so rejects the concept of a vicariously-dying Messiah – Surah An-Nisaa 4:157. That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them…’ Hence, a major function of the Messiah – His vicarious suffering leading to His divine vindication – is lost. Montgomery Watt has argued that the Jewish-Muslim debate was the origin of the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion. 153 The Medinan Jews are said to have responded to Muhammad’s claims of being a prophet in the line of Abraham, Moses and Jesus by denying the prophetic standing of Jesus, since they had been able to kill Him, which God would not have permitted if He had been a genuine divine emissary. Since that Muhammad claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus, the resultant implication is that if Jesus were a false prophet, Muhammad was likewise. Hence, we can comprehend Islam’s rejection of the reality of the death of Jesus, as being essential to safeguard not so much Him, but rather Muhammad against Jewish polemics. The Jews are not totally absolved of guilt, since the Qur’an definitely accuses them of attempted murder against Jesus.
4. A Servant of Allah
In Surah 19:30, the baby Jesus announces that He is ‘the servant (‘abd) of Allah’. However, whilst this is a description of Jesus, it does not appear to function as a title, and certainly not as a unique one (angels are described as servants in S. 4:172, and Zechariah is so-defined S. 19:2). There is no specific ministry that He accomplishes as a Servant. Zwemer in The Muslim Christ suggests that the statement in S. 4:172 ‘Christ will not scorn to be a slave unto Allah…’ (Pickthall) is a reference to ‘the title of the Messiah in Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah.’ 154 Whether this is so or not, there seems to be no specific theological necessity for Jesus to suffer according to Islam. Rather, the Qur’an simply makes the historical observation that this occurred, and notes that this was the common inheritance of the prophets:
Surah Al-Baqara 2:87ff87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!
91 When it is said to them: ‘believe in what Allah hath sent down’ they say ‘We believe in what was sent down to us’; yet they reject all besides even if it be truth confirming what is with them. Say: ‘Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by if ye did indeed believe?’
Surah An-Nisaa 4:155155 (They have incurred divine displeasure): in that they broke their Covenant: that they rejected the Signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; we need no more)’; nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy and little is it they believe.
156 That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.
157 That they said (in boast) ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah’; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 6093Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalib
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, “You have a resemblance to Jesus whom the Jews hated so much that they slandered his mother…Ahmad transmitted it.
It is quite possible that the original references to Jesus being the Servant of Allah did reflect the traditional Christian usage, but its distinctives, being at odds with Islamic soteriology, were excised. We noted how a similar excision appears to have taken place with regard to material from the Infancy pseudo-gospel. This is likely, since the Qur’an has tampered with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, where after the sin of the First Couple, God addresses the Serpent, saying ‘and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.’ The text predicts a Deliverer who will undo the work of Satan at cost to Himself, pointing to the Sacrificial death of Christ. New Testament texts reflect this and apply the prophecy to Jesus, such as John 12:31, which specifically deals with the Cross – ‘now the ruler of this world shall be cast out’, and 1 John 3:8 ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil.’
A comparison of Genesis 3:15 with the Qur’an reveals that instead of a promised Deliverer, there is a prediction of Guidance – S. 2:38 ‘We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve’; S. 20:123 ‘He said: Go down hence, both of you, one of you a foe unto the other. But if there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief.’ It is clear that Guidance of this sort has a salvatory function from what is stated in S. 7:35 ‘O Children of Adam! If messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.’ Thus in Islam, the ministry of guidance is equates with the Biblical ministry of sacrifice. hence, we should not be surprised to find Islam presenting not a Jesus who, as Suffering Servant willingly and in the divine plan suffers a sacrificial death, but rather merely a prophet who relays divine revelation.
The Qur’an presents the ministry of Jesus is portrayed as being met by unbelief and hostility. The Jews are depicted in the Qur’an as being guilty of unbelief with respect to the ministry and message of Jesus, S. 3:52ff. In particular, a major aspect of the suffering of the Islamic Jesus is found in S. 4:156, which indicates that Mary was accused of immorality, implying that Jesus was illegitimate: ‘That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.’ Yusuf Ali comments: ‘The false charge against Mary was that she was unchaste. Cf. xix. 27-28. Such a charge is bad enough to make against any woman, but to make it against Mary, the mother of Jesus, was to bring into ridicule Allah’s power itself.’
However, for all this, there is no indication in the Qur’an that Jesus vicariously suffers for all humanity in order that they may be saved. Instead, the sufferings of Jesus at the hands of the Jews is employed to explain and justify the removal of prophethood from that people to the Arabs, and thus argue for the Apostolic/Prophetic ministry of Muhammad, Surah Maidah 5:78 – ‘Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.’ Thus, instead of the sufferings of Jesus leading to blessing upon those for whom He suffered, it leads rather to disaster for them! Neither does the ministry of Jesus as the Servant bring salvation to the Gentiles, since He is supposedly only sent to the Jews (but consider the significance of Jesus as a sign for mankind, indicating that the Qur’anic redactors failed to eliminate all traces of the historical Jesus who suffers for humanity as a whole).
Of course, it is theologically impossible for Islam to accept the need for the crucifixion, since it rejects the concept of Vicarious Reconciliation, affirming the necessity of submission to God by obedience to Islamic law (the Shari’ah). The Muslim writer Abdalati declares on this subject that ‘Islam rejects the …Crucifixion… This rejection is based on the authority of God Himself as revealed in the Qur’an and on a deeper rejection of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins.’ 155 Perhaps, however, Islam did not completely succeed in excising the concept of the Suffering Servant. The following Hadith may reflect the original Christian concept of the death of Christ (although the prophet is unidentified), especially as Luke 23:34 says: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’:
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.63
Narrated by Abdullah
As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, ‘O Lord! Forgive my people as they do not know.’
5. A Word from Allah
One interesting title of Jesus in the Qur’an is Kalimat’Allah – Word of God. This on the surface presents a parallel with the Biblical concept of the Logos. However, Muslim tend to deny this. For example, Yusuf Ali denies that the term has an absolute sense, i.e. He is only a Word from God, not the Word of God:
381 Notice: “a Word from Allah”, not “the Word of Allah”, the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii. 59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by Allah’s word “Be”, and he was. (3.39)
Gilchrist quotes a Christian writer, speaking of Surah 3.45, makes the same point about the form of the words in the text:
Further, in the verse from the Qur’an which we have quoted, Christ is called ‘His Word’, that is, ‘God’s Word’. The Arabic shows that it means ‘The Word of God’, not merely ‘a Word of God’. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God’s mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15). 156
With respect to S. 3:39, this particular verse is difficult, since it refers to John the Baptist confirming a ‘Word from Allah’, and whilst this could refer to Jesus, it also could refer to Scripture. More obvious examples are found in the following two texts:
Surah Al-i-Imran 3:4545 Behold! the angels said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.
46 ‘He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.’
47 She said: ‘O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it ‘Be’ and it is!
Surah An- Nisaa 4:171171. O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit from him…
Zwemer comments that ‘modern Arabic usage clearly distinguishes between the Word of God in the sense of Holy Writ, which is always referred to as Kalâm Allah and the Word of God as His Messenger, which is Kalimet Allah. There are, however, only these two passages in which this New Testament title is given to out Saviour.’ 157 As with Al-Masih, there is no clear definition of what the term means in the Qur’an, but from what S. 4:171 states, it would appear that it means less than deity. In that verse He is presented as an apostle, a spirit from God, and God’s Word, in the context of the denial of Trinity. However, it is difficult to understand exactly its import. Baagil claims that it means that Jesus was directly created ‘in the womb of Mary’ without ‘the agency of sperm, just only with the decree of Allah’. 158 Jamal Badawi says much the same: ‘A WORD FROM ALLAH (3:39,45; 4:170). Word is not the “Logos” or the second person in Godhead. It is the creative command of Allah “KON” or “be” (2:117, 3:47,59, 6:73, 16:40, 19:35, 36:82, 40:68). ‘Words’ of Allah is used in (18:109, 8:7, 31:27) and others.’ 159Andrew Vargo, commenting on Badawi’s transmission on ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200’ on ‘Jesus in the Qur’an – Humanity’, reports Badawi as stating the following on the issue:
Host: The Qur’an calls Jesus the Word, just as the Bible, how is this different?
Jamal Badawi: The problem is the meaning of the term Word. There is a difference, the Christians believe that the Word is the absolute of God, John. This was the influence of Platonic philosophy. The Qur’an has nothing to do with the Logos, the Word means a command or sign from God. Sura 16:40:
For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, “Be”, and it is.
We are all words of God because we are all created by God’s command. There are 12 places in the Qur’an where words of God are used, so it is not unique to Jesus. 160
On this basis, the thrust of the term is ontological, rather than functional, although Badawi has perhaps overstated his case, in that its unique usage in regard to Jesus would seem to indicate some connection with the virgin birth. Further, his comments about the Platonic origin of the term as used in the Gospel of John are plainly inaccurate, as we have seen, since it is obvious that the dominant influence has been Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Sam Shamoun heavily criticises Badawi’s Qur’anic exegesis:
In none of the examples that Badawi presents is a person ever called God’s Word. The verses without exception refer to God’s ability to create by his Word or refer to the fact that God’s words are inexhaustible… (see endnotes) We are again left wondering how do these verses parallel the fact that Jesus is the only being who is called the Word of God? Badawi cannot produce one single reference to show that other beings or prophets are called God’s very own Word. Instead, he hopes to confuse the situation by bringing in irrelevant issues such as the fact that the Quran mentions God’s words as being inexhaustible or that he creates what he likes by his command or Word. And? Whoever said that God’s words are not inexhaustible or that God cannot create whatever he chooses by his powerful Word? Yet, this still does not touch the issue that not a single being, including angels themselves, is ever called the Word of God except Jesus.
Badawi must assume that Jesus is called the Word of God solely because he was created by God’s command. There are two main problems with his argument. First, Jesus is not simply a by-product of God’s command, but is the very Word of God to man: Sura 3:39…John is to bear witness to a Word from God, namely Jesus the Christ. Here, Jesus is the one who is the Word from God. The fact that he is a Word from God implies preexistence, that Jesus preexisted as God’s Word. This point is brought out more clearly in the two following passages: Sura 3:45… According to this passage God’s Word is not a mere abstraction but rather a person. This is due to the fact that the Word of God is given a personal name, Jesus. This implies that Badawi’s argument that Jesus is only a by-product of God’s creative command cannot be sustained. Hence, according to this one passage the Word of God is personal and shall take on the name of Jesus.
[Commenting on 4:171] Jesus is both the Word of God, not just a word from him, given to Mary and a spirit that proceeds from God himself. Hence, in one sense the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus and yet in other places it affirms that he is the divine preexistent Word and Spirit from God. Secondly, if it were true that Jesus is God’s word solely because he was created by the command of God then we would expect to find Adam called the Word of God (according to Sura 3:59) since he was also created by God’s command. Yet, neither Adam nor anyone else is ever called the Word of God. 161
Even if we differ from Shamoun’s claim that the Qur’anic term definitely points to the pre-existence of Jesus, it is likely that the Biblical concept was the original form that the Qur’an adapted and emptied of meaning. It is definitely employed in a titular sense by Islam, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith, and only ever of Jesus, never any other prophet, not even Muhammad:
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5762
Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas
When some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast…
Sahih Muslim Hadith 380Narrated by AbuHurayrah and Hudhayfah
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, would gather the people. The believers would stand until the Paradise is brought near them. They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open Paradise for us. He would say: What turned ye out from Paradise was the sin of your father, Adam. I am not in a position to do that; you should go to my son, Ibrahim, the Friend of Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: He (Ibrahim) would say: I am not in a position to do that. Verily I had been the Friend (of Allah) from a long time ago; you should approach Moses (peace be upon him) with whom Allah conversed. They would come to Moses (peace be upon him) but he would say: I am not in a position to do that; you should go to Jesus, the Word of Allah and His spirit. Jesus (peace be upon him) would say: I am not in a position to do that. So they would come to Muhammad (peace be upon him)…
It is the unique titular usage of Kalimat’Allah that is so interesting. The Qur’an makes other ontological points about Jesus, mainly negative, e.g. that He was not God, but none of them function as a title. Yet this term does just that. The question is why? The issue becomes even more intriguing when we consider that the titles of other prophets appear to be functional, rather than ontological in nature, again pointing to the uniqueness of Jesus. This last point undermines an assertion of Deedat:
Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like “Rasulullah“, meaning “Messenger of God”, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet “Rasullullah” has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, among Muslims.
Every prophet is indeed a “Friend of God”, but its Arabic equivalent “Khalillullah” is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God’s friends. “Kaleemullah“, meaning “One who spoke with Allah” is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms. 162
The titles of the prophets in Islam in each case describe a particular relationship that messenger enjoyed with God. It is significant that that the relationship that Jesus is said to enjoy with Allah is the only one that is ontological in nature. There surely must be more to the term than just the idea that Jesus was the result of a divine fiat. Gilchrist argues ‘The Qur’an says no more of Adam than that “he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration” (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, “from his Lord”, but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the “Word of God”. As there is, nonetheless, no explanation of the title in the Qur’an, we shall have to turn, as we did with the title Al-Masih, to the Christian Bible to find its real meaning…’ 163 Zwemer observes about the term in relation to the titles of other prophets, ‘The title given to Moses is Kalim Allah, and the common explanation is that Moses was the mouth-piece of God in the sense that God spake to him, and made him His special confidant; but Jesus is the Kalimet Allah or Word of God, because He communicates God’s word, God’s will to men.’ 164 Zwemer further notes ‘If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God’s will; but since God Himself calls Him “the Word of God”, it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God’s will, and the only perfect manifestation of God.’ 165 Gilchrist’s observation is very pertinent:
There are two key factors that the Muslims are only too inclined to overlook – the application of the title to Jesus alone and the fact that he is clearly described in Surah 4.171 as “His Word”, meaning not a Word from God alone but the Word of God. Abdul-Haqq states the first factor quite plainly – the title is “an expression uniquely used of Jesus Christ”. The Qur’an, in Surah 3.59, states that “the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam” and promptly defines that likeness. God simply said “Be”, and he came to be (kun fayakuun), implying that both were made by the single word of God in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God. 166
As stated earlier, the likelihood is that the title reflects the Christian usage, but that Qur’anic redaction has diluted its original significance. There appears to be no other reason for its employment. No doubt Muhammad and the early Muslims encountered Christians referring to Jesus as ‘the Word of God’, and so included it in their new religion, albeit in a slightly transformed fashion. It is important to recognise that the Christian usage claims a heavy background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, notably the targums. What background can the Islamic title claim, especially if it is interpreted as Badawi and Yusuf Ali assert? Especially as the Qur’an nowhere explains the function of the title? We noted earlier that probably because of the virgin birth, Jesus is described as a ‘sign’ to mankind. Possibly the concept of Jesus being ‘the Word’ is related to this as well. It would seem that the miraculous supernatural origins of Jesus are maintained even in the Qur’anic redaction, to some degree.
6. A spirit from Allah
Usually coupled with the previous title is the reference to Jesus as being a spirit from God – Ruh’Allah. The Spirit of God (Ruh’Allah) is to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quddus). The former is Jesus, the latter Gabriel. This often causes confusion for both Christians and Muslims. With regard to the title as used of Jesus, as in 4:171, Zwemer observes that ‘the commentators are not agreed as to its real significance, and whether it is a name that can be applied to Jesus Christ, or whether the passage simply signifies that Jesus, with all other mortals, was partaker of the creative Spirit of God.’ 167 Badawi observes about the term ‘A SPIRIT FROM ALLAH (4:171): same applies to other humans (15:29, 32:9, 38:72).‘ This makes it clear that he sees nothing singular about the term, although it should be noted that the texts to which Badawi refers concern the creation of Adam. The immediate question is that if this is all Islam means by the term, why has it become a defining title of Jesus, not least in the Hadith, as we have noted earlier with regard to ‘the Word’? For the text does not simply say that God breathed His spirit into the womb of Mary, but rather that Jesus was a spirit from Him. Gilchrist writes:
In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, “a Word from him”. Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, “a Spirit from him”. On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. Once again no attempt is made to explain the title in the Qur’an, yet it frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form. It is the closest the Qur’an comes to admitting the pre-existence of Jesus before his conception on earth. The lack of any explanation of its meaning, however, or why it should be applied uniquely to Jesus just as the other two titles are, suggests that Muhammad once again heard and adopted Christian teachings and titles applying to Jesus without understanding them or seeing their ominous implications for his dogma that Jesus was only a prophet like all the other prophets.
Precisely in the passage already mentioned, where Muhammad uses the epithets ‘Logos’ and ‘Spirit’ with reference to Jesus and seems to approach the concept of trinity, it can be clearly understood that Muhammad did not realise the implication of these Christian expressions which he had acquired from hearsay. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 71). 168
The Muslim answer appears to be found in the Hadith, which gives the impression that all human spirits were characterised by some form of pre-existence, and that Jesus was simply one of these:
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 122
Narrated by Ubayy ibn Ka’b
In regard to the words of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, “Your Lord brought forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam.” (7:172) Ubayy said: He gathered them and paired them then fashioned them and endowed them with the power of speech and they began to speak. He then made an agreement and covenant with them. He made them bear witness about themselves (saying) Am I not your Lord. They said: Yes. He said: I call to witness seven heavens and seven earths regarding you and I call witness your father Adam regarding you lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: We do not know this. Bear this in mind that there is no god besides Me and there is no Lord besides Me and do not associate anything with Me. It is I Who should be sending to you My messengers in order to remind you My agreement and My covenant and it is I who would send you My Books. They said: We bear witness to the fact that Thou art our Lord, Thou art our Object of worship. There is no Lord besides Thee and there is no object of worship besides Thee. They confirmed this (pledge). Adam was raised above them so that he would see them and he saw the rich and the poor, those having handsome faces and even those inferior to them and he said: My Lord, why is it that Thou hast not made Thy servants alike? He said: I wish that I should be thanked. And he also saw the Prophets, some amongst them like lamps with light in them, distinguished by another covenant regarding messengership and prophethood, viz. the words of the Blessed and the High: And when We made covenant with the prophets – up to His words: Jesus son of Mary (33:7). He was among those spirits and He sent him to Mary (peace be upon both of them). And it is narrated by Ubayy that he entered by her mouth.
Transmitted by Ahmad.
The doctrine of this tradition does not seem to agree with that of the Qur’an, and it smacks of being contrived, possibly with a view to countering Christian polemics about the eternal nature of Christ. At any rate, the provenance of the hadiths with regard to the Qur’an is debatable, whatever Muslims affirm. Certainly the text in S. 33:7 in no way implies the pre-existence of the prophets or human beings in general. If the term is simply a description of Jesus’ origins, it is strange that it has come to function as a title, and one that distinguishes Jesus from other Messengers. As with ‘the Word’, this title is never employed of any other prophet. Gilchrist observes how the term has come to be used in a titular sense:
Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (“O Spirit of Allah”). It is a very common title in many works. In one place his disciples are found saying to him:
“O Spirit of God, describe to us the friends of God (Exalted is He!) upon whom there is no fear, and who do not grieve”. (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 86). 169
Even if the titles of the prophets are not exclusive as Deedat claims, it requires some explanation as to why an ontological description is applied uniquely to Jesus, whereas other prophets are known by functional or relational titles. No other human being in the Qur’an is ever described as a spirit in this way. Rather, the term Ruh is applied to angels, such as Gabriel, e.g. 70:4; 78:38; 97:4. In fact, the ‘Spirit’ in these texts is usually, though not universally identified as Gabriel. In this case, we have a heavenly being identified as a spirit. It is natural, consistent exegesis to interpret ruh in other cases as being of this nature. Gilchrist comments:
“Candid Muhammadan writers freely admit that this title ‘Spirit of God’ carries with it some speciality such as can be predicated of no other prophet” (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 21). It is very interesting to note that the very expression applied to Jesus in Surah 4.171, ruhun minhu, appears in exactly the same form in Surah 58.22 where we read that God strengthens true believers with “a spirit from him”. The Muslim translator Yusuf Ali appends the following comment to this verse:
Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything the phrase used here is stronger, “a spirit from Himself”. Whenever anyone offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that Faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with the divine spirit which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1518). 170
Although Jesus is not described as ‘the Spirit of God’, the close relationship He enjoys with the Third Person of the Trinity, being born through the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, being anointed by Him at the Baptism, pouring out the Spirit on believers, no doubt led to confusion among early Muslims, very likely as the Qur’an misconstrues so many other Christian doctrines, not least the identity and nature of the Trinity, which it seems to view as God, Mary and Jesus, thereby excluding the Spirit. Of course, the Spirit is given the title ‘Spirit of Christ’ in Romans 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11. In John 20:22 we read that Jesus breathed on the disciples saying ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas the Israelite v10, (First Greek form) which many have suggested as one of the sources of the Qur’an, we find the crowd acclaiming the child Jesus after a miracle with the words ‘Truly the Spirit of God dwells in this child.’ In v15, we read of the child Jesus ‘He spoke by the Holy Spirit, and taught the law to those that were standing round.’ If Muhammad and the early Muslims misunderstood Christian doctrine on this point, their confusion might have led them to misconstrue the Spirit as another term for Jesus, and then they would have adapted and transformed the concept, diluting it to fit Islamic presuppositions. This would appear to be a likely source for the Qur’anic idea. Certainly, the title is ontological, rather than functional, and it is never actually explained in the Qur’an, suggesting that the Christian concept in some form is understood as its background.
Conclusion
It follows from our examination of the titles of Jesus in the Bible that the New Testament designations of Him were neither arbitrary nor contrived. They were rooted in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. These names and titles described both the nature and function of Jesus. Even when a designation may not have been fully recognised as a title (or possibly, even at all), such as the term ‘Son of Man’, there was sufficient Old Testament and Jewish background to allow the hearers some measure of understanding. If people did misconstrue, such as thinking Jesus came to establish a political kingdom, His reference to the Suffering Servant helped to set the record straight. The tittles appear to be inter-related, and could only be fulfilled in their totality (as well as individually) by one person. There is an inner logical consistency in their concepts and in the application of them to Jesus. What emerges from the titles we examined is that Jesus is a divine figure who descended from heaven to die on our behalf, to atone for and liberate us from sin. We have been able to account for all the designations of Jesus in this way. Further, the titles explain both the ontological nature and functional roles of Jesus, the latter flowing naturally from the former.
With the Muslim titles, however, this logical coherence is largely absent. None of them can claim a background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. What background they possess appears largely to consist in a diluted transformation of canonical and apocryphal gospels. Throughout, their character betrays contrivance and innovation. They present a confused picture of Jesus’ origins, and frequently tell us little about His ministry. This is especially true of the cardinal title found in both the Bible and the Qur’an – the Messiah. The term is unexplained by the latter, and can only be understood by studying the former. In regard to other Biblical titles, it is clear that the Qur’an misunderstands the concept of ‘the Son of God’, and what it denies is not what Christians believe. It is possible that ‘Son of Mary’ arose as a Qur’anic title partly as a result of anti-Christian polemic. Other titles have been grossly diluted, such as the Servant, and virtually emptied of meaning. Titles such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of David’, ‘Priest’ and ‘Saviour’ have disappeared altogether, probably because they could not be adapted, especially the priestly activity of the Servant. The understanding of Jesus’ prophetic and apostolic ministry in Islam is not identical to that in the Bible, not just to the New Testament, but to what the Old Testament and Jewish tradition expected of the Eschatological Prophet and the Shaliach. The lack of any basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition is crucial for the debate as to the identity of the historical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus conforms to this tradition, fitting the picture presented. The Islamic Jesus is frankly foreign to this picture. Naturally, because divine scriptural revelation ended with Jesus and those He appointed as His Shaliach representatives.
References
Morris, Leon, The Lord from heaven, (IVP, Leicester, 1958, 1974), pp. 57-58.
Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 137.
Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Theology, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), p. 301.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 237-238.
Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (SPCK, London, 1992), p. 330.
Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, (Fontana, London, 1965), p. 24.
Ibid.
Motyer, Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah, (IVP, Leicester, 1993), pp. 102-103.
France, R. T., Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1989), p. 285.
Ibid, p. 285.
Carson, D. A., ‘Christological ambiguities in Matthew’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, Rowdon, Harold. H. (ed.), (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 105.
Grogan, Geoffrey, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979), p. 43.
Cullmann, Oscar, Christology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 273.
Richardson, Alan, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1959), p. 150.
Ibid.
France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 207.
Ibid., p. 189.
Lindars, Barnabas, Jesus Son of Man, (SPCK, London, 1983), pp. 148-149.
Verseput, Donald, ‘The Role and Meaning of the “Son of God” title in Matthew’s gospel’, New Testament Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 537-538.
Moo, Douglas, Romans 1-8, (Moody, Chicago, 1991), pp. 40-41.
Ladd, George Eldon, A Theology of the New Testament, (Eerdmans, USA, 1974), pp. 166-167.
France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 310.
Dunn, James, Jesus and the Spirit, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 23.
Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 149.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.
Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 36.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unique Son, that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains with him.
John 5:19 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing: for whatever things he does, these the Son also does in like manner.
John 5:20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does: and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.
John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.
John 5:22 For neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all judgment to the Son;
John 5:23 that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.
John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 8:36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
John 14:13 And whatever you shall ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that the son may glorify you.Walker Jr., William O., ‘John 1:43-51 and “The Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (Issue 54, 1994, Sheffield), p. 41.
Kümmel, Walter, The Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1974), p. 269.
Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 270.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 148.
Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, (C. U. P., Cambridge, 1931, 1935), p. 218.
Bruce, F. F., ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 58.
Young, E. J., The Prophecy of Daniel, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1949), p. 154.
Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew, (SCM, London, 1973, Second edition), pp. 171-172.
Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 54.
Rowe, Robert D., ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 88.
Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 82.
Ibid.
Bruce, F. F., Israel and the Nations, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1963, 1983 revised edition), pp. 144-146.
Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 146.
Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 166.
Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 294.
Goldingay, John, Daniel, (Word, Dallas, 1987, UK edition 1991), p. 261.
Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 93.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 75.
saiah 52:13-15: 13′idou sunhsei ‘o paiv mou kai ‘uqwyhsetai kai doxasyhsetai sfodra 14on tropon ‘eksthsontai ‘epi se polloi ‘outwv ‘adoxhsei ‘apo ‘anyrwpwn to ‘eidov sou kai ‘h doxa sou ‘apo twn ‘anyrwpwn 15′outwv yaumasontai ‘eynh polla ‘ep‘ ‘autw kai sunexousin basileiv to stoma ‘autwn ‘oti ‘oiv ‘ouk ‘anhggelh peri ‘autou ‘oqontai kai ‘oi ‘ouk ‘akhkoasin sunhsousin
Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 426.
Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, (Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Kuwait, 1984), p. 32.
Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 58ff.
Bruce, ibid., p. 58.
Bruce, ibid., pp. 58-59.
Martens, E. A., Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), pp. 207-208.
Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 121.
Grogan, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, p. 39.
France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament, (Tyndale, London, 1971), pp. 132-133.
France, ibid., p. 134.
France, ibid., p. 134.
France, ibid., p. 134.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 262.
Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 77-80.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 120-121. (The quote about ebed Yahweh is from Cullman, Christology of the New Testament, p. 65.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 262-263.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 122-123.
France, Ibid., p. 106.
France, Ibid., pp. 106-107.
France, Ibid., p. 108.
France, Ibid., p. 154.
Fairbairn, Patrick, Typology of Scripture Vol. 1, (1900; reprint by Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1989), p. 371.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 108-109.
McKenzie, John, A Theology of the Old Testament, (Chapman, London, 1974), p. 250.
Kaiser, Walter, Towards an Old Testament Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978), p. 155.
Ibid.
Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp. 139-140.
Chilton, Bruce, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, (SPCK, London, 1984), p. 200.
Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 109.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 109.
Bruce, F. F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983), p. 241.
Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1996), pp. 241-242.
Deedat, Ahmed, What the Bible says about Muhammad, (IPCI, Birmingham, undated), p. 5ff.
Ibid., p. 12.
Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 209.
Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Tradition, (Blackwell, Oxford, 1978), p. 12n.
Ibid., p. 13.
Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 47.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504
Narrated by Abu Huraira
The Prophet said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed, but what I have been given, is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me…’Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 48.
Ibid., p. 47.
Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 82.
Barclay, William, Jesus as they saw him, (SCM, London, 1962), p. 367
Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 92.
Hill, David, New Testament Prophecy, (Marshall Morgan & Scott, Basingstoke, 1979), p. 49.
Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 57.
Ibid., p. 82.
Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 58.
Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 83.
Ibid.
Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 238.
Ladd, George Eldon, The Presence of the Future, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1974), p. 165.
Ibid., pp. 151-152.
Ibid., p. 151.
Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 322.
Ibid. pp. 323-324.
Ibid., p. 323.
Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 54.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 238.
Ibid., pp. 238-239.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 322-323.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 241.
Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 223.
Jacob, Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament, (Hodder & Stoughton, London,1958), p. 127.
Ibid., p 128.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.
Dahms, J. V., Isaiah 55:11 and the Gospel of John, (Evangelical Quarterly, April-June, 1981), pp. 78-88.
Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 129.
Morris, The Lord from heaven, p. 94.
Hayward, C. T. R., The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel (New Testament Studies 25, 1978) pp. 16-32.
Ibid.
Mowvley, H., John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35′, (Expository Times).
Hooker, M. D., The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret, (New Testament Studies 21 1974), p. 40-58.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 242.
McNamara, Martin, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, (PBI, Rome, 1956), p. 184ff.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.
Ibid., p. 325.
Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 134.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 164.
Bruce, F. F., The Work of Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979, 1984), p. 74.
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 451.
Ibid.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 250.
McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, p. 248.
Cotterell, F. P., ‘The Christology of Islam’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 284.
Deedat, Ahmed, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html
Gilchrist, John, Christ in Islam and Christianity: A Comparative Study of the Christian and Muslim Attitudes to the Person of Jesus Christ, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 34-35.
Gilchrist, Christ in Islam and Christianity, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html
Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 284.
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 33.
Ibid., pp. 26-27.
Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 285.
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 30-31.
Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979), p. 20.
Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1948, 1975), p. 193.
Mawdudi, Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1 Al-Ma’idah, (Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1993), p. 47
Badawi, Jamal,Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html
Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, pp. 41-42.
Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html
Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad in Medina, (Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 317.
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 28.
Abdalati, Hammudah, Islam in Focus, (American Trust Publications, 1975), p. 159.
Gilchrist, John, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.
Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, p. 21.
Badawi, Jamal, Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html
Vargo, Andrew, Responses to Jamal Badawi’s ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200′ http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200B7.htm
Shamoun, Sam, Jesus Christ in the Qur’an and Bible Part III, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi-jesus3.htm
Sura 2:117: ‘The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be!’ – and it is.’
Sura 3:47, 59: ‘She said: `O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’ He said: `So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is’… Verily, the likeness of ‘Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: `Be!’ – and he was.’
Sura 6:73: ‘It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in truth, and on the Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) He will say: ‘Be!’, – and it shall become. His Word is the truth. His will be the dominion on the Day when the trumpet will be blown. AllKnower of the unseen and the seen. He is the AllWise, Well-Aware (of all things).
Sura 16:40: ‘Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
Sura 19:35: ‘It befits not (the Majesty of) Allâh that He should beget a son (this refers to the slander of Christians against Allâh, by saying that ‘Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allâh). Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.’
Sura 36:82: ‘Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is!’
Sura 40:68: ‘He it is Who gives life and causes death. And when He decides upon a thing He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
Sura 18:109: ‘Say (O Muhammad SAW to mankind). `If the sea were ink for (writing) the Words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished, even if we brought (another sea) like it for its aid.’ ‘
Sura 8:7: ‘And (remember) when Allâh promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allâh willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).’
Sura 31:27: ‘And if all the trees on the earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with seven seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words of Allâh would not be exhausted. Verily, Allâh is AllMighty, AllWise.’Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html
Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.
Ibid., p. 37.
Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/
Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 30.
Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html
Ibid.
Ibid.
The Son of Man
Toby Jepson
A Study in a title of Jesus
Many Muslims have profound problems with the identity of Jesus. It has been supposed that there is very little evidence in the Bible to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus is God. Any Christian who has spent much time talking to Muslims will no doubt have come up against the common challenge: ‘Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “I am God – worship me”?’This statement, of course, does not exist; hence the reason for its repeated use. Does this, however, mean that the same sentiment is not conveyed in the Bible? Is the deity of Jesus a fabrication of the Christian mind, a relic of pagan worship somehow incorporated into a corruption of the true religion of Allah? This is definitely not the case and it is the purpose of this essay to deal with just one of the many reasons why an open-minded reading of the Bible can leave the reader with no option other than to conclude that Jesus is indeed God.
Before beginning, it must be understood that the Jews of Jesus’ time held the name of God in such great respect that they would go to great lengths to avoid pronouncing it. This was to make sure that they were not guilty of breaking one of the greatest commandments of the Torah of Moses – ‘You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name’ (Exodus 20:7). This can be easily seen in one of the fundamental statements of Judaism, found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and reaffirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29. It reads thus:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
This, of course, does not negate the Christian assertion of Jesus’ deity, for neither Christians nor the Bible claim that Jesus is a god beside Allah (which the Qur’an seems to think). The concept of a triune God allows for a plurality of persons within one Godhead: three persons in one God.
The Hebrew word, here translated as LORD, is the personal name of the God of Israel, often transliterated as ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jehovah’. Whenever Jews recite this verse, known as the Shema, they do not pronounce the name of God, but substitute instead Adonai, the word translated as Lord (not all in capitals) in most English Bible translations.
Another example is that when English Jews are writing about God, they often miss out the middle letter and write G-d, to show respect for his name.
Against this background, it is not at all surprising that Jesus did not say ‘I am God – worship me’, for the reasons stated above. Instead, we see in the New Testament many inferences when Jesus talked about God. For instance, he spoke of God as ‘the Father’. In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:18), the son tells his father, ‘I have sinned against heaven and against you.’ From the context it is clear that he is referring to God when he mentions ‘heaven’.
The above has prepared us for the main subject of this essay. The phrase ‘Son of Man’ is found around 200 times in the whole Bible and 82 times in the four accounts of Jesus’ life and words, which we refer to as the gospels. In many instances it simply refers to an ordinary man and is not of any special significance. This can be seen in the 100 or so references in the book of Ezekiel, all of which refer to the prophet Ezekiel himself.
In Numbers 23:19, we find the statement, ‘God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.’ No doubt some Muslims will jump onto this reference as evidence against the claims of Christians. However, an unbiased reading of the passage in context will show that it is simply stating that God’s moral character is way above that of evil men, a sentiment which both Christians and Muslims will have no problem with.
For the purpose of our discussion, the foundation text is found in Daniel 7:13,14:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Here, in Daniel’s vision, he saw two people inparticular. One is the Ancient of Days, a title which is given to God and mentioned three times in Daniel 7. The other person mentioned is one like a son of man, referring to the fact that he was human in his appearance. Some facts about this person in the passage are very instructive:
He was given sovereign power
All nations worshipped him (other English translations render this as ‘served’, but the Aramaic word in question is only used in the Bible to refer to serving God)
He was the king of an eternal kingdom
We must ask the question, is it possible that Daniel’s vision could refer to one who was merely a man and nothing more? It is utter blasphemy to suppose that the whole world would worship or serve anyone but God whilst they were in his presence. Additionally, who can conceive that God would give sovereign (total) power to anyone else, let alone a mere man? Not one of the human prophets of God, in Christianity or Islam, would claim this. This leaves us with only one conclusion; namely, that this one like a son of man, was more than just a man.
This reference is one of many in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament, for want of a better word), which point to the coming of a great king who would rescue God’s people from their sins and release them from slavery. This expected deliverer came to be called the Messiah, which means ‘anointed one’. In the Old Testament, different people were anointed with special oil, in order to set them apart for a specific task, including prophets, priests and kings. It can therefore be concluded that the promised Messiah would combine the offices of prophet, priest and king in one person.
Since the time that the book of Daniel was written (in approximately 400BC), the Jews rightly saw this person in 7:13,14 as the Messiah. Therefore, at the time of Jesus, they were expecting the one like a son of man. So in the gospels the term ‘son of man’ was not simply a way of denoting any old human being, but was used as a title to refer to this special person in the prophecy of Daniel. We will see more of this below.
Below I shall list all the references to the Son of Man in the gospels, so that anyone with an interest can spend time looking them up and checking what is said here. Afterwards, I will go onto quote from those references which are more relevant to our discussion. Please take note that these references are to a specific person and not a general reference to a normal human.
Occurrences of the title ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels:
Matthew8:209:5,610:2311:1912:812:3212:4013:3713:4116:13-1716:2716:2817:917:1217:22,2319:2820:18,1920:2824:2724:30 x224:3724:3924:4425:3126:226:24 x226:4526:64Mark2:102:288:318:389:99:129:3110:33,3410:4513:2614:21 x214:4114:62Luke5:246:56:227:349:229:269:449:5811:3012:812:1012:4017:2217:2417:2617:3018:818:31-3319:1021:2721:3622:2222:4822:6924:7John1:513:133:145:276:276:536:628:289:35-3812:2312:34 x213:31
Now I would like to quote the most relevant occurrences and then to discuss their implications.
Matthew 9:5,6 – ‘Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…’ Then he said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, take your mat and go home.’
Matthew 12:8 – ‘For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.‘
Matthew 12:40 – ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.‘
Matthew 13:41 – ‘The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.’
Matthew 16:13-17 – When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?‘ They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’
‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?‘ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.‘
Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.‘
Matthew 17:9 – As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, ‘Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.‘
Matthew 17:22,23 – When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.‘ And the disciples were filled with grief.
Matthew 20:18,19 – ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!‘
Matthew 20:28 – ‘…the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.‘
Matthew 26:2 – ‘As you know, the Passover is two days away – and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.‘
Matthew 26:45 – Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.‘
Mark 8:31 – He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
Mark 9:31 – He said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.‘
Mark 10:33,34 – ‘We are going up to Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.‘
Mark 14:41 – Returning the third time, he said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.‘
Luke 9:22 – And he said, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.‘
Luke 12:40 – ‘You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.‘
Luke 18:31-33 – Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.‘
Luke 22:48 – …but Jesus asked him, ‘Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?‘
John 3:13-15 – ‘No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven – the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.‘
John 9:35-38 – Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ ‘Who is he sir?‘ the man asked. ‘Tell me so that I may believe in him.‘
Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.‘
Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,‘ and he worshipped him.
The above references give far more information about who exactly this ‘Son of Man’ is. Matthew 16:13-17, Luke 22:48 and John 9:35-38 make it crystal clear that it can only refer to Jesus. The other examples teach us much more about his character and purpose. We see that:
He has power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6);
He is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8);
He is the king of a kingdom and the angels are his (Matthew 13:41);
He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:13-17);
He was to be killed and raised from the dead (resurrected) (Matthew 17:9,22,23;20:18,19;26:2; Mark 8:31;9:31;10:33,34; Luke 9:22;18:31-33);
He was to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28);
He was unique and came from heaven (John 3:13);
All who believe in him are to have eternal life (John 3:14,15);
He accepted worship (John 9:35-38).
In the light of the above, it will be seen that the Christian position on the person of Jesus has ample support from the Bible. Far from being simply a human prophet of Allah, he is unique, far above all other prophets. The following reference from Revelation 1:12-18 is yet again instructive. John, in his vision from God, says:
I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw… someone ‘like a son of man’, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters… His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me andsaid: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades [Hell].
Christians and Muslims alike must be very careful not to make a mistake in their treatment of this issue, for it is one of immense importance. We would all do well to remember the words of Jesus in Luke 12:37-40:
You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Toby Jepson
Muslims and the Crucifixion
Toby Jepson
By Toby Jepson
Introduction
Most Muslims deny that Jesus was ever crucified. I hope in this paper to examine and evaluate some of the reasons that are given in support of this assertion.
Claims such as this are usually made for one of two reasons: either there is factual evidence, or there is a need to make the claim despite a clear lack of evidence. It is my opinion that this claim falls into the latter category, although I shall examine some supposed evidence that is sometimes given in support.
The Opinion of the Qur’an
The Qur’an is, of course, the primary source of Muslim belief and practice. Surah 4:157 states:
And because of [the Jews’] saying, ‘We killed Messiah ‘Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah,’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Isa was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. 1)
Here we have a clear denial of the crucifixion. Note the idea that the likeness of Jesus was transferred onto another man. We shall return to this question below.
In the Muslim mind then, the issue is sealed: the Qur’an says it, so it must be. However, for the non-Muslim observer, this is not good enough. On something so important we would expect corroboration from other reliable sources. This would then help us to evaluate whether the Qur’an, a work at best from the 7th century, has any authority to pronounce on events in the 1st century.
Supposed Historical Evidence
There are Muslims who, to their credit, claim ample historical support for their denial of the crucifixion. Consider the following quote:
There are also several historical sources other than the Bible and the Qur’an which confirm that many of the early Christians did not believe that Jesus died on the cross…The Cerinthians and later the Basilidians, for example, who were among the first of the early Christian communities, denied that Jesus was crucified…The Carpocratians, another early Christian sect, believed that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but another in his place… 2
In attempting to dispel the ‘myth’ of Jesus’ crucifixion, the authors appeal to ‘historical sources’ that refer to some of the ‘earliest communities of Christians’. The implication is clearly that these groups, being near to the event, had real, historical reasons for denying Jesus’ crucifixion. They are portrayed as genuine, orthodox believers, fighting for the truth against a rising tide of heresy, in particular the ‘Pauline’ Christians and their ‘false’ doctrines such as the trinity and the deity of Jesus.
In order to judge this claim, we need to know who these groups were, what they believed and why they denied the crucifixion. Then we may evaluate whether they have any relevance to the debate.
The Basilidians
Basilides taught at Alexandria in Egypt, around 125-150AD. 3 The early church historians (Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Clement) differ as to exactly what he taught, but he seems clearly of the Gnostic school of thought. His followers appear to have expanded his doctrine after his death.
Irenaeus tells us that the Basilidians believed in one supreme God called Abraxas, who presided over 365 different heavens. Each heaven was ruled subordinately by a different order of angels, the lowest order creating the earth. The God of the Jews was one of these inferior angels. The gods of other nations (e.g. Ammonites, Moabites) were also angels of this order, whose interests therefore conflicted, resulting in fights and feuds between them and their followers. In the course of time all became corrupt and lost their original heavenly knowledge (gnosis in Greek).
In order to rectify this situation, Abraxas sent down his Son, the Christ, who joined himself to the man Jesus, teaching mankind the knowledge they had lost. The God of the Jews, obviously angry at this encroachment, was unable to harm the Christ, yet instigated his people against Jesus, whom they therefore killed. 4
Along with many in the 2nd century, the Basilidians held that matter was inherently evil. They could not accept that the resurrection of physical human bodies would serve any possible good, so they denied it. Denying a general physical resurrection, they had to deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, this obliged them to deny Christ’s crucifixion, instead saying that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place. 5
The Cerinthians
The Cerinthians were an earlier group, followers of Cerinthus, one of the original Gnostic teachers in the mid to late 1st century. Irenaeus and Jerome state that the apostle John wrote his account of the gospel primarily as a refutation of Cerinthus’ heresy.
Again, Cerinthus’ beliefs are unacceptable to both Christians and Muslims. He taught that the creator was not the Supreme God, but a power that was ignorant of and inferior to the one true God. The divine Christ was sent by the Supreme God and joined to the man Jesus, who himself was not born of a virgin, but in the normal way via sexual intercourse. In fact, Cerinthus did believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but simply taught that the divine Christ departed prior to the event, leaving the man on his own. 6 7
The Carpocratians
Carpocrates was an Alexandrian Gnostic from the early 2nd century. It is thought that 2 Peter and Jude were directed against early forms of his heresy. He taught that the creator was not the Supreme God and also denied the virgin birth. Jesus was portrayed as a man endowed with special knowledge from a previous existence, who rose above his fellow humans and attained his unique position as Christ. This led Carpocrates to suggest that anyone with sufficient knowledge and power could attain the same spiritual level as Christ did.
Some of their beliefs are uncertain, but Irenaeus states that they believed in a form of reincarnation, where escape from bodily existence was conditional on seeking out every possible human experience, despising the enslaving laws of society. Although the founders may not have been guilty of the grosser impurities, their principles certainly led to them. Carpocrates’ son, Epiphanes, argued that God must have been joking when he forbade Israel to covet their neighbours’ wives, as it was God who had given humans the desire for multiple sexual partners. 8 9
The Relevance of Gnostic Teachings
We must not deny the importance of this brief historical survey. To begin with, not all of these groups actually denied that Jesus was crucified. Some thought he was, yet downplayed the importance of the physical man, elevating the divine Christ who was supposedly separate. Others claimed that someone else was cunningly switched for Jesus before the crucifixion. What is clear is that they were basing their beliefs on flawed philosophy, not historical knowledge. They rejected the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ simply because it was distasteful to them.
Even more importantly, their worldview was one which both Christians and Muslims must reject completely. Some of the major beliefs of these groups are outlined again below:
the God of Abraham and Moses (i.e. Allah) was a created being, an angel;
there were many other Gods of the same order as the Creator (i.e. polytheism);
Jesus was either a man who was joined to the divine Son at his baptism and then deserted before the crucifixion, or who by his own effort attained his status as Christ;
the physical resurrection of humans at the Day of Judgement would not happen;
physical matter (e.g. the human body) was inherently evil;
the virgin birth of Jesus did not occur;
no rules governed behaviour as good and evil were imaginary.
Not all of these ideas were held by the same group, but they give a good idea of where they were coming from. They were not ‘Christians’ at all but followed their own romantic idea of a ‘Christ’ that had no basis in history. By the same reasoning I can claim to be a devout Muslim because I think that I ‘submit’ to God in my own way, not according to the Qur’an. This is clearly not acceptable.
Neither were they good Muslims; yet the Qur’an tells us that Jesus’ followers were (Surah 5:111).
And when I inspired the disciples [of Jesus] to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: ‘We believe. And bear witness that we are Muslims’. 10
Therefore, the Gnostics’ opinion on the crucifixion is frankly worthless. Their beliefs are shown to have little to do with history, Christianity or Islam. They are interesting by all means, but are of little help to honest Muslims who wish to refute the crucifixion with sound evidence. Ironically, the Basilidian belief that someone was exchanged for Jesus before the crucifixion may be a possible source for the identical idea found in the Qur’an.
The Gospel of Barnabas
This fascinating book is seen by many Muslims as preserving an original and accurate account of the life of Jesus. Unfortunately, few have ever read it. The following quotes from the ‘gospel’ give the gist of its account of the crucifixion:
…the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus…The soldiers took Judas and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus… So they led him to Mount Calvary… and there they crucified him naked… 11
This clearly supports the Qur’anic assertion that another was crucified in Jesus’ place after having been made to look like him. This would be both convenient and convincing if the ‘gospel’ had any historical authenticity at all. Sadly, it is nothing but a pious mediaeval fraud, whose gross blunders of history, geography, language and more make quite amusing reading. Readers should consult one of several well-written critiques. 12 Suffice it to say that it appears to have been written by a disgruntled Christian in mediaeval Europe who converted to Islam and wanted to do something in support of his new-found faith, even before he had understood it fully. A few of its more major mistakes are listed below:
It assumes that Jerusalem is a sea port and Capernaum in the mountains, whereas the reverse is true;
It mentions both shoes and wine barrels, neither of which were invented by the time of Jesus;
It claims that the Year of Jubilee occurred every 100 years (biblically it was every 50), a situation that only ever occurred once in history, under a mediaeval Pope;
Its view of Hell is at odds with the Qur’an, but strangely reminiscent of the mediaeval Italian poet Dante, in his book The Inferno;
It claims that Jesus was the Christ but not the Messiah (this it ascribes to Muhammad) – a terrible mistake as they are one and the same, Christ being derived from Greek and Messiah from Hebrew, both meaning ‘the anointed one’.
Thus it can be seen that this witness is again totally unreliable and gives us no insight into the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion. Muslims would do best to avoid this forgery, as it is only harmful to their cause.
Contemporary Reports that Support the Crucifixion
Having dealt with the claims against the crucifixion, it would be well to consider the positive evidence given by historians of the period soon after Jesus’ life. 13 There is ample evidence from early Christian writers, but I shall include only those from non-Christians, as these authors had no vested interest in Jesus or his crucifixion.
Tacitus, a Roman historian from the 1st/2nd centuries, said: ‘[Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.’
Lucian was a 2nd century satirist and referred to Jesus as, ‘…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world…’ He denounced the Christians for ‘worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.’
Josephus, a 1st/2nd century Jewish historian, had this to say: ‘[Jesus] was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day’.
It appears that other references were made that have been lost to us today. Bishop Apapius in the 10th century stated: ‘We have found in many books of the philosophers that they refer to the day of the crucifixion of Christ.’ He then goes on to list and quote the ancient works, some of which are not known to modern scholars.
As already seen, Muslims believe that someone was crucified and that people were made to think it was Jesus. Therefore it could be said that these quotes prove nothing. However, the Islamic view is that the early Christians knew that it was not Jesus, so it is strange in this case that all the sources speak of Jesus. We know from elsewhere that many Christians gave their life for the belief that Jesus died and rose again. This would never be the case if they did not believe it.
Conclusion
In this paper I have dealt with some sources that are used by Muslims to lend support to their denial of Jesus’ crucifixion. All have been shown to be late, unreliable and therefore of no worth to the debate. On the other hand, I have quoted contemporary sources outside Christianity that take the crucifixion as historical fact. From this brief overview it is clear that there is ample evidence for the crucifixion, but virtually none against.
We return to my assertion in the introduction, that Muslim denial of the crucifixion is based on need rather than fact. Their only authority in this case is the Qur’an, a book far removed from the event it claims to inform us of. It is in direct contradiction to the historical material we have looked at and therefore its authority on this question must be rejected. Muslims, in taking the Qur’an to be divine revelation, are forced to claim that all other sources that disagree with it are mistaken or corrupted. Yet as shown above it may well be one of these suspicious sources that forms the basis for the Qur’an’s denial in the first place.
We are left asking why the Qur’an should choose to deny the crucifixion without good evidence. I assume that this is related to the Islamic idea of prophethood, that God would not allow his great prophet to die such an ignominious death at the hands of traitors and sinners. However, once again the problem lies with the Islamic view. The righteous can suffer, as the book of Job makes abundantly clear. God does not rejoice to see the righteous suffer, but he often has a much larger agenda and is willing to allow it when a greater good will result. We see that nowhere clearer than in the crucifixion, where the only Righteous One offered himself as a loving sacrifice in order that all sinners could have the opportunity of forgiveness. We only need to accept the Bible’s perspective on the situation. I would urge all Muslims to do just that.
References
Khan, MM. The Noble Qur’an. Riyadh. Darussalam, 1996 (15th edition)
‘Ata’ur-Rahim M, Thomson A. Jesus, Prophet of Islam. London. Ta-Ha, 1996 (revised edition). p47.
Cross FL. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford. OUP, 1997. pp168, 169.
Blunt JH. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought. London. Longmans Green & Co, 1891. pp67-69.
Ibid
Op Cit. pp104-106.
George L. The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. London. Robson Books, 1995. p71.
Ibid. p66.
Blunt JH. Op cit. pp102,103.
Khan MM. Op cit.
Gospel of Barnabas. Trans. Ragg L & L. No publisher or date given. Chapters 216, 217.
E.g. Campbell WF. The Gospel of Barnabas – its True Value. Rawalpindi. Christian Study Centre, 1989.
Material taken from McDowell J. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino. Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972. pp84-88.
An Explanation of the Unipersonality of Christ for Muslims – Footnote 33
Gerry Redman
Gerry Redman
Footnote:
Wahba, Fr. Matthias F., St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church, Hayward, California, USA:
Monophysitism: Reconsidered
Introduction:
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in which I am a priest, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, and the Malankara Indian Churches. The common element among them is their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon of AD 451. Accordingly they prefer to be called ‘Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.’
The Council of Chalcedon caused a big schism within the church which lasted until the present. In addition, after the Arab invasion in the seventh century, the churches lost communication with each other. Through this long period, the non-Chalcedonians were accused of Eutychianism, and called ‘Monophysites’, meaning that they believe in one single nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. They never accepted this idea considering it a heresy. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the issue…
Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon
… The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the Alexandrines rejected it.
The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, ‘If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.’ …
Two Different Traditions
Dioscorus, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional formula of faith received from St. Athanasius was the ‘one nature of the Word of God.’ This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the single nature (i.e. Monophysite). The Alexandrian theology was by no means docetic. Neither was it Apollinarian, as stated clearly. It seems that the main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation of the issue between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. While Antioch formulated its Christology against Apollinarius and Eutyches, Alexandria did against Arius and Nestorius. At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused to affirm the ‘in two natures’ and insisted on the ‘from two natures.’ Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed theological standpoint between them.
Mia Physis
The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St. Cyril ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’. The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula. Now what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the ‘one incarnate nature?’. They mean by mia one, but not ‘single one’ or ‘simple numerical one,’ as some scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. St. Cyril maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ, as Meyendorff puts it, ‘does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man.’
Mia Physis and Soteriology
‘The Alexandrian Christology’, writes Frances Young, ‘is a remarkably clear and consistent construction, especially when viewed within its soteriological context. Mia physis, for the Alexandrians, is essential for salvation. The Lord is crucified, even though His divinity did not suffer but His humanity did. The sacrifice of the Cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God, and thus has the power of salvation.
Common Faith
It is evident that both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians agree on the following points:
They all condemn and anathematize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches.
The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without confusing or changing.
The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence.
Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not mere conjunction of natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God.
They all accept the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of idioms), attributing all the deeds and words of Christ to the one hypostasis, the Incarnate Son of God…
I conclude that the term ‘monophysitism’ does not reflect the real belief of the non-Chalcedonians. They prefer not to be called ‘monophysites,’ as far as the term may be misunderstood. They believe in one nature ‘out of two’, ‘one united nature’, a ‘composite nature’ or ‘one incarnate nature and not a ‘single nature’. There is no evidence that the term was used during the fifth century. Most probably it was introduced later in a polemic way on behalf of the Chalcedonian Churches. However, considering the past, the non-Chalcedonians are better to be called ‘mia-physites’ than ‘monophysites’…
An Explanation of the Unipersonality of Christ for Muslims – Footnote 6
Gerry Redman
Gerry Redman
Footnote:
Bremmer, Michael. The Deity of Jesus Christ:
‘Walter Martin, in his classic, The Kingdom of the Cults, writes concerning the JW’s deceptive translation of Jn. 1.1:
“Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is Word (Logos), the verb, was. There can be no direct object following was since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject, in this case, Word (Logos). In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar, Colwell, formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case, theos – God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for Theos (God) and to translate it a ‘god’ is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since Theos is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (Logos). Christ, then, if He is the ‘Word made flesh’ (John 1:14) can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God’s Word be denied.
Jehovah’s Witnesses in their New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, on the appendix pages 773-77, attempt to discredit the Greek text on this point, for they realize that if Jesus and Jehovah are ‘One’ in nature, their theology cannot stand since they deny the unity of nature. The refutation of their arguments on this point is conclusive.
The claim is that since the definite article is used with Theon in John 1.1c and not with Theos in John 1.1d, therefore the omission is designed to show a difference; the alleged difference being that in the first case the One True God (Jehovah) is meant, while in the second ‘a god,’ other than, and inferior to, the first is meant, this latter ‘god’ being Jesus Christ.
On page 776b the claim is made that the rendering ‘a god’ is correct because ‘… all the doctrine of sacred Scriptures bears out the correctness of this rendering.’ This remark focuses attention on the fact that the whole problem involved goes far beyond this text. Scripture does in fact teach the full and equal Deity of Christ. Why then is so much made of this one verse? It is probably because of the surprise effect derived from the show of pseudo scholarship in the use of a familiar text. Omission of the article with Theos does not mean that ‘a god’ other than the one true God is meant. Let one examine these passages where the article is not used with Theos and see if the rendering ‘a god’ makes sense: Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; 2:40; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Romans 1.7, 17, 18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 15:10; Philippians 2.11, 13; Titus 1:1 and many, many more. The ‘a god’ contention proves too weak and is inconsistent. To be consistent in this rendering of ‘a god,’ Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to translate every instance where the article is absent as a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative),etc. This they do not do in Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17, etc. (See the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and The Emphatic Diaglott at above mentioned references.)
You cannot honestly render theos ‘a god’ In John 1:1, and then theou ‘of God’ (Jehovah), in Matthew 5.9, Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, etc., when theou is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an article and must be rendered (following Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument) ‘of a god’ not ‘of God’ as both The Emphatic Diaglott and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures put it. We could list at great length, but suggest consultation of the Greek New Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or Westcott & Hort, in conjunction with The Elements of Greek by Francis Kingsley Ball (New York: Macmillian, 1948, pp. 7, 14) on noun endings, etc. So then if Jehovah’s Witnesses must persist in this fallacious ‘a god’ rendition they can at least be consistent, which they are not, and render every instance where the article is absent in the same manner. The truth of the matter is this, that Jehovah’s Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and wherever it suits their fancy regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation as important as God’s Word, every law must be observed. Jehovah’s Witnesses have not been consistent in their observances of those laws.
The writers of the claim have exhibited another trait common to Jehovah’s Witnesses, that of half quoting or misquoting a recognized authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 of the appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures when quoting Dr. Robertson’s words, ‘among the ancient writers ho theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods,’ they fail to note that in the second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says, ‘In the New Testament, however, while we have pros ton theon (John 1:1, 2) it is far more common to find simply theos, especially in the Epistles.’
In other words, the writers of the New Testament frequently do not use the article with theos and yet the meaning is perfectly clear in the context, namely that the One True God is intended. Let one examine the following references where in successive verses and even in the same sentence the article is used with one occurrence of theos and not with another form, and it will be absolutely clear that no such drastic inferences can be drawn from John’s usage in John 1:1, 2 (Matthew 4:3, 4; 12:28; 28:43; Luke 20:37, 38; John 3:2; 13:3; Acts 5:29, 30; Romans 1:7, 8, 17-19; 2:16, 17; 3:5, 22, 23; 4:2, 3, etc.).
The doctrine of the article is important in Greek; it is not used indiscriminately. But we are not qualified to be sure in all cases what is intended. Dr. Robertson is careful to note that it is only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been made (p. 755, A. T. Robertson). The facts are not all known and no such drastic conclusion, as the writers of the appendix note, should he dogmatically affirmed.
It is nonsense to say that a simple noun can be rendered ‘divine,’ and that one without the article conveys merely the idea of quality (pp. 773, 774, appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures). The authors of this note themselves later render the same noun theos as ‘a god’ not as ‘a quality.’ This is a self-contradiction in the context. In conclusion, the position of the writers of this note is made clear at page 774 of the appendix to the New World Translation. of the Christian Greek Scriptures; according to them it is ‘unreasonable’ that the Word (Christ) should be the God with whom He was (John 1:1). Their own manifestly erring reason is made the criterion for determining Scriptural truth. One need only note the obvious misuse in their quotation from Dana and Mantey (the New World Translation of the Christian. Greek Scriptures, pp. 774, 775). Mantey clearly means that the Word was Deity in accord with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, but the writers have dragged in the interpretation ‘a god’ to suit their own purpose, which purpose is the denial of Christ’s Deity, and as a result a denial of the Word of God. The late Dr. Mantey publicly stated that he was quoted out of` context and he personally wrote the Watchtower, declaring ‘there is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that ‘a god’ was a permissible translation in John 1 :1 and it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 The Word was a god'(Michael Van Buskirk, The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower, P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, CA 92626: CARIS, 1976, p. 11).” (The Kingdom of the Cults, P. 85-87)’
An Explanation of the Unipersonality of Christ for Muslims
Gerry Redman
Gerry Redman
Contents
Introduction
A. The Biblical View
The Two Natures
Definition of ‘Nature’ and ‘Person’
The Meaning of ‘Unipersonality’
The Nature of the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union
Communication of Properties
Kenotic Theories
The Necessity of the Hypostatic Union
Christological Errors
Historic Christian Creeds and Confessions
B. The Islamic view
Conclusion
References
Introduction
One of the great failures of Muslims in terms of their apologetic stance against Christianity, both with regard to the Qur’an and modern Islamic polemics is the absence of any detailed examination of the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union – the dogma that Jesus is simultaneously divine and human whilst yet one person. The Qur’an, it will be seen, never addresses this issue. Among modern Islamic polemicists, there appears to be a definite shyness about investigating the topic. For example, Baagil in his supposed discourse with a Christian presents the latter as stating that Jesus ‘…is both God and man’, whilst the Muslim respondent merely limits himself to rhetorically querying if Jesus actually claimed that? 1Ahmed Deedat has published a booklet entitled The God that never was, that essentially examines texts dealing with the human nature of Jesus, and presents this as ‘God’ doing human physical functions. 2 Yet Deedat could not have been unaware that the historical Christian position is that Christ was both divine and human.
Of course, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is a supernatural paradox – that Jesus could be simultaneously finite and infinite, etc., but then, God’s dealings with humanity are not subject to human patterns of thought. Human beings are finite, and liable both to sin and err. The finite mind cannot fathom the mysteries of God. Ultimately, God can only be known through His own self-revelation. Only the infinite can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite. Thus, Jesus reveals the divine nature in terms of His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. For this reason Jesus is the supreme revelation of God – He reveals the Father, John 1:18; whoever has seen Him has seen the Father. He who is God is also the Word of God. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2. To encounter Him is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation.
Islam agrees with Christianity that God can only be fully known through His self-revelation, since the finite reason of Man cannot comprehend the infinitude of deity. Left to fallible native reason, human beings would always conceive God in terms with which they could understand, with respect to features with which they were familiar. That is, men always seek for analogy. Analogy has its limits with regard to God, precisely because He is unlimited, and, moreover, incomparable, since there is only one, unique deity – a tenet of faith common to Islam and the Bible. Clearly, the concept of the Hypostatic Union has no consistent analogy in nature.
Another point of commonality between Islam and Christianity is belief in the incomprehensibility of God. This is a consequence of the unique, transcendent nature of deity, and of human finitude. All human attempts to comprehend Him apart from revelation are inadequate and doomed to failure. Berkhof notes that this was the teaching of the Protestant Reformers:
To Calvin, God in the depths of His being is past finding out. ‘His essence’, he says, ‘is incomprehensible; so that His divinity escapes all human senses.’ The Reformers do not deny that man can learn something of the nature of God from His creation, but maintain that he can acquire true knowledge of Him only from special revelation, under the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit. 3
This is a position with which Muslims are bound to agree. For example, one Muslim writer observes the following about the incomprehensibility of God:
‘But to have complete knowledge of God is beyond man’s ability. Man is finite and Allah is infinite…The creature cannot comprehend the Creator; “They (mankind) cannot encompass Him (Allah) with their knowledge”. Ta-ha, 20:110. Islam preaches that mankind should only refer to Allah as He has referred to Himself. There is no scope what-so-ever for inventing new ideas about Him or thinking of Him in a manner that suits us.’ 4
Similarly, Yusuf Ali comments on S. 112:
The nature of Allah is here indicated to us in a few words, such as we can understand.
The qualities of Allah are described in numerous places elsewhere, e.g., in lix. 22-24, lxii. 1, and ii. 255. Here we are specially taught to avoid the pitfalls into which men and nations have fallen at various times in trying to understand Allah. The first thing we have to note is that His nature is so sublime, so far beyond our limited conceptions, that the best way in which we can realise Him is to feel that He is a Personality, ‘He’, and not a mere abstract conception of philosophy. He is near us; He cares for us; we owe our existence to Him. Secondly, He is the One and Only God, the Only One to Whom worship is due; all Other things or beings that we can think of are His creatures and in no way comparable to Him. Thirdly, He is Eternal, without beginning or end, Absolute, not limited by time or place or circumstance, the Reality. Fourthly, we must not think of Him as having a son or a father, for that would be to import animal qualities into our conception of Him. Fifthly, He is not like any other person or thing that we know or can imagine: His qualities and nature are unique.
The divergence between Islam and Christianity begins when we consider the identity of divine self-revelation. Islam claims it is the Qur’an; Christianity holds that it is found in the Bible and supremely in Jesus Christ as the Word of God. Hence, Muslims can scarcely object to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union because it is paradoxical and does not conform to their ideas of human reason, for the very reason that finite human reason is incapable of comprehending the divine essence, and thus fully understanding the Hypostatic Union. The great Princeton theologian A. A. Hodge observed that the very nature of the Incarnation does not allow for adequate analogy or comprehensibility:
The Person of the incarnate God is unique. His birth has had no precedents and his existence no analogy. He cannot be explained by being referred to a class, nor can he be illustrated by an example… This unique personality, as it surpasses all analogy, also transcends all understanding. The proud intellect of man is constantly aspiring to remove all mysteries and to subject the whole sphere of existence to the daylight of rational explanation. Such attempts are constantly ending in the most grotesque failure. Even in the material world it is true that omnia exeunt in mysterium. If we cannot explain the relation which the immaterial soul sustains to the organized body in the person of man, why should We be surprised to find that all attempts to explain the intimate relations which the eternal Word and the human soul and body sustain to each other in the Person of Christ have miserably failed? 5
This paper will attempt to explain the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union to Muslims, illustrating how Jesus is concurrentlydivine and human. It will also study what the Qur’an has to say on the subject, and consider the implications of Qur’anic Christology, both in terms of what it denies, and what it presents as Christian doctrine.
A. The Biblical view
1. The Two Natures
Although this is not the place for an extended treatment of either the humanity or deity of Christ, it is as well to give a short overview of some of the evidence for both these doctrines.
(a) Humanity of Christ
Today, this doctrine is rarely questioned, though we shall see that this was not always the case. We should firstly observe that whilst the conception of Jesus was supernatural, He had a normal human birth, Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Galatians 4:4. Also, He experienced a normal human development – Luke 2:40-52, Hebrews 5:8. He ‘grew’ in wisdom. His Messianic consciousness begins to find expression at the age of twelve, and is perfected at the Baptism – Luke 3:22.
Jesus spoke of Himself as a Man, John 8:40, and is so termed by others – Acts 2:22, 1 Corinthians 15:21. He had a body and soul – Matthew 26:26, 38, Luke 24:39. He was subject to human wants and sufferings – Matthew 4:2, 8:24: hunger – Matthew 21:18; thirst – Matthew 11:19; weariness – John 4:6. He experienced true agony – Mark 14:33-36. Also, He genuinely knew the emotions of love – John 1:5, sorrow, Matthew 26:37, and anger Mark 3:5. In order to be the antitype of Adam, ‘bearer of destiny’ Romans 5:17ff, He must be true Man.
As a true man He worships the Father – Luke 4:16, and prays – 3:21, 6:12. He had, as a man, limited knowledge – Mark 6:38, Luke 2:46, Mark 13:32. However, it must be noted that He was sinless – Hebrews 4:15 – John 8:46, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5. He resisted temptation. He was not a superman, but a true man filled with the Holy Spirit; His miracles are performed in the power of the Spirit.
(b) Deity of Christ
This is explicitly taught in John 1:1 – ‘the Word was God’; Greek scholars unanimously reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation perversion. Michael Bremmer’s article The Deity of Jesus Christ explores the magisterial work of Walter Martin on the Watchtower cult, and their distortion of this verse, a mistranslation that is beginning to be employed by Muslim apologists. 6 The Word was God. The syntax of John 1:1 is instructive in this regard, by virtue of placing the definite predicate before the verb but without the definite article (‘Colwell’s rule’):
‘En arxh ‘hn ‘o logos, kai ‘o logos’hn pros ton qeon, kai qeos’hn ‘o logos.
Not only does it affirm that Jesus (the Word) is God, it also demonstrates that the Godhead is not exhausted in Jesus, that is, that Jesus is not alone God, but rather there are more persons than the Son in the Godhead. Jesus is called ‘Lord’ – kurios – Jews used this to render ‘YHWH’, and we find it employed in Romans 10:9 – ‘confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord’. John 8:58 presents Him as claiming the personal name of God, ‘I am’ (YHWH). Cf. also Colossians 1:15; 2:9; Philippians 2:6-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 John 5:20. Jesus, in John 5:22-23, states that all men may give Him equal honour as to the Father, and since the honour we give to God is worship, Jesus must be God. It is clear from John 5:18-19 that the Jews recognised Jesus as claiming deity.
YHWH is Shepherd of Israel – Psalm 23:1; Jesus is God Shepherd – John 10:11-16. Other texts pointing to the deity of Christ include John 20:28 – ‘My Lord and My God’; Acts 20:28 – ‘the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.’ It is likely that John 1:18 affirms the deity of Christ – ‘No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him.’ The Greek makes this more explicit
yeon‘oudeiv‘ewrakenpwpote monogenhvyeov ‘o
‘wn‘eivton kolpontou patrov‘ekeinov‘exhghsato.
Romans 9:5 presents Jesus as ‘God over all’ – the context of sorrow over Israel’s fall precludes a doxology, and such does not usually appear in the middle of a passage. Doxologies usually refer to someone mentioned in the preceding sentence – Romans 1:25; 11:26; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:18. Whenever ‘euloghtov (‘blessed’) is used in an independent doxology, it always stands at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3. As it stands, ‘God over all’ balances ‘concerning the flesh’. Christ is God over all.
Romans 14:10 refers to the Judgment Seat of God, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 ascribes it to Christ. Titus 2:13 speaks of the ‘great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as does 2 Peter 1:1. If God and Jesus were distinguished, there would normally need to be a definite article before ‘Saviour’, but it is absent, so the texts affirm Christ’s deity. Revelation 1:17, 18; 2:8; 22:12, 13, 16 all refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End – used of God in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.
2. Definition of ‘Nature’ and ‘Person’
The Greek word hypostasis ‘upostasiv essentially means ‘substance’, hence its employment in Hebrews 11:1. The Christological controversies of the Early Church were often reducible to semantics, rather than concrete issues. Often it was because one word was used in a certain way in one area (e.g. Antioch) whilst a different area employed it otherwise (e.g. Alexandria) that problems arose. Nonetheless, the formula that was eventually accepted essentially made hypostasisequivalent to ‘person’, hence it is said that there are three hypostases in one divine essence – ousia ‘ousia. Probably the best definition is that of ‘the essence of an individual in virtue of which it is itself’. Thus, equivalent to ‘person’.
The Greek word translated as ‘nature’ is fusiv phusis (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:14; James 3:7). This is best understood as a substance (essence, being) possessed in common. Berkhof gives a helpful aid to definition:
The term ‘nature’ denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term “person” denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. Now the Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself. 7
3. The Meaning of ‘Unipersonality’
a) Not Adoptionism
The Second Person of the Trinity does not in a charismatic way endue a distinct human person. There is perfect identity between Jesus of Nazareth and God the Son. Rather, the eternal Word came as flesh on the human scene – John 1:14.
b) Not Bi-Personality
As implied above, there are not two beings i.e. ‘persons.’ in the Mediator; only two natures. Berkhof points out that there is no ‘distinction of ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ in the inner life of the Mediator, such as we find in the triune Being of God, where one person addresses the other… Jesus never uses the plural in referring to Himself.’ 8
c) Not Docetism/Impersonality
The humanity of Christ is genuine, so docetism is untenable; and in order to be truly human, Jesus as a man must possess all that is native to human nature, He had a human mind, spirit, tastes, needs, will and all else that corresponds to the inner and exterior life of a normal man. Thus, the humanity of Christ may be said to be ‘personal’ without being a person – i.e. it does not possess an independent subsistence. We will examine this further later.
d) Not Metamorphosis
We are not presented with a case of metamorphosis whereby God the Son changes into a man, in the same manner as humans change into animals or vice versa in legends or fairy tales, Rather, the integrity of the deity is preserved. Without ceasing to be divine, God the Son assumes another (i.e. human) nature alongside His deity. John Murray observes in relation to John 1:14 ‘…lest we should interpret the incarnation in terms of transmutation or divestiture, John hastens to inform us that, in beholding the incarnate Word, they beheld his glory as the glory of the only-begotten from the Father (John 1:14)… he proceeds to identify the only-begotten in his unabridged character as “God only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father (v. 18).’ 9
4. The Nature of the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union
The Second Person of the Trinity, whilst remaining God, assumed a human nature alongside His divine nature. This means we are dealing with the same Person who appeared to Moses and Joshua, the same Person who created the Cosmos. Deity being immutable and impassible, no change occurs in the Divine Logos. He remains the Creator and Maintainer of all things. We thus are presented with a Jesus who is at one point designated by the divine title, Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Colossians 1:13, 14, and likewise with regard to the human title – John 3:13; 6:62; Romans 9:5. Berkhof clearly presents the Evangelical position on this complex issue:
There is but one person in the Mediator, the unchangeable Logos. The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ… The human nature of Christ as such does not constitute a human person. The Logos did not adopt a human person, so that we have two persons in the Mediator, but simply assumed a human nature… At the same time it is not correct to speak of the human nature of Christ as impersonal. This is true only in the sense that this nature has no independent subsistence of its own. Strictly speaking, however, the human nature of Christ was not for a moment impersonal. The Logos assumed that nature into personal subsistence with Himself. The human nature has its personal existence in the person of the Logos. It is in-personal rather than impersonal. For that very reason we are not warranted to speak of the human nature of Christ as imperfect or incomplete. His human nature is not lacking in any of the essential qualities belonging to that nature, and also has individuality, that is, personal subsistence, in the person of the Son of God. 10
A. A. Hodge presents a similar picture, emphasising that what has occurred is that the eternal Second Person of the Trinity has assumed another nature, not adopted another person, whilst retaining His deity:
Again: the Scriptures teach us that this amazing personality does not centre in his humanity, and that it is not a composite one originated by the power of the Spirit when he brought the two natures together in the womb of the Virgin Mary. It was not made by adding manhood to Godhead. The Trinity is eternal and unchangeable. A new Person is not substituted for the second Person of the Trinity, neither is a fourth Person added to the Trinity But the Person of Christ is just the one eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, which in time, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the womb of the Virgin, took a human nature (not a man, but the seed of man, humanity in the germ) into personal union with himself. The Person is eternal and divine. The humanity is introduced into it. The centre of the personality always continues in the eternal personal Word or Son of God. 11
Against all adoptionist positions, this position must be emphasised – that the eternal Son of God assumed an individual human person. Neither was it simply a human body that He assumed, but rather human nature in its entirety – John 1:14 means this. It is usually presented that the human nature of Christ is in-personal, rather than impersonal – i.e. the human nature has no independent entity. It is important to note that this does not mean that the humanity possesses no free will or consciousness. This view is termed Enhypostasia; another view is Anhypostasia – view that the humanity of Christ was impersonal – He assumed ‘Man’, rather than becoming a man. The modern and very able theologian Bruce Milne explains these terms:
This terminology was coined in the 6th century by Leontius during discussions of the identity of the personal centre, the self-conscious ‘I’, of Jesus Christ. If this self-conscious ‘I’ was the divine Word, the human nature assumed lacked a human self-consciousness; this looked dangerously like the Apollinarian denial of Christ’s true humanity and hence of his fitness to act as our redeemer. The contrary theory, of a full human self-consciousness in Christ independent of and alongside the Logos, threatened the integrity of the incarnation as an act by which the pre-existent Son of God became man, and also gave rise to another person alongside and independent of the Logos, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, who is then not the eternal Son of God and can neither reveal God nor bring God’s salvation to us.
Leontius proposed that, negatively, the human self-conscious ‘I’ had no existence of its own; it existed only within the hypostatic union with the Logos (Gk. an = without, hence anhypostasia).
Positively, he proposed that it is present and real only in (Gk. en) the divine ‘I’ (hence enhypostasia). This permits the assertion of full manhood but retains the biblical recognition that the essential self-hood of the God-man is that of the eternal Son and Word of God who effectually reveals God and brings divine salvation to mankind. 12
A. N. S. Lane has described the difference succinctly, in noting how the Chalcedonian Definition met the challenges of both Nestorianism and Monophysitism: ‘the human nature of Christ is not merely anhypostasic (without a hypostasis), but enhypostasic in the Logos – i.e. the hypostasis of Christ’s human nature is that of God the Logos.’ 13
5. Communication of Properties
The obvious question that arises at this point is ‘what effect has the Hypostatic Union on the distinct natures of Christ?’ An extremely helpful answer to the query and exposition of the relationship of the two natures has been supplied by Stuart Olyott’s book Son of Mary, Son of God, in which he discusses the effects of the union on both natures:
His divine nature, being a divine nature, was of course eternal, immutable and incapable of addition, and therefore remained essentially unchanged. The whole immutable divine essence continued to exist as the person of the eternal Word, but now embraced a perfect human nature in the unity of his person. That human nature became the instrument of his will. In this way the relation of the divine nature to creation changed, although the nature itself remained unaltered. The eternal Son of God was now ‘God with us’ (Matthew 1:23), God ‘manifest in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16). Of course, the divine nature of Christ remained incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance, and insusceptible to weakness and temptation. It was not a divine nature which had assumed flesh, but the Son of God as person who had become incarnate. He could be ignorant and weak, and could suffer and die. This was because he had assumed an additional nature capable of these things, and not because there had been any change in his divine nature…
The human nature of Christ …never had any existence apart from him, and therefore was exalted from its very inception … its exaltation did not stop it being an unmixed and essentially unchanged human nature. It was not deified by the hypostatical union, but remained pure and separate humanity… Not only so, but his human nature is included in the worship due to him. The grounds upon which we worship him are that he is the eternal Son of God, possessed of divine attributes. But the object of our worship is not the divine excellences in the abstract, but the divine person. That person has two natures. We bow before a man, not because any man as man is to be adored, but because this particular man is God manifest in the flesh. He is the God-Man, at whose feet we fall unashamed. 14
A. A. Hodge makes the important observation of the Unipersonality of Jesus concerning His two natures, emphasising that we are not dealing with a hybrid individual, but rather One in whom the natures retain their integrity, yet what can be postulated of one nature can be ascribed to the Person:
Pointing to that unique phenomenon exhibited biographically in the four Gospels, the Scriptures affirm – (a) ‘He is God.’ Then we would naturally say, if he is God, he cannot be man; if he is infinite, he cannot be finite. But the Scriptures proceed to affirm, pointing to the same historical subject, ‘He is man.’ Then, again, we would naturally say, if that phenomenon is both God and man, he must be two Persons in reality, and one Person only in appearance. But yet again the Scriptures prevent us, In every possible way they set him before us as one Person. His divinity is never objective to his humanity, nor his humanity to his divinity. His divinity never loves, speaks to, nor sends his humanity, but both divinity and humanity act together as the common energies of one Person. All the attributes and all the acts of both natures are referred to the one Person. The same ‘I’ possessed glory with the Father before the world was, and laid down his life for his sheep. Sometimes in a single proposition the title is taken from the divine side of his Person, while the predicate is true only of his human side, as when it is said, ‘The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’ The same Person is called God because of his divinity, while it is affirmed that he shed his human blood for his Church. Again: while standing among his disciples on the earth, he says, ‘The Son of man, which is in heaven.’ Here the same Person, who is called Son of man because of his humanity, is declared to be omnipresent — that is, at the same time on earth and in heaven — as to his divine nature. This, of course, implies absolute singleness of Person, including at once divine and human attributes. 15
It is vital to note that there is never any communication from one nature to the other, only to the Person. Olyott’s treatment of the subject is extremely helpful in regard to this issue:
We must be clear that the properties of both the human and the divine natures of Christ are the properties of the person that he is. The person can be said to be almighty, omnisicient, omnipresent, and so on. He can also be called a man of sorrows, of limited knowledge and power, and subject to human want and miseries. But we must be careful to guard against thinking that anything belonging to his divine nature was communicated or transferred to the human nature, or vice versa. Christ shared in human weaknesses, although the Deity cannot. Christ participates in the essential perfections of the Godhead, although humanity cannot. This is possible because he is one person, the God-Man. We do not have to postulate any change in either of his natures, although we are admitting that their union did not leave them unaffected. 16
Christian Systematic Theology has historically explained the relationship of the two natures to the One Person by employing the following grid:
a) Communicatio Idiomatum
The properties of either nature are now ascribed to the Person. Hence Jesus is both finite and infinite, omnipotent and limited in power, etc. – hence Jesus could amaze (and outrage) His hearers by claiming pre-existence and deity – e.g. John 8:58; cf. Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:3.
b) Communicatio Charismatum
Gratia habitualis – Christ as a man is filled with the Holy Spirit (N.B. this is without limit – John 3:34). He lives and ministers as such – a man of faith, endowed with the gifts of the Spirit. Many theologians speak of a gratia unionis – the ‘grace and glory of being united to the divine Logos’. A. A. Hodge stated ‘The God-man…. is to be worshipped in the perfection of his entire person, because only of his divine attributes’. 17
c) Communicatio Operantium
The One, undivided Person acts continually in all His actions. His work is divine-human. The two natures co-operate, working parallel – indeed act as one, within the qualification of operating in the sphere of its own energeia. There is no conflict between the two natures.
The last word on this subject belongs to the great systematic theologian T. C. Hammond:
…while the two natures were united, they were not inter-mingled and altered in their individual properties, so that there resulted a third type of substance which was neither divine nor human… there were not transfers of attributes from one to the other, such as a human characteristic transferred to the divine, nor was our Lord’s deity reduced to human limitations… the union was not an indwelling such as the indwelling of the Christian by the Spirit of God, but a personal union such that the resulting being was a unit, who thought and acted as a unit. While each nature retained its own properties they were not held together merely as though the hypostatic union was a ring thrown around two incompatible elements. There was a real harmony. 18
6. Kenotic Theories
Philippians 2:6ff, especially v7, speaks of Christ ’emptying’ Himself. What did this involve? Of what did He empty Himself? That question has exercised scholars, particularly Lutherans:
(a) Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby
These scholars distinguished between the absolute and essential attributes of God, e.g. absolute power, holiness, love and truth; and relative attributes – omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. The latter are laid aside – the argument is that doing so is essential to human nature.
(b) Gess and Beecher
They held that the Logos divested Himself of divine attributes – that He ceased from cosmic functions and emptied Himself of eternal consciousness during His time of earthly sojourn. The depotentiated Logos took the place of His human soul.
(c) Ebrard
As with Gess, Ebrard held that the Incarnate Logos took the place of the human soul in Christ. His life-centre is human, but He continued the exercise of His divine qualities in the Trinitarian sphere.
(d) Martensen and Gore
They proposed that Jesus had two non-communicating life-centres; He continued to function in Trinitarian sphere, and as Creator/Sustainer; but the depotentiated Logos was unaware of His cosmic functions.
Critique
i) It is based on a misunderstanding of Philippians2:7 – ‘ekenwsen ekenosen, aorist of kenoo, is best rendered ‘to make oneself of no account’; other texts employing the verb, Romans 4:14; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3 clarify its meaning as ‘no account’, ‘no effect’ or ‘no reputation’.
ii) Proper exegesis of Philippians2 displays that the import of the passage is not the elucidation of either the Incarnation or the deity of Christ, but rather Paul’s admonition to believers to as humble-minded as Christ was, cf. v5. There is an obvious allusion to the First Sin, where Adam ‘grasped’ at equality with God, Genesis 3:5, seeking a place which higher than his own, and not his by right, so that far from being the servant of God, he would be His equal, and rather than being an entity that was dependent upon God for his existence, he would be possessed of aseity. Jesus was divine by right, and was subject of angelic adoration and heavenly glory, yet He voluntarily relinquished such a position in order to take the place of a servant, and for from sinning, He was totally obedient; far from grasping at life, He suffered ignominious death. In this, He was the perfect example to believers.
iii) God is eternal and immutable, so it is impossible for Him to be divested of His attributes. Jesus therefore did notrelinquish His divine attributes. We find the disciples in Acts performing many of the same miracles as Jesus, yet unlike them, Jesus accepts worship; thus He remains God even in the State of Humiliation; this is the mystery of God Incarnate.
7. The Necessity of the Hypostatic Union
Why was it necessary for God to take human nature? What is the necessity of Christ having two natures? Firstly, it was necessary because the Covenant demanded it. The Covenant promise to the Patriarchs was ‘I will be their God, they will be my People, and I will dwell in their midst’ – Genesis 17:7-8 ‘And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you and to your seed after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your seed offspring you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.’ Exodus 29:45 ‘And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.’; Leviticus 26:12 ‘And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be My people.’ 2 Corinthians 6:16 ‘for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’; Revelation 21:3 ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God’.
Ultimately, for the covenant promise to be realised, God must dwell in the midst of His people. In the Old Testament, the typological manifestation of this was the Tabernacle and later the Temple, the latter essentially being a concrete, permanent version of the former. The Tabernacle/Temple was the place of divine indwelling, and also the place where God revealed Himself to Man, where sacrifice and thus reconciliation took place, and where the worship of God was effected. When John 1:14 states that ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’, the Greek word used for ‘dwell’ is eskénósen ‘eskhnwsen,which actually means ‘tabernacled’. So, in a further development from the dwelling-place of God in earlier times, God no longer dwells by His Name on the earth in something made by human hands, but dwells physically by virtue of the Incarnation. Thus, the eternal Word, as flesh, entered the human scene and tabernacled among us. Christ came specifically to redeem Man by the Cross, and His death is the means of the New Covenant, Luke 22:20.
Secondly, as we suggested earlier, only God can ultimately reveal God. Every other means has its limitations, since God alone is infinite, and everything else is finite. Therefore, the ultimate self-revelation of God can only result from His ontological auto-disclosure. However, it is impossible for Man to see the divine glory and remain alive, as God revealed to Moses, Exodus 33:20 ‘You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.’ In some way, this divine self-revelation must be veiled; the Incarnation allows for this. In this sense, Jesus is the ultimate Revelation of God to Man – John 1:18 ‘No man has seen God at any time; God the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known’; Hebrews 1:1-2 ‘God, who in previous times spoke to the fathers by the prophets in many portions and in various ways, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son…’ As Olyott states:
It is because of his divine nature that he is a perfect Prophet. Other prophets could do no more than reflect his light, or pass on what they had received from him. All their knowledge was second hand. But the Lord Jesus Christ is God himself. His incarnation has meant that human eyes and ears have seen and heard the one who has been sent by God, who is God. We have received a perfect revelation of God, perfectly suited to our humanity. But we would have had no such Prophet, and no such revelation, if the one person had not been possessed of two distinct natures. 19
For redemptive purposes it was essential that the Redeemer be simultaneously God and Man. Only a sinless, perfect Man could render the perfect active and passive obedience essential for redemption, and since every man in born subject to original sin, a divine miracle was essential – God assuming human nature. Berkhof writes:
It was necessary that Christ should assume human nature, not only with all its essential properties, but also with all the infirmities to which it is liable after the fall, and should thus descend to the depths of degradation to which man had fallen, Heb. 2:7, 18. At the same time, He had to be a sinless man, for a man who was himself a sinner and who had forfeited his own life, certainly could not atone for others, Heb. 7:26. 20
It is actually at the point of redemption that the necessity for the simultaneous divine and human natures of Christ becomes most apparent. Both natures were essential for the activity of appeasing the wrath of God against sin, and paying the price of divine retribution against human rebellion. To quote Berkhof again:
In the divine plan of salvation it was absolutely essential that the Mediator should also be very God. This was necessary, in order that (1) He might bring a sacrifice of infinite value and render perfect obedience to the law of God; (2) He might hear the wrath of God redemptively, that is, so as to free others from the curse of the law; and (3) He ‘might be able to apply the fruits of His accomplished work to those who accepted Him by faith. Man with his bankrupt life can neither pay the penalty of sin, nor render perfect obedience to God. He can bear the wrath of God and, except for the redeeming grace of God, will have to bear it eternally, but he cannot bear it so as to open a way of escape, Ps. 49:740; 130:3…Since man sinned, it was necessary that the penalty should be borne by man. Moreover, the paying of the penalty involved suffering of body and soul, such as only man is capable of bearing, John 12:27; Acts 3:18; Heb. 2:14; 9:22. 21
Likewise Olyott writes about the effect of the two natures upon the redemptive activity of Christ:
The human nature of Christ was necessary for him to keep God’s law on our behalf, to die in our place, and to be our representative Priest and sympathetic Intercessor in heaven. At the same time it is only the supreme dignity of his divine person which ensures that his obedience was of sufficient merit to justify sinners, and that his finite death was of infinite value, and therefore a sufficient satisfaction for divine justice. We would never have had the Priest that we need if the one person had not been possessed of two distinct natures. 22
The Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union also reveal the Love of God in a way the Islamic view of God fails to do. Christ’s two natures means that we have a Lord who knows the innermost depths of agony and despair, of hunger, of loneliness and abandonment, of fear (at the prospect of the cross – Gethsemane). He knows what it is to have friends desert you, and a companion betray you. Every conceivable pain, temptation and fear human beings can undergo has been experienced by the God-Man Jesus: Hebrews 2:17 ‘Therefore in all things he had to be made like His brothers, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself suffered being tempted, he is able to aid those that are tempted.’ Hebrews 4:15 ‘For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathise with our infirmities; but One who has been in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ To quote Berkhof again:
Only such a truly human Mediator, who had experimental knowledge of the woes of mankind and rose superior to all temptations, could enter sympathetically into all the experiences, the trials, and the temptations of man, Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15-5:2, and be a perfect human example for His followers, Matt. 11:29; Mk. 10:39; John 13:13.15; Phil. 2:5.8; Heb. 12:2.4; 1 Pet. 2:21. 23
It is in this respect the contrast between the God of the Bible and the God of Islam becomes so glaring. The God of the Bible may expect His worshippers to suffer and die for Him, but He has done so already Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Everything God demands of us in terms of obedience, even unto death, He has Himself performed. He demands nothing from us other than what He has Himself effected. It is different with the God of Islam. He may offer a sumptuous reward of silks, fruits and maidens to His martyrs, but He commands of them something He has never done Himself. In Islam, God expects Man to die for Him; in the Bible, God, in the person of Jesus, dies for Man. Further, we know and see in Jesus – in the incarnate God – the expression and character of divine love, not just for those who love Him, as in Islam, but for those who hate Him – Christ died for His enemies, Romans 5:8 ‘But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ Because of the Hypostatic Union, we have a God who can enter experientially, rather than just empirically, into human psychology and emotion – He has been there Himself. How very different is the God of Islam.
It is probably partly because of this lack in Islam that the concept of the Sunnah and the excessive love of Muhammad have emerged. The God of Islam is so transcendent and removed from Man, so failing in terms of revealing His love that there is nothing to stimulate genuine love in return. Nothing suggests an experimental acquaintance with human fears and emotions. Hence the import of Muhammad in Islam. However, this is a poor substitute for a God who actually assumes human nature. This is where the import of John 3:16 becomes so revealing – ‘God loved the world thus, He sent His unique Son…’ – He sent Him to die for us, the ultimate focus of human emotional concern. He triumphed over death, so now we have a man in fact, as our Representative, we have Man – at the throne of grace. This is something with which Islam cannot adequately compete.
8. Christological Errors
a) Apollinarianism
Apollinarius was Bishop of (Syrian) Laodicea. Apollinarius himself saw his Christology as a continuation of Alexandrian ‘Word-flesh’ tradition – i.e. the refusal to admit or give weight to human mind or soul in the God-man. In particular he saw his theology as continuing the teaching of the fathers who in 268 condemned the adoptionist dynamic Monarchianism of Paul of Samosata, who distinguished the eternal Word from Jesus Christ. 24 Partly as a result of semantic differences, he condemned the Antiochene ‘Dyophysite’ strain (emphasis on two natures) as implying the adoptionist heresy – God enduinga man or at least indicating a purely moral union between deity and humanity.
Scripture presents Christ as a unity.
To Apollinarius, the term ‘Nature’ was equivalent to ‘Person’. Thus if two natures are conjoined, then we have two persons. We can see that Apollinarius was denying a double personality in Christ. Hence, Christ has only one nature – phusis, a ‘simple, undivided Prosopon‘ (another Greek word for ‘person’). He also employed hypostasis – self-determining reality. However, we must be cautious in our understanding of his usage of ‘nature’ and ‘person’; he did not mean that Christ is only divine and not human – rather, he affirms the humanity of Christ. What he believes is that the Logos took the place of the soul in the Incarnate Jesus, so that it truly is the same Person, not two, it remains the Logos, and his flesh is truly human.
He held Man to be a trichotomy – Body, Soul, and Spirit. In Christ the Logos took the place of the human spirit – the higher rational principle. Apollinarius was able to do this because he followed Platonic anthropology – the idea that Man is Tri-partite; Body, Soul and Spirit. The Soul or Mind is the ruling element in human nature; freedom of choice rests therein. It is this that differentiates one man from another – the power of self-determination – thus the seat of independent personality.
The human soul is finite. Moreover, to Apollinarius, humanity was equivalent to iniquity – the human mind is ‘fallible and enslaved to filthy thoughts’, but the Logos is immutable. It is vital to recognise that for Apollinarius, the human soul is the seat of sin. Since only the pure may redeem the impure, the salvation of humanity is imperilled if Christ possessed a human mind like ours. Hence we can understand the stress of Apollinarius upon the need for Christ to have no ordinary human rational element; Apollinarius was governed by zeal for the deity and sinlessness of Christ.
If the incarnate Christ possessed no ordinary human soul, then he would not possess the opportunity (i.e. danger) of free choice – and thus be free from sin and enabled to redeem us. This is made possible by the Logos taking the place of the soul in Christ; so, rather than being Soma (body), Psuche (soul), Pneuma (spirit), Christ was Soma, Logos, Pneuma. This did not undermine the true humanity of Christ, inasmuch as every soul was part of the Logos, so the distinction between Christ and other men was qualitative in nature. The same functions of the Mind are fulfilled by the Logos re. intellect and will – ‘the divine energy fulfils the role of the animating spirit (psuches) and of the human mind (Nous)’. 25
Strongly anti-Arian, he held tenaciously to the true Deity of Christ. But he regarded the human spirit as the seat of sin and true human nature as sinful, and he was concerned to defend the sinlessness of Christ. (It is clear that this position had affinities with docetism.) The emphasis of the hated Arian heresy was – in terms of defining the character of the humanity of Christ – that the Logos had free will in regard to sin. Apollinarius regarded the ability to sin as the distinctive property of finite nature. If Jesus had a finite spirit, He could not redeem. Thus, He would not be divine.
Apollinarius did not say that the flesh was a cloak with which the Logos clothed Himself, but rather that Logos and flesh ‘blended’ – thus an absolute union with Deity. The Incarnate is ‘compound unity in human form’ – ‘one nature composed of impassible divinity and passible flesh’. The body could not exist as an independent nature but rather required an animating force – in the case of ordinary men, the soul; in the case of Christ, the Logos. Hence, the Logos affects not only the psychology of Christ, but also his flesh; the biological life of Christ was also governed by the Logos. This meant that he was free from ordinary psychic and carnal passions, immune to death and thus enabled to destroy Death.
Following from this, just as an ordinary man is a compound of body and soul and is thus a unity, so the body of Christ and the Logos are a unity. Moreover, the flesh of Christ is thereby glorified. (Contrary to his critics, he did not hold to the pre-existence of the flesh of Christ, nor to its consubstantiality with God.) If the flesh is so-fused, it may be worshipped, and with regard to the communicatio idomatum, what is predicated of the flesh may be so of the Logos and vice versa, and in the Eucharist, the faithful receive the divinised flesh of Christ and are thereby deified. N.B. Apollinarius held that in the virgin birth, the divine spirit replaced the spermatic matter which gives life to ordinary men. One can see the advantages for the traditional conception of deity as impassible, indivisible and immutable in this presentation.
Apollinarius had the principal concern of defending the unity of the Person of Christ, for which he was willing to discard the importance of the distinction of natures and his true humanity. Apollinarianism was controverted by the Cappadocian Fathers – Basil Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianus. (N.B. Their theological point of departure was soteriology rather than Christology.) For Christ to be our Redeemer, He had to be true man as well as true God. ‘What He has not assumed He has not healed… We assert the unity of the person… the Godhead and Manhood are two natures not two Sons or two Gods’.
Apollinarius was a strong defender of the title Theotokos for Mary and thus opposed Nestorianism. After leaving the orthodox Church in 375, Apollinarius saw his position condemned at the Council of Constantinople, 381.
b) Nestorianism
This term is perhaps a misnomer, for Nestorius was not guilty of holding to the heresy that bears his name. 26 He used unfortunate expressions, but his opponent Cyril, was also guilty of that. It seems to many modern observers that Nestorius was a victim of ecclesiastical politics and personal rivalry. Cyril was Bishop of Alexandria, Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, and the former wished to raise the prominence of his See at the expense of the latter. N.B. Nestorius was influenced by Antiochene theology, and the rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria is today reflected in the separate existence and doctrines of the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Churches, headquartered in Istanbul and Alexandria respectively.
Nestorius was Bishop 428-431. He objected to Theotokos –’God-Bearer’ (unless balanced by anthropotokos) – being applied to Mary, as it suggested that the Deity of Christ was derived from Mary and thus similar to Arian and Apollinarian constructions – not the same Deity as the Father, or incomplete humanity. He preferred the term Christokos ‘Christ-bearer’. 27 Alexandria held to Theotokos – it was a consequence of communicatio idiomatum; and the Person was constituted by the Logos, so the Incarnate is rightly termed God. To Nestorius, the term implied that a creature could have been the cause of Deity, which was impossible: moreover, it implied that the deity of the Son was of inferior sort – and thus Arian view of Son as a creature, or Apollinarian view of incomplete humanity.
Formerly, it was held that Nestorius believed in dual personality of Christ, but the discovery of ‘Book of Heraclides’, where he accepts the Chalcedonian Definition, has undermined this. His position was that the two natures remain distinct in the union. The Godhead exists in the man mind and vice versa, without mixture or confusion. The Incarnation cannot affect the impassible Logos in change or suffering. Christ experienced genuine human emotional development. Such is impossible if deity and humanity fused. Thus the two natures were parallel and undiminished as to their respective properties and economy.
For Nestorius, the term ‘nature’ was equivalent to the concrete character of a thing. – the quality of being human or divine; e.g., humanity is circumscribed by finiteness. Prosopon was equivalent to the external form as an individual; nature is not an abstract concept – human nature demands a real, external body & soul to exist. This also demands hypostasis (equivalent to concrete subsistence), thus the human nature of Christ was not a cloak, pace ‘Word-flesh’, but was objectively real – without dichotomising Christ, His human nature had real personality – as did His deity of course, though there was only one Person. Nestorius rejected Paul of Samosata’s dogma of the two Sons: the Incarnate was a unity – God the Logos and the man are not numerically two. Never divided in purpose or will. Thus there are not two Persons, but one prosopon, with two ousiai – divine and human. Nestorius preferred to use ‘conjunction’, rather than ‘union’, as the latter could imply confusion of natures.
The man was the temple in which God dwelt: it was a voluntary conjunction – gracious condescension on the part of the divine, willing submission with regard to the human. Christ was a single being with a single will and intelligence -inseparable and indivisible. ‘Christ’ is the prosopon of union – the prosopon is not identified with the eternal Logos or the man, but is the consequence of the ‘coalescence’. With regard to the communicatio idiomatum, the human actions of Christ should be predicated of the human nature, the divine of the deity, but both could be predicated of the Person. The trouble occurred because either party had differing starting-points, one stressing the distinction of natures, the other the unity of the Person.
The actual teaching originated with Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus, 378. In opposition to Apollinarianism, he sharply contrasted ‘the word’ and ‘the flesh’ (not ‘the man’) in the God-man Thus he distinguished tile Son of God and the son of David – ‘the two Sons’. He seems to understate the humanity and the Union, but the evidence is uncertain. His theology was developed by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cilicia, modern Turkey) 350-628. Nowadays he is seen as generally orthodox, despite some unfortunate language, hut he was perceived by the Cyrillian party as teaching a purely moral Union (e.g. as husband and wife form one flesh’) and thus two persons.
As well as Cyril, Nestorius had to cope with the antagonism of monks devoted to Mary. Together they accused him of Sabellian tendencies (i.e. that the Father, Son and Spirit were simply successive modes of office of a unipersonal God), or of teaching two persons. He was condemned at Ephesus in 43l, exiled and died 451 just after the Council of Chalcedon, where he felt his position was vindicated because of emphasis of the two natures. A large part of the Syrian as well as the Persian Church followed Nestorianism, and performed great pioneering mission – including to China, 635. The Church is called ‘Assyrian Church of the East’, and it does not seem to he guilty of Nestorianism, (but note its rejection of Theotokos). Two early synod statements of faith seems to indicate that the ‘Nestorians’ were not actually guilty of ‘Nestorianism’:
Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486
But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving – in regard to the union of the parsopa of our Savior – the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486)
Synod of Mar Sabris, AD 596
It seemed good to his fatherhood and to all the metropolitans and bishops to write this composition of the faith… which accurately and plainly teaches us the confession …the same by which … all heresy is convicted and condemned which denies the Godhead and manhood of our Life-giver, Jesus Christ, accepting it with the exact meaning of the holy fathers, which the illustrious among the orthodox, the blessed Theodore the Antiochian, bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, ‘the Interpreter of the Divine Scriptures,’ explained, with which all the orthodox in all regions have agreed and do agree, as also all the venerable fathers who have governed this apostolic and patriarchal see of our administration have held, while we anathematize and alienate from all contact with us everyone who denies the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether through mixture and commingling, or compounding or confusing, introducing, with regard to the union of the Son of God, either suffering, or death, or any of the mean circumstances of humanity in any way, to the glorious nature of his Godhead, or considering as a mere man the Lordly temple of God the Word, which, in an inexplicable mystery and an incomprehensible union, he joined to himself in the womb of the holy Virgin in an eternal, indestructible, and indivisible union.Again, we also reject… one who calls the one Christ, the Son of God, two sons or two Christs, or one who does not say that the Word of God fulfilled the suffering of our salvation in the body of his manhood. Though he was in him, with him, and toward him in the belly, on the cross, in suffering, and for ever, inseparably, while the glorious nature of his Godhead did not participate in any sufferings, yet we strongly believe, according to the word and intent of the writings and traditions of the holy fathers, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten before the foundations of the world in his Godhead, spiritually, without a mother, and in the last times was born from the holy Virgin in a fleshly manner without the intercourse of a man through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, in his eternal Godhead and in his manhood from Mary, one true Son of God, who in the nature of his manhood accepted suffering and death for us, and by the power of his Godhead raised up his uncorrupted body after three days, and promised resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven, and a new and indestructible and abiding world for ever. (Synod of Mar Sabris, AD 596) 28
c) Monophysitism/Eutychianism.
This upholds the idea of one nature in Christ; the converse of Nestorianism. It developed out of the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the adversary of Nestorius.
It should be noted that in traditional Alexandrine theology Theotokos was a favourite term. Nestorius, who has reservations about the phrase, seemed to Cyril propose a purely external association between the Logos and a man. Thus the Passion was not that of God incarnate, but of a mere man. Hence, the implication of Nestorius’ teaching was that the Eucharist was cannibalism, since the flesh thereof was unvivified by Logos, so was that of a mere man.
The problem was accentuated by differences of language. For Antioch, Phusis was equivalent to ‘concrete assemblage of attributes’ – the quality of being something. For Alexandria, Phusis was equivalent to ‘concrete individual, or independent existent’ – approximating to hypostasis, thus virtually ‘person’. For Cyril, the incarnation was purely a matter of phases – Jesus was the Logos before and after incarnation – but same Logos, the only difference being that now He had flesh. As Cyril stated, ‘He remains what he was’. Hence his renowned formula, ‘one nature and that incarnate, of the divine Word’. Phusis here should be understood as in Alexandrine terminology.
Cyril was intent on guarding against division in the Incarnate. ‘Flesh’ meant humanity in toto, including the rational soul. Thus, Jesus had a true, concrete humanity. Hence, He was as truly man as He was God. The centre of this person was the divine Logos. Thus ‘conjunction’, as favoured by Nestorius, did not do justice to the evidence. The humanity of Christ became an hypostasis in the hypostasis of the Logos. The body was the body of the Logos, and the union of Logos and flesh produced a single concrete being. Thus, whilst there was no confusion of manhood and deity, Immanuel was not bi-personal.
It is important to safeguard Cyril against the idea that he believed that ‘one nature’ meant the union of deity with manhood; rather, the term expresses the singleness of the Person of Christ. Cyril did affirm the unity. The Jesus of History was God Himself in human flesh – thus what was born of Mary was God, because the humanity in her womb belonged to the divine Logos. Hence, it was inaccurate to speak of ‘the man’ being ‘co-adored’; Immanuel was the Lord ‘enfleshed’, who must be worshipped in a single adoration.
Cyril used the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum to propose that the Logos suffered in the flesh, and that a measure of the properties of either nature were conferred to the other; thus, the humanity being infused with life-giving energy of Logos, became itself life-giving. However, it is vital to uphold the impassibility of the Logos – He took on a flesh that could suffer, so the suffering He experienced was His own. Thus, as a result of the incarnation, two distinct natures have fused into one. The Incarnation involved ‘condescension’ (kenosis). No change takes place in the Logos, but He deliberately limits Himself to extent which He takes our nature upon Himself, whilst yet upholding the universe.
Kelly states that there is evidence that his later Christology, on the basis of acknowledging the role played by the rational soul in Christ’s sufferings, accepted the existence of ‘a second nature’ in respect to the humanity, which made possible his compronise with moderate Antiochenes. His great concern was to guard against the ‘separation’ of natures. 29
However, the concept particularly developed under the monk Eutyches of Constantinople. The essence of the teaching of Eutyches is the avoidance of distinguishing ‘nature’ from personality. It is the opposite of Nestorianism – if the personality is not dual, there can only be a single nature. This heresy is a denial of the reality and permanence of the Lord’s humanity; rather, it is transmuted into deity – ‘Monophysitism’. The Deity swallows-up the humanity – not annihilating, but transforming it. After the Incarnation, there is only one nature, God made flesh. [Before it, Christ had two]. It is a completeincarnation – perfect man. However, His flesh was not consubstantial with ours Christ’s body is the body of God, but he seems to mean that it did not possess independent existence i.e. he was denying that the Eternal Son assumed a Man rather than human nature. Nonetheless he insisted on the formula ‘one nature after the Incarnation’. Bray argues that ‘Eutyches eventually got to the point where he almost denied any real humanity in Christ, saying that this had been absorbed by God at the incarnation…’ 30 His theories were denounced at Constantinople, 448.
Others developed this idea – Monophysitism – to teach either the fusion of natures, the ‘swallowing up’ of the humanity by the Deity, and even the deification of the humanity. There were three main forms.
i) Theopaschitists – ‘God suffered’.
ii) Phthartolatrists – the human nature of Christ was, like ours, capable of suffering, and thus worshipped what was corruptible (i.e. subject to material corruption).
iii) Aphthartodocetists – the opposite view of the preceding position – the divinising of the flesh of Christ. 31
Monophysitism (one nature) was condemned by the Tome of Leo, and at the Council of Chalcedon 451. The Coptic Church of Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Armenian Gregorian Church, and the Syrian Jacobite Church remain to a degree Monophysite. However, a recent paper by a U.S. Coptic priest suggests that the actual differences may have been principally semantic, a point we have noted earlier. 32 Given that semantics caused confusion even among Christians, we should not be surprised if Muhammad and early Muslims misunderstood the Christian position, especially if the dominant theology they encountered was Monophysite in some form.
d) Monothelitism
Thelein –’will’. N.B. – At the time, ‘will’ meant more than volition; it included instincts, appetites, desires and affections. Thus was Christ capable of fear? Either it was held that the human will merged in the divine, or that they fused. This became the official position of the Maronite Church of Lebanon and Syria until its later union with Rome. Pope Honorius I, 625-638, was guilty
of this heresy. 33 It was condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 680. Christ has both a divine and a human will, the two in perfect harmony.
N.B. The Chalcedonian definition condemned Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism, upholding the doctrine of Christ as ‘two natures in One Person’.
9. Historic Christian Creeds and Confessions
The Historic Christian position, resulting from the systematising of Biblical data is that Jesus is One Person with two natures – divine and human. This has been the position emphasised by the historic councils and creeds of the Church:
Creed of the Council of Nicaea (325)
We believe in …one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man…
The Nicene Creed (a later creed)
We believe in …one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man… And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
Council of Chalcedon, Actio V. Mansi, vii.116 f.
Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance [‘omoiousiov] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [Feotokov]; one and the same Christ, Son, Only-begotten, recognized IN TWO NATURES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence [‘upostasiv], not as parted or separated into two but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.34
The Tome of Leo
For it was the Holy Ghost who gave fecundity to the Virgin, but it was from a body that a real body was derived; and “when Wisdom was building herself a house,” the “Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, that is, in that flesh which he assumed from a human being, and which he animated with the spirit of rational life. Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,” might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. By “ours” we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a par-taker in our transgressions. He assumed “the form of a servant” without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that “emptying of himself,” whereby the Invisible made himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power. Accordingly, the same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made man in the form of a servant. For each of the natures retains its proper character without defect; and as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God…Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death. And born by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virginity, while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter of his flesh. What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin’s womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as “God” is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so “Man” is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs’ to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Man, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” God, inasmuch as “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” Man, inasmuch as he was “made of a woman, made under the law.” The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature; the Virgin’s child-bearing is an indication of Divine power. The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the Highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all….For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us he has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father. Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that “the Son of Man came down from heaven,” inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom he was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that “the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried,” …because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be merely God and not man, or merely man and not God.
The Capitula of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 553)
I. If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.
II. If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.
III. IF anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [Person] and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him be anathema.
IV. If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of honour, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense that God the Word was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone pretends that this union exists only] so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and of Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is to his honour, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one Person, to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema. As a matter of fact the word “union” has many meanings, and the partisans of Apollinarius and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united, but also allows no separation.
V. If anyone understands the expression “one only Person of our Lord Jesus Christ” in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.
VI. IF anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born [of her]; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.
VII. IF anyone using the expression, “in two natures,” does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.
VIII. IF anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.
IX. IF anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.
X. IF anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.
It can be understood from this definition that the term ‘Mother of God’, which equally scandalises Muslims and Protestants, was not a step in the direction of Mariolatry, nor even a statement about Mary herself in the first analysis, but primarily a declaration that the babe to whom she gave birth was not only human, but was also God. This does not mean that Jesus derived His deity from Mary, or imparted His divine nature to her; rather, the rather unfortunate term merely affirmed the deity of Christ. Nonetheless, it is a term best avoided. The belief in the Hypostatic Union of Christ, His simultaneous two natures, is also affirmed in later Protestant confessions of faith:
Article II of the 39 Articles of the Church of England
Of the Word, or Son of God, which was made very man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.
Chapter 11 of the Second Helvetic Confession
Of Jesus Christ, True God and Man, the Only Saviour of the World
Two Natures in Christ. We therefore acknowledge two natures or substances, the divine and the human, in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord (Heb. ch. 2). And we way that these are bound and united with one another in such a way that they are not absorbed, or confused, or mixed, but are united or joined together in one person–the properties of the natures being unimpaired and permanent.
Not Two but One Christ. Thus we worship not two but one Christ the Lord. We repeat: one true God and man. With respect to his divine nature he is consubstantial with the Father, and with respect to the human nature he is consubstantial with us men, and like us in all things, sin excepted (Heb. 4:15).
The Sects. And indeed we detest the dogma of the Nestorians who make two of the one Christ and dissolve the unity of the Person. Likewise we thoroughly execrate the madness of Eutyches and the Monothelites or Monophysites who destroy the property of the human nature.
The Divine Nature of Christ Is Not Passible, and the Human Nature Is Not Everywhere.Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered or that Christ according to his human nature is still in the world and thus everywhere. For neither do we think or teach that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after his glorification, or was deified, and deified in such a way that it laid aside its properties as regards body and soul, and changed entirely into a divine nature and began to be merely one substance.
Article 19 of the Belgic Confession
The Two Natures of Christ
We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties.
Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, [Heb. 7:3] filling heaven and earth.
His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature– it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.
But these two natures are so united together in one person that they are not even separated by his death.
So then, what he committed to his Father when he died was a real human spirit which left his body. But meanwhile his divine nature remained united with his human nature even when he was lying in the grave; and his deity never ceased to be in him, just as it was in him when he was a little child, though for a while it did not show itself as such.
These are the reasons why we confess him to be true God and true man – true God in order to conquer death by his power, and true man that he might die for us in the weakness of his flesh.
Chapter VIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith
Of Christ the Mediator
II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.
V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.
VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.
B. The Islamic view
The first thing we notice when we study the Qur’an and investigate its assertions about Christian Christology is that what it presents as Christian dogma is something other than what the Bible and the Historic Creeds affirm. It misrepresents the dogma of the eternal Sonship of Christ as the equivalent of pagan gods carousing with human females and producing semi-divine offspring, a totally false picture of what Christians believe. The Muslim writer Suzanne Haneef makes exactly this point is her exposition on the subject, referring to S. 2:116-117:
If Jesus were indeed God’s Son, he would be a sharer in the Godhead and of Divine nature himself and in that case God would have simultaneously begotten, been begotten, been born, lived as a human being, and died. Such a notion does not merit any comment, It has much more in common with pagan mythologies, in which ‘gods’ fathered semi-divine children by human women, than with a true religion coming from God and based on the relationship between the Creator and the created. Hence the claim that Jesus is God’s Son cannot be, by its very nature, other than a false one because it contradicts the very nature and attributes of the Creator, bringing Him down to the level of the beings He has created. 35
As I stated in my paper An Explanation of the Trinity for Muslims, ‘Islam accuses Christians with promoting a mere human being – Jesus, viewed simply as a prophet – to the status of deity. However, the Christian position is actually the opposite to some degree: Man did not become God, God took human nature alongside His divine nature without ceasing to be God. Deity and humanity are not confused in the One Person of Christ. Deity is not diluted, nor humanity elevated.’ This accusation against the Christians is clear from a perusal of some of the ayat in question:
Surah An-Nisaa 4:171
171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
172. Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah nor do the angels those nearest (to Allah): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant He will gather them all together unto himself to (answer).
Surah 43 Az-Zukhruf
57 When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamor thereat (in ridicule)!
58 And they say ” Are Our gods best or He?” This they set forth to thee only by way of disputation: yea they are a contentious people.
59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.
Surah Maryam 19:35
35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it ‘Be’ and it is.
Surah Maidah 5:72
72. They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O children of Israel! worship Allah my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins Other gods with Allah Allah will forbid him the garden and the Fire will be his abode…
73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy) verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
75 Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
Surah Al-Maida 5:116
116 And behold! Allah will say “O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'”? He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
117 “Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to wit ‘Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things.
S. Maryam 19:88
88 They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”
92 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.’
Surah Al-i’Imran 3:79
79 It is not (possible) that a man to whom is given the Book and Wisdom and the prophetic office should say to people: “Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah’s; on the contrary (he would say): “Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all for ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly.”
80 Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and Patrons. What! Would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (to Allah in Islam)?
Surah Tauba 9:30
30 …the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. …Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth!
31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him).’
To continue quoting from my earlier paper, ‘what the Qur’an attacks is Tritheism, belief in three Gods. Such a dogma is completely absent from the Christian Scriptures and from orthodox Christian tradition such as that stated at the Councils of Nicæa (325 A.D.) and Chalcedon (451), which professed belief in the Triune nature of the Godhead, as opposed to any tritheistic ideas.’ This is relevant to the Christological issue since what Islam attacks is an ontological position whereby Christ is a distinct deity from Allah, and even, according to S, 5:72 that Jesus alone is God, both positions completely at variance with the Bible and Historic Creeds. What is absent from all the ayat relating to Jesus is any denial of the essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity that Christ had two natures. We have seen from the councils and creeds that this was indeed a crucial dogma of Christianity, yet the Qur’an never attacks this belief. It never assaults the Christian concept that Christ was both God and Man. Instead, it merely attacks belief in His deity. As Watt observes, Islam’s presentation of Christian Christology is that the latter believes that
…Jesus is a deity apart from God… What is denied here is the assertion of complete identity between Jesus and God… generally regarded as the heresy of confusing the hypostases… In the light of the Qur’anic attack on tritheism, it seems certain that the denial that the Messiah was the son of God was a denial that he was a deity separate from God; and this is confirmed by the later part of 9:30 which identifies what is denied with the views of ‘former unbelievers’… that is presumably of the pagans. 36
Watt comments on S. 5:73, 77 and S. 4:171-69 that ‘…if these passages are examined without parti pris, it is clear that they are not attacking the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but the misinterpretation of that doctrine sometimes called “tritheism”. The great body of Christians officially deny that they believe in three gods, and in their creeds profess their belief in God who is one.‘ 37 If we were to employ the ‘mirror’ argument with the Qur’an, i.e. assessing what an individual or group believe on the basis of what its critics say about their beliefs, we would emerge with the understanding that Christians believe that Christ is God – but only that Christ is God. We would never encounter the tenet for which there was such conflict and passion, even as Islam was emerging, that Christians believe Jesus had a human nature as well as a divine nature. Since the Qur’an’s attack on the Cross is essentially a disputation with Jewish polemics, rather than a denial of Christian soteriology, we would never encounter the centrality of the crucifixion as the crucial salvific event for Christians, one that would necessitate His humanity. This omission is not just surprising, it raises the important question: why?
The answer may lie in the Christian sect Muhammad encountered. The principal Christian centre in Arabia was Najran, and the Encyclopaedia of Islam holds that the prevailing Christological tendency in the area were the Monophysites. 38Trimingham believes that the Najran Christians were Monophysites, influenced from Abyssinia. 39 The likelihood is that Najran received its Christian influence from Ethiopia. Yusuf Ali suggests in his commentary on S. 27:24 that Abyssinia was the centre of origin for Christianity in Najran:
Yemen had easy access to Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf by way of the sea, as well as with Abyssinia. That accounts for the Christians of Najran and the Jewish dynasty of kings (e.g. Zu-Nuwas, d. 525 A.D.) who persecuted them in the century before Islam, – also for the Christian Abyssinian Governor Abraha and his discomfiture in the year of the Prophet’s birth (S.cv.), say 570 A.D. Jewish-Christian influences were powerful in Arabia in the sixth century of the Christian era.
Mawdudi’s introduction to S. 105 notes the Abyssinian-Byzantine alliance against Dhu Nuwas, the fanatical anti-Christian Jewish King of Yemen, and which seems to support the idea of Abyssinian – and thus Monophysite – influence in the area. The fact that Abyssinia intervened because of the persecution would suggest it had a particular interest in defending these Christians. If they were Monophysites, we can understand why they would have been so-motivated:
… in retaliation for the persecution of the followers of the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be on him) in Najran by the Jewish ruler Dhu-Nuwas of Yaman, the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia invaded Yaman and put an end to the Himyarite rule there, and in 525 A.D. this whole land passed under Abyssinian control… Abyssinia sent 70,000 of its troops by it across the Red Sea to Yaman.
Of course, according to the Sira, Muhammad met a delegation from Najran, and the first Hijra was to Abyssinia, so taking all these things into account, we can say that it is likely that the Christian theological influence Muhammad and the early Muslims encountered was some form of Monophysitism. Whether this was the more orthodox form that Copts today state they believe, or whether it was indeed full-blown Eutychianism does not matter. It is quite understandable that either Muhammad and/or the early Muslim redactors of the Qur’an would misunderstand the Monophysite position as involving the diminishing of Christ’s humanity such that He was only divine; after all, this was how many Christians perceived their position! It would indeed explain why the Qur’an never attacks the Hypostatic Union, or says to Christians ‘they do disbelieve who say that Christ is both God and Man’.
Of course, the problem for Muslims, is that if the Qur’an misunderstands the Biblical and Historic Christian position, this must mean that it is fallible, and thus not genuine revelation. It also means that Muhammad and the Qur’an were ignorant of the Biblical position on Christ’s two natures, which again implies that the Qur’an is not divine inspiration. Most of the Qur’anic assaults on suggested Christian Christology are more easily comprehensible if the holy book of Islam is controverting some form of Monophysitism, in the sense that Christ had only one nature, the divine. Interestingly, Bray suggests in regard to Monophysites that ‘it was their brand of Christianity which in a popular form had influenced the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad rejected he divinity of Christ, but he retained the Monophysite emphasis on the Virgin Birth…’ 40 It follows from this that what the Qur’an controverts is not the Christology of the Bible, or for that matter of the Historic Creeds of the Church, but rather a Christological error, of which most Christians were not guilty. The fact that the Qur’an fails to recognise this undermines its claims to divine inspiration.
Conclusion
The touchstone of orthodoxy is ‘what think ye of Christ?’ In one way or another, practically all error results from a failure to understand the nature and work of Christ. It is absolutely crucial to the message and work of Jesus that He is simultaneously God and Man, without confusion, mixture or bi-personal separation. To perform the great work of salvation, He had to be both. No one argues that the concept of the Hypostatic Union is a difficult one to understand, not least because we have nothing in nature that is analogous to it. However, this should not be surprising, since we are dealing with God, who is, as both Islam and Christianity confess, incomparable and incomprehensible. The fact that finite human minds are incapable of fully comprehending a divine miracle such as the Hypostatic Union in no way diminishes its truth. All that this indicates is that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.
It is one of the clearest indications that the Qur’an is not divinely inspired in that it fails to address what is clear Biblical doctrine – that Christ had two natures. Christians faithful to the Biblical picture of Christ never claimed he was a separate God from the Father, that He alone was God, or that He was only divine, not human. The Qur’an, however, never gets to grip with what is a crucial Christian dogma – the two natures of Christ. It never examines it, nor condemns it. It appears ignorant of it. Yet if God is omniscient, how could His ‘direct speech’ be unaware of it? The likelihood is that Muhammad and/or early Qur’anic redactors misunderstood Monophysitism, and wrongly assumed that this was Biblical Christian belief. As with the teaching about the deity of Mary, the divine sonship of Ezra, etc., the Qur’an made a mistake. The Christ it criticises is not the Jesus Christians worship.
References
Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue (Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Kuwait, 1984), p. 23.
Deedat, Ahmed, The God that never was, http://www.ais.org/~maftab/neverwas.htm
Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958, 1981 reprint), p. 29.
Rasheed, Asra, A Simple Call to the Worship of One God, (Jam’iat Ihyaa’ Minhaaj al-Sunnah, Ipswich, 1994), p. 10.
Hodge, A. A., Evangelical Theology: A Course of Popular Lectures, (First published 1860; Banner of Truth Trust edition, Edinburgh, 1976), pp. 185-186.
Bremmer, Michael The Deity of Jesus Christ, http://members.tripod.com/~Michael_Bremmer/deity.htm … View rest of footnote text
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-322.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 323.
Murray, John, ‘The Person of Christ’, in Collected Writings, Vol. 2, Systematic Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1977), p. 136.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 322.
Hodge, Evangelical Theology, (1890, Banner of Truth edition 1976, Edinburgh), p. 189.
Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 145.
Lane, A. N. S. ‘Christology beyond Chalcedon’, in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, edited by H. H. Rowdon, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 272.
Olyott, Stuart, Son of Mary, Son of God: What the Bible teaches about the person of Christ, (Evangelical Press, Welwyn, 1984), pp. 111-112.
Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology, (1860, 1879 enlarged edition, Banner of Truth edition 1972, Edinburgh), pp. 188-189.
Olyott, Son of Mary, Son of God, p. 111.
Hammond, T. C., In understanding be men, (IVP, Leicester, 1968, sixth edition, revised and updated by David F. Wright), p. 101.
Olyott, Son of Mary, Son of God, p. 117.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.
Olyott, Son of Mary, Son of God, p. 117.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.
Chadwick, Henry, The Early Church, (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1967), p. 210.
Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology, p. 383.
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, (Harper & Row, 2nd Edition, 1960), p. 290.
Kelly, ibid., p. 292.
Kelly, ibid., pp. 312, 316.
Bray, Gerald, Creeds, Councils and Christ, (IVP, Leicester, 1984), p. 155.
Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East Commission on Inter-Church Relations and Education Development, http://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html
Kelly, ibid., p. 323.
Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, p. 158.
Berkhof, Louis, The History of Christian Doctrines, (1937, Banner of Truth Trust edition, Edinburgh, 1969), p. 108.
Wahba, Fr. Matthias F., St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church, Hayward, California, USA, http://pharos.bu.edu/cn/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt … View rest of footnote text
Bettenson, Henry, Documents of the Christian Church, (Oxford University Press, London, 1963), p. 73.
Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979), p. 177.
Watt, William Montgomery, Early Islam: Collected Articles, (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1990), p. 68.
Watt, Early Islam, p. 67.
The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. VII, p. 872.
Trimingham, J. Spencer, Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, (Longman, London, 1979), pp. 294, 298.
Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, p. 167.
The ‘I AM’ sayings prove Jesus to be Divine
L. M. Abdallah
L. M. Abdallah
As we reflect on the whole witness of the inerrant and infallible Scriptures, regarding the Person of Jesus, we can see many elements and various passages that assert, affirm and prove His divinity. For example, there are the Messianic prophesies, such as, Ps.2:7,12, which speaks of Him as God’s Son. Ps.110:1 declares Him as lord, while Ps.45:6 and Isa.9:6 speak of Him as God. Then there are the didactic passages, for instance, Jhn.1:1,14 speak of Jesus the Christ being the Word and the Word also being divine (God), then becoming flesh [human]. Phil. 2:5-11 speaks of Him being the “form of God” and Heb. 1;2-3; Col. 1:15 declare that “He is the radiance of the glory of God, the exact representation of His being and the image of the invisible God,” while Heb. 1:8 boldly states that He is God, and 1 Tim. 3:16 asserts that this God “appeared in a body.” We also have the narrative materials, such as, Mk. 2:27-28; Lk. 5:20; Jhn. 11:43-44, amongst many others, which testify that Jesus claimed divine prerogatives. These include, redefining the Sabbath, forgiving sin and raising the dead.! However, besides His own bodily resurrection, I genuinely believe that it is in the “I am” sayings of Jesus that we are presented with some of the clearest assertions, affirmations and proof of His divinity. For in them we have the very words of Jesus concerning His “true identity.” Here we have the self-disclosure of the Incarnate God. It is with the assistance of the Apostle John, along with other eminent theologians, that I seek to present this truth.
I begin by stating that the implicit intentions of the Apostle John, in writing his version of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, are to be found in Chapter 20 verses 30-31. There, John clearly states, “Jesus did many more miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. So, we see that John’s aim is two-fold. Firstly, it is revelatory, he seeks to reveal and demonstrate “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” Secondly, it is evangelistic, he wants people to know the true identity of Jesus, so “that you may have life in his name.” Now, for the purpose of this essay, it is the initial aim of John that I want to highlight. As we have seen, John is seeking to prove that ” Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world” (4:42). And in his attempt to do so he enlists the aid of many things. For example, the statements of witnesses, such as John the Baptist (1:29, 32-36), the Samaritan woman and villagers (4:39-42), Jesus (8:13-14), and God Himself (8:17; 12:28-30), accounts of the life, ministry and works of Jesus, including His many discourses and His eventual death and resurrection. He also introduced, or recorded, various miracles (signs) performed by Jesus, which are also recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. However, it is he alone, of all the Gospel writers, who that gives an account of the sermonic discourses of Jesus, which shed light on the meaning of the message behind the miracles that took place. Hence John’s use of the Greek word ‘semeion’ [sign], rather than simply ‘dunamis’ [miracle]. Now, included in these sermonic statements are some of the “I am” sayings, for example, “I am the bread of life” (6:35) and “I am the resurrection and the life.” The remainder of the sayings took place during his verbal interactions with the people (8:12), the Pharisees (10:7, 9, 11), and His disciples (14:6; 15:1).
Another thing which I seek to draw the readers attention to is the actual Greek words ‘ego eimi’, translated (I AM). Leon Morris correctly states, “Jesus uses an emphatic “I AM” to bring out important teaching about his person. In Greek, the personal subject of the verb is not normally expressed: the form of the verb makes clear what the subject is. But if it is desired to emphasize the subject, then the appropriate pronoun may be used. What makes this so important in John is that we find a similar usage in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. There we find that the translators used the emphatic form of the speech when they were rendering words spoken by God.” He then goes on to say, “When Jesus used the “I AM” construction he was speaking in the style of deity.” And, “There is general agreement among Johannine scholars that this kind of language is a significant pointer to what John is telling us about the person of Jesus.” (1) In other words, when Jesus was using the “I AM” construction he was indicating His divinity, and in John recording His statements he was doing likewise.
Morris, also, correctly observes that there are two groups within the “I AM” sayings. One with the predicate and one without the predicate. Commenting on them he says, “Both constructions are somewhat unusual, and the form a Johannine distinctive.” Quoting J.H.Bernard, he goes on to say, “This is clearly the style of Deity…Its force could at once be appreciated by one familiar with the LXX version of the Old Testament.” (2) In examining both groups of the “I AM” sayings, I would like to follow Morris’s example and present the former group first and the latter group second.
“I AM the Bread of Life”
The first of the notable “I AM” sayings, in the book of John, is “I AM the bread of life” (6:35). This was uttered in the discourse which followed the feeding of the multitude. During the discourse, Jesus tells the crowd, “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (6:27). As He seeks to elicit their faith in Himself, He is met with a challenge to “demonstrate His credentials.” (3) “What sign do you do that we may see and believe?”, they ask. To this they add, “Our forefathers ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread to eat'” (v.31). They were obviously implying that Moses gave them the manna, for Jesus goes on to correct their misunderstanding. He states, “I tell you the truth, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it was my Father” (v.32). To that He adds, “My father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven” (v.33). By this, Jesus was not only implying that God gave “bread from heaven” in the past and continues to do so in the immediate present, but was also implicitly stating that He Himself is “the bread of God come down from heaven” (v.33). “In apparent expression of some stirring of spiritual desire they ask for this bread from heaven, though how earth- bound their understanding remains will emerge as the conversation continues.” (4)
Now, it is in response to their request that Jesus makes the astounding claim, “I AM the bread of life, he who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” (v.35). This saying actually enshrines the essence of Jesus’ message. He is the answer to the needs of the human heart. “The bread of life implies the fundamental, elemental role Jesus claims to fulfil in relation to the yearning human spirit. For Jesus’ bread was ‘the staff of life’, the primary source of nourishment. But since bread is a basic food universally, there is also the implicit claim that he fulfils this role for everyone. He is (the Saviour of the world)” (5), and gives life to the world (v.33). Morris, interestingly, points out that the definite article, before the word bread, indicates the fact that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the one who is the bread of life. (6) While Milne states that, “the bread of life also points to the satisfying nature of Jesus.” (7) This is clearly seen in the corollary, “never go hungry, and never be thirsty.” All other bread, like manna in the wilderness, leave a sense of dissatisfaction. The inner ache is not assuaged: we hunger again. By contrast Jesus, once tasted, obviates the need for further satisfaction. In conclusion, we contend that in the claim, “I AM the bread of life,” Jesus is making His heavenly origins known, and the fact that He alone supplies the spiritual need of His hearers.
“I AM the Light of the World”
This is the second “I AM” statement that is followed by a predicate. John has previously informed us, in the Prologue, that the Incarnate Word was “the life,” and “the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it” (vv.4- 5). He once again picks up the light metaphor, and elaborates what he has previously said. John states that Jesus made the claim, about being “the light of the world,” and other similar statements, on various occasions. For example, 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46. Although John does not actually identify exactly when Jesus maid the claim in 8:12, he does tell us where He made it. He gives the Feast of Tabernacles, and the possibly the temple courts, as the backdrop to this eventful drama (7:14).
During the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, two major religious, and highly symbolic, ceremonies took place. The first was the out- pouring of water on the west side of the alter, by the Levitical priests, as the choir sang the Great Hallel (Ps. 113-18). (8) The second was the lighting of several large candels in the temple precint. John indicates that Jesus took the opportunity of using these two symbols to illustrate His teachings (7:37-38; 8:12). The light metaphor is steeped in Old Testament allusion. The glory of the very presence of God in the cloud led the people to the promised land (Ex. 13:21-22), and protected them from their enemies (Ex. 14:19-25). The Israelites were trained to sing, “the LORD is my light and my salvation” (Ps. 27:1). The Word of God, the law of God, is a light to guide the path of those who cherished instruction (Ps. 119:105; Pr. 6:23); God’s light is shed abroad in revelation (Ezk. 1:4,13,26-28), and salvation (Hab. 3:3-4). “Light is Yahweh in action” (Ps. 44:3). Isa tells us that the Servant of the LORD was appointed as a light to the Gentiles, that He might bring salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:6). The coming eschatological age would be a time when the LORD Himself would be the light of His people (Isa. 60:19-22; cf Rev. 21:23-24). Perhaps Zech 14:5b-7 is especially significant, with its promise of continual light on the last day, followed by the promise of living water flowing from Jerusalem-this passage probably forming part of the litergical reading of the Feast.
So, with these verses in mind and “in the context of such powerful ritual, Jesus’ declaration must have come with stunning force.” (9) What is also stunning is the note of universality about the claim. He is not simply the light of the Jews, but “the light of the World.” This reference to light is not just physical or moral light. As Morris correctly points out, that when Jesus declared, “If anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him” (11:9-10), that the reference to the light not being in him, shows that we have moved from physical illumination to spiritual truth. He then comments, “Jesus is telling his hearers that those who reject him, who do not take him into their lives are in grave danger.” (10) By way of summary, we contend that in each of the “I AM the light of the world” passages, the main thought is that “Jesus is the only light and that people must respond to the coming of the light by giving him a welcome and believing in him. Apart from that they are lost eternally. That Jesus is the light of the whole world and that people’s eternal destiny depend on their reaction to him tell us something very important about him.” (10)
“I AM the Door”
The next “I AM” saying of Jesus is found in the context of a disputive discourse with the Pharisees. We see in chapter 9 Jesus healing the blind man, who is subsequently excommunicated for defending Jesus and who eventually believes in Him (vv.34-38). After this miraculous sign, and the subsequent ill treatment of the former blind man by the Pharisees, Jesus contrasts Himself with the religious leaders of His day, whom He terms as “thieves and robbers.” This contrast is dressed in the form of a “figure of speech” (v.6), which consists of some very striking metaphors. For example, “sheep pen” (10:1), “shepherd” (v.2), “watchmen” (v.3) and “door”, or, “gate” (v.3). Despite the vividness of the metaphors, the Pharisees did not grasp Jesus’ point (v.6). Therefore, Jesus, seeking to explain His message and expand its meaning , not only elucidates, but also amplifies and inter-relates the metaphors. For example, He now claims, “I AM the door” (by which the sheep of the sheep pen enter) (v.7). Previously, He spoke of Himself as “the shepherd” (v.2), which HE will do again with a further modification (v.10).
What does Jesus mean when He says “I AM the door.”? In order to answer this, we may find it helpful to remind ourselves that a sheep pen normally has one doorway, and that the shepherds of the Near East often slept in the doorway, acting as the door itself. Its is plain to see then, in order for the sheep to enter the pen they would obviously have to enter through the doorway, and metaphorically speaking through the shepherd. Thus in answer to our question, we see that Jesus is saying He Himself, and no other, is the means by which the sheep may enter into the promised fulness of life (vv.9-10). For as Morris points out, “Jesus says He is “the door”, not “a door.” There is something exclusive about “the” door. He is saying that the way into life goes through him, and him alone. He is the door.” (11) This is further emphasized when Jesus says, “The thief only comes to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life; and have it to the full.” “This is a proverbial way of insisting that there is only one means of receiving eternal life, only one source of knowledge of God, only one fount of spiritual nourishment, only one basis for spiritual security-Jesus alone”. (12) Jesus also said, “If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and go in and go out, and find pasture” (v.9). Although He does not explain what He means exactly by “saved”, we can take it as meaning having “eternal life.” For we find the two concepts of being “saved” and having “eternal life” linked in Jhn 3:16-17. Therefore, expositional consistency demands that we understand a similar linkage here.
Thus in conclusion, as Morris has so astutely observed, “once again we encounter the thought of an exclusive salvation, exclusive in the sense that it can be entered only through the door, Jesus Christ. If there is one door for all the race, then once more we are reminded of something very important about Jesus. Like the other I AM sayings, this one leads us to think of deity.” (13)
“I AM the Good Shepherd”
The next I AM saying of Jesus is closely related to the one previously discussed, in the sense that it is a metaphor that has been used in the same “figure of speech”, in which we find “I AM the door.” In chapter 10 verve 1, Jesus speaks of “the shepherd.” He now adds an adjective to the word shepherd, and makes the claim “I AM the good shepherd” (10). Here again Jesus is contrasting Himself with the religious leaders, whom He is speaking too, who are the not-so-good-sheperds, or retaining the metaphor in the passage, “the hired hand” (vv.12-13). That He is referring to the Pharisees, as the “hired hand”, is evident in verse 13. For there He speaks of the hired hand as “not caring for the sheep.” This is an obvious referal to their harsh treatment of the former blind man.
When Jesus used the term “the good shepherd”, He is speaking of His intrinsic goodness, as well as His moral rectitude and beauty. In His using the term “shepherd”, He is speaking of His position. He is the shepherd of the sheep, He is the one who protects, leads, guides and nourishes the sheep. In turn, the sheep are utterly defensive and totally dependant upon the Shepherd. It is hard not to see an allusion to Ps 23, where the LORD is the Shepherd, who protects, leads, guides and nourishes His sheep. Jesus is also referring to His mission. For on no less than three occasions, He speaks of “laying down” His life for the sheep (vv.15,17,18). The Shepherd, who protects the sheep, now protects them to the point of death. The Shepherd now reveals that He is also the sacrificial “lamb of God” (1:29,35), who willingly lays down His life for the sheep. “The death of Jesus is no tragic accident, but the divinely appointed way whereby salvation would be brought to those who trust in Him.” (14) It was not just for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” that He was to lay down His life, but also for the “sheep of another pen” (10:16), the Gentiles. Thereby, making one flock, resided over by one Shepherd (v.16). How can the death of one man avail the redemption of so many, unless it was rendered more than sufficient by the divinity of this one man.! Thus, we contend that this I AM saying screams out the divinity of Jesus the Christ.
“I AM the Resurrection and the Life”
This particular I AM saying was made to Martha, who’s brother Lazarus had recently died. When Jesus told her that Lazarus would rise again she took this to refer to “the resurrection of the last day” (11:23-24). It is at this point that He makes this explicit and astounding claim, “I AM the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me , even if he dies, he will live, and everyone who lives, and believes in me will certainly not die.” (11:25-26). With this claim, Jesus is not simply stating that He imparts resurrection and life, but that He Himself is resurrection and life. As John said in his Prologue Jesus, (the Word), was life (1:4). Morris notes, “That he is the resurrection means death, which to us appears so final, is no obstacle, and that he is the life means that the quality of life that he imparts to us here and now never ceases.” (15) This claim of Jesus is fully sustantiated in the following raising of Lazarus from the dead (v.44).
In commenting on John’s recording of this incident, Morris powerfully states, “He is writing about one who is supremely great and who has breathtaking superiority over death. It is a comment to the human race that in the end we all face death and there is nothing we can do about that. We may stave off death for a time, but when it takes place it is final. John writes about a Lord for whom it is not final. He is such a great person that even death gives place to him.” (15) Surely this claim of Jesus’ has no place on the lips of an ordinary man, but can only have place on the lips of Him who is divine.
“I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life”
This is the next I AM saying, to be addressed to those who have committed themselves to Jesus. On the eve of the Lord’s crucifixion, Jesus gives His ‘Kingly farewell speech’. He has just instituted the Lord’s Supper, (though John does not record this), and announced His imminent departure (13:33,36;14:2-3). In conjunction to the announcement of His departure, He adds, “You know the way to the place where I am going” (14:4). To this, the perplexed disciple Thomas responds, “Lord, we do not know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”. “He wants the position to be clear, and will not let our Lord’s word stand as though he understands them when he really does not. The man’s fundamental honesty stands revealed”. (16) This provides Jesus with the opportunity of expanding and elucidating what he has just said. Thus, He replies, “I AM the way and the truth and the life”. To which He adds, “No-one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6), (italics mine).
Despite the controversy that surrounds these words, and the many forms of translations and interpretations given, it is clear, by the the syntactical structure of these words, that Jesus is saying three distinct things about Himself. (The stress in the verse falls on “the way”, since that is the issue (v.5). However, the three terms, “the way”, “the truth” and “the life” are syntactically co-ordinate. Hence the indication that Jesus is declaring three distinct things about Himself.)
First He says, “I AM the way”. Again, we see here an exclusivity which can not be denied, nor overlooked. Since Jesus refers to going to His Fathers house (v.2), and that “No-one comes to the Father except through me (v.6), we can see that He is not speaking of a moral or ethical way, but the way of salvation. The way of salvation leading to the Father. He is confidently stating that He is not one of many ways to God, but “the” way. This astounding claim hits at the heart of our pluralistic society and the syncristic philosophy that it dearly subscribes and holds on to. With one fell swoop, He disintegrates mans false notions of approaching God, and asserts His ‘uniqueness’. His substitutionary, atoning death is closely linked with Him being “the way”. For it is through His death that God and sinners are reconciled.
Second, He claims to be “the truth”. This speaks of His utter veracity and reliability. All that He has said, claimed and done can be both believed and trusted in, not simply because He tells the truth, but because He is the truth. For He is the Word of God that has become flesh (1:1,14). As Carson insightfully points out, “Jesus is the truth, because he embodies the supreme revelation of God-he himself ‘narrates’ God (1:18), says and does exclusively what the Father gives him to say and do (5:19ff; 8:29), indeed he is properly called God (1:1, 18; 20:28). He is God’s gracious self-disclosure, his “Word”, made flesh (1:14). (17)
Third, Jesus states that He is “the life”. This, as Morris correctly states, “takes us into the same area as the saying, “I AM the resurrection and the life”. (18) Once again we observe Jesus associating very closely with life. “It is he alone whose life is unique, self- existent like the life of the Father (5:16). He is the life and the source of life to others (3:16)”. (19)
We contend, then, that “this comprehensive saying claims an exclusive position for Jesus. He is the one way to God, he is thoroughly reliable, and he stands in a relation to truth such as no one else does. The same, of course, is true of his relationship to life”. (20)
“I AM the True Vine”
Now we come to the final I AM saying with the predicate. During the upper room discourse, Jesus twice makes the declaration, that He is “the vine”. On the first occasion He links Himself with the Father, when He says “I AM the true vine, and my Father is the gardener”, or, “vinedresser” (15:1). On the second occasion He links Himself with the believer, when He declares, “I AM the vine; you are the branches”, or, “vine canes” (21), and “goes on to refer to the mutual indwelling of the Saviour and the saved (15:5)”. (22)
Many commentators have indicated the connection between this declaration of Jesus’ and the Old Testament usage of the vine image. One of these is the noted theologian Bruce Milne. In his commentary on the Book of John, which places the emphasis on Jesus’ mission, he states, “The image of the vine serves the ‘mission’ theme in two important ways. In the first place, it was the supreme symbol of Israel. A great golden vine trailed over the temple porch, and the coinage minted during the revolt against Rome (AD 68-70) also bore a vine symbol. The Old Testament has many pertinent allusions. Possibly the most important in connection with Jesus’ claim, I am the true vine (v.1), is Psalm 80, which blends talk of Israel as ‘the vine out of Egypt’ (v.8) with ‘the son of man you raised up for yourself’ (v. 17).
But the vine ‘is burned with fire’ (Ps. 80:16). Israel has failed in God’s long-term role she was called to fulfil, that being ‘a light for the Gentiles’ (Is. 49:6), to bring God’s salvation ‘to all the ends of the earth’… Israel, however, was more attracted by the gods of the surrounding nations than penetrating them as a missionary. Her centuries-long declension from God’s purposes now reaches its nadir in the rejection of the Messiah and the repudiation of the kingship of God (19:15). But God’s purposes, from which Israel turn in final apostasy, does not fall to the ground. It is grasped anew by the one who stands in the midst of Israel, and among the disciples. In contrast to the vine which has destroyed itself by disobedience, Jesus is ‘the true vine’. He is the obedient Son through whose sacrifice and consequent mission the age-old purpose of Israel would find fulfilment, the nations would be reached, and ‘all the families of the earth shall bless themselves’ (Gn. 12:2).
He then continues, “The image of the vine has a second, less theological, pointer to mission. the vine is an essentially utilitarian plant; it exists to bear fruit. W. Temple eloquently portrays the fruit- bearing function of the vine. ‘The vine lives to give its life-blood. Its flower is small, its fruit abundant, and when that fruit is mature and the vine has become, for a moment, glorious, the treasure of the grapes is torn down and the vine is cut back to the stem’. This function is reflected in Jesus’ stress on fruit-bearing (explicitly in verses 2, 4-5, 8, 16). We should therefore beware of interpretations of this passage which concentrate solely on our inward relationship with the Lord. Its real thrust is the renewal of the mission of Israel through Jesus the Messiah and the disciple community. While more ‘subjective’ aspects are not entirely absent (cf. Jesus’ reference to ‘love’ and ‘obedience’ to his commands; 10, 12, 17), the primary focus remains bracingly objective and missionary. Jesus by his exaltation in death and resurrection will be removed tangibly from the world. The disciples are sent into the world, as was Jesus, to carry on the task in his ‘absence’. That is the principle implication of Jesus’ saying, I am the vine; you are the branches”. (23)
While I concur with Milne’s interpretation of Jesus being the fulfiller of God’s missionary objectives, i.e. the true vine, through His life, death and subsequent resurrection. I do not whole-heartedly agree with his interpretation of I am the vine; you are the branches. I would tend to agree more on the lines of Morris’ argument when he states, “the second saying emphasizes the vital contact with Christ. ‘He who remains in me, and I in him’, says Jesus ‘this man bears much fruit, apart from me you can do nothing’ (15:5).” He continues, “it is an error to suppose that in the energy of the flesh that we are able to do anything that pleases God. For that we need the strength that he alone can supply. The condition of fruitful in Christian service is vital contact with Christ… Exactly what the “fruit” is is not explained, but usually in the New Testament the word means qualities of Christian character (Matt. 3:8; 7:20; Rom. 6:22; Gal. 5:22 etc.) and we should see this as primary in mind here. (24)
When we consider that “Salvation comes from God” (Jonah 2:9), and that Jesus the Christ is appointed of God as “a light for the Gentiles”, so that He may bring God’s “salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6), and that the transformation of the believer is only possible by the work of the indwelling Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), and one’s vital contact with Him (Jn 15:5). We can see that this I AM saying, like the rest, indicates His deity.
“I AM” without the Predicate
Having briefly examined the I AM sayings with a predicate, we now come to the I AM sayings without the predicate. While it may be true that the. Greek words ‘ego eimi’, (translated I am in English), can normally have a simple human meaning (e.g. Jn. 9:9; 12:26), as we have already pointed out John’s use of the term is highly distinctive. This truth is evident as one views the following passages in their context.
In John Chapter four, we see Jesus having a conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. When she states that the matters that they have been discussing would be dealt with by the coming Messiah, Jesus responds, “I AM, who am speaking to you”(v.26). Morris points out that, “Ethelbert Stauffer”, (whoever he his!), “denies that this is ‘an indirect messianic affirmation’, and insists ‘that John wishes Jesus’ answer to be understood as the theophanic formula ANI HU’. (25) While I Totally disagree with Stauffer that this is not ‘an indirect messianic affirmation’, as a syntactical analysis indicates that it is. (For Jesus is directly responding to her statement about the Messiah (v.15)). I do, however, concur with him that that this is a “Theophanic formula”. For as we have previously stated, John’s usage of the term is highly distinctive, the underling emphasis being divinity. I see no incongruity in seeing Jesus’ claim as an indirect Messianic affirmation, and a claim to deity. For, we have already observed that John’s intentions are to demonstrate the Messiahship and Deity of Jesus (20:30-31). Also, we see a link between “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14), and His deity (6:33).
Two other passages, in which we find the “I AM” sayings, are Chapters 8 and 13. In the former passage, Jesus says to the Jews, “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (v.24). While in the latter, He declares to His disciples, “I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I AM” (13:19). Morris helpfully comments, “In both passages we find the Johannine emphasis on the importance of believing, and in both it is linked with Jesus’ own person. In both Jesus is saying that it is important that those addressed come to trust him as the I AM, which looks very much like a claim to sharing in the nature of deity”. (25)
Probably the most familiar “I AM” saying, without the predicate, is to be found in verse 58 of chapter 8. There, Jesus pulls the theological rug from underneath the feet of the Jews, when He confidently asserts His pre-existent and consequently His deity, by saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM”. It is evident, from the context, that Jesus was declaring His deity. For the biblical record states, “At this, they picked up stones to stone him”. John has previously stated that the Jews tried to kill Jesus, for exactly the same reason-“He was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18). (italics added)
Now that we have briefly examined both groups of the “I AM” sayings, from a historical, literary, lexical, syntactical, structural and theological approach, we conclude that the “I AM” sayings prove the deity of Jesus the Christ. And that when Jesus uttered these solemn words, He sought to convey the astounding fact of his divine nature- as did the Apostle John when he recorded these life-giving words.
NOTES
Leon Morris, Jesus Is The Christ (STUDIES IN THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN), pp. 107-8.
Ibid., p. 109.
Bruce Milne, The Message of JOHN, p. 110.
Ibid., p. 111.
Ibid.
L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 110.
B. Milne, The Message of JOHN, p. 111.
Mishnah, tractate Sukkah 4.9.
D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 338.
L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 113.
Ibid., p. 114.
D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 385.
L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 114-15.
Ibid., p. 116.
Ibid., p. 117-18.
L. Morris, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 640.
D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 491.
L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 119.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 120.
Ibid.
B. Milne, The Message of JOHN, p. 219-20.
L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, pp. 121-22.
Ibid., p. 122.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NESTLE-ALAND, NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE (26th Edition).
David Alan Black, USING NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN MINISTRY.
Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint With Apocrapha.
Gerald Bray, KNOWING JESUS.
F.F. Bruce, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.
Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics.
Jay P. Green, Sr, Editor, Pocket Interlinear: New Testament.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology.
Bruce Milne, The Message of JOHN.
Leon Morris, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.
Leon Morris, Jesus Is The Christ (STUDIES IN THEOLOGY OF JOHN).