This is my response to an Islamic critique of the christian view of Jesus, which I had received from a certain Mohammed on my Facebook page devoted to Jesus. Later I found out that it was just a copy of a standard Muslim polemical tract on the subject. I have written my response in the light of the New Testament and the affirmations found in the Qur’an.
Dear Mohammed!
Thank you for asking the most important question of all – who is Jesus. Thank you also for sharing an Islamic view on this all-important subject on the site devoted to Jesus. The questions you raise are serious and require careful study and listening to each other, so I ask you to patiently bear with me, as I lay out my answers step by step. Since we are talking about Jesus, I will look mainly at the New Testament (~Injil), since it is the primary source of knowledge and testimony about him, but where possible, I will try to add the witness of the Qur’an as well.
Messiah
The first and the most important title that the New Testament ascribes to Jesus is the Messiah (gr. christos, hence “Christ” in English). This title is so frequent that in popular use (“Jesus Christ”) it has become almost like a second personal name (or surname) of Jesus. Many people don’t recognize that it is a crucial and vital title that describes and defines who he is. Most of the New Testament is actually concerned in proving that he is indeed the Messiah, the Christ, “God’s Anointed One”, whom the Children of Israel were expecting for centuries, if not millennia. It is very instructive that the Qur’an fully affirms this witness in countless passages – that Isa is indeed the Masih.
Why is this so important? The title of Messiah is a synonym for the fulfillment of a great and glorious hope, of many wonderful and awesome promises that God gave to Israel through Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets; promises, whose fulfillment would bless the whole humankind. The arrival of the true Messiah therefore doesn’t mean just the appearance of a righteous person, a fully devoted servant and messenger of God (which he certainly is), but also a decisive intervention of God into human history at various levels: it means the inauguration of the “Kingdom of God” here on earth. This Kingdom was the main theme of Jesus’ preaching, and was also affirmed by John the Baptist (Yahya), who prepared his way (see Matthew 3:2). Messiah is always depicted as a God given ruler-king over God’s people, who will establish God’s kingdom and whose reign will extend over all the earth and include “every tribe and every nation” (Revelation 7:9).
So if the Messiah indeed came, this means that with him and through him God’s saving rule has already broken into our messy and sinful world, into our time and space. Something of God’s glorious Future, promised for the end of times, is already miraculously and wonderfully present here with us. Old Testament prophets clearly spoke that the time of the reign of the Messiah will be the time of a grand restoration and renewal (see especially Isaiah 40–55). It will be a time of reconciliation: first between God and mankind, second between the humans as well. It will be a time of judgment, cleansing and purification from sin. All this is sometimes described as a new act of creation, since God will intervene with his sovereign power and create new reality, new life and new relationships.
The title of Messiah is thus associated with the revelation of the mystery of God in the end of times, when God will break open the seals of human history and bring everything to the light. Messiah is the one through whom God does these marvelous things. With the Messiah all these eschatological hopes and promises are inseparably bound: this is what the title means. Affirming that Jesus is the Messiah is therefore affirming all of this. (Many New Testament texts then explain how is this a reality in the present time, but this is a matter of a separate discussion.) It is very important to note that here we are dealing with a fulfillment and an affirmation of something separate and independent – of the history, hopes, prayers and prophetical visions of the Jewish people, expressed in texts of the Old Testament (~Tawrat & Zabur), written centuries or millennia earlier.
Affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah is therefore the central claim and assertion of the New Testament. All other claims and also other roles, offices and titles ascribed to Jesus are based on this foundational realization and are, if you want, dependent on it. I am therefore sincerely glad that your Holy Book affirms this as well. This is of supreme importance.
Second Adam
Since the Messiah is associated with the renewal and restoration of the mankind and indeed the whole creation, New Testament sometimes speak about Jesus as the second Adam (see Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:45–49). This is warranted already by his manner of birth, which was absolutely unique in human history. Thus he stands at the beginning of God’s new creation, as the starter of a new humankind, which is being renewed, re-created and re-born by the power of God working through him. This is why New Testament also speaks of the “second birth”, “new nature”, “being born again” &c. – all this as the actual experience of those who associate and identify with the Messiah. As Adam, so is the Messiah a prototype of a new human existence – one that is joyfully obedient to God and willing to serve fellow humans even to the point of losing one’s life for them.
Again, the Qur’an provides an important affirmation of at least some aspect of this: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’. And he was.” (3:59) It is hard not to see that something exceptional and amazing is asserted here.
Word of God and Temple of God
Jesus certainly is the authoritative messenger of God, proclaiming his Word. And we all agree that God’s Word has the power of creation: He says and things begin to exist. So it was also with God’s Word that Jesus spoke: to the sick, to the blind, to the lame and even to the dead – they were restored! Again, the Qur’an fully affirms this (see 5:110).
Because of this miracle-working, life-giving and life-creating Word of God in the mouth of the Messiah, which was renewing everyone who came in touch with him; because of his exceptional manner of birth and because of his uncompromised devotion to God, it was recognized that Jesus is the mediator, the medium that God uses to communicate to us. That is why he is called the Word of God both in the New Testament (see John 1:1; 1 John 1:1) and in the Qur’an (“Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him” – 4:171, Yusuf Ali translation, without the additions in the brackets). This affirms that the divine Spirit and the divine Word fully entered him (already by birth) and is fully and authoritatively expressed by him. Many miracles that he did are a clear confirmation of this.
But Jesus himself used a different language to express the same reality:
“I say to you, that one greater than the temple is here” (Matthew 12:6).
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. … He spoke of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19.21)
What does this mean? Jesus is referring to God’s temple in Jerusalem. In the Old Testament, already with Moses, God graciously decided to live among his people, first in a special tent (like a nomad among nomads), then, under king Solomon, in the house in Jerusalem. Many special and strict rules of holiness and purity were prescribed for it, and if people disobeyed them, they would be found dead on the spot. The point is this: because of his grace and mercy, God chose to come close to his people. Between those walls and above the sacrifices that were offered, God’s personal presence was somehow manifested. Manifested in an almost tangible manner, tangible enough to bring death to sinners.
Jews of Jesus’ time knew and were expecting that the Messiah will restore, cleanse and possibly rebuild God’s temple. Centuries ago, God’s presence left the temple in Jerusalem because of Israel’s sins (you can read a moving account of this in the first chapters of Ezekiel). Since then, there were promises of restoration and return of God’s glory to his “resting place” (as the temple was also called), but they were not yet fulfilled (see Ezekiel 43:1–12; Haggai 2:7 &c.). Jesus is asserting here that with him as the Messiah, this promise is also fulfilled – in a new way. God’s abiding place is not anymore a tent or a house of stone, but a human being, especially chosen and prepared for this. Jesus’ human body, his human nature is now the temple where God’s glory and presence dwells. God has indeed graciously returned to his people – in Jesus. This is why he is also called Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23), fulfilling yet another Old Testament prophecy (see Isaiah 7–8).
Dear Mohammed, before you consider this idea contradictory, weird, foreign or even blasphemous, I would like to illustrate it with an example from the Islamic world. You do believe that the Qur’an is the very Word of God. God was never without his Word, he was never speechless, so to speak; his Word essentially belongs to his divine transcendent Being. At the same time you know and accept that it comes in natural human words – using the Arabic language of the people from the historical time when the Qur’an was written. As such it also needs to be written in a physical book or recited in a concrete, audible manner, to be present among people. You see no contradiction in this, although in practice you affirm that the Word of God comes clothed in something human – in this case simply in human words, in a book or in an oral recitation. It has this “outward clothing” – and it must have it! Without this fully human medium or dimension, Word of God cannot express itself in our world, God cannot achieve his purpose of speaking to us.
In a very similar fashion we, Christians, affirm that the Word of God came in the human person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Israel’s Messiah.
Two Natures
Upon this foundational insight of how the Word of God exists (even in its written form), later Christian theology developed the language of the “two natures of Christ”, asserting that he was both fully human and fully divine at the same time. He had to be fully human to fulfill all the promises and to bring to God a perfect obedience, a perfect human response to God. He had to be fully human especially to complete the work of redemption and restoration of humankind, as one from among us. Yet at the same time, God was fully, decidedly, actively alive and working in him and through him. (Please note that even the Qur’an seems to affirm that he was filled with God’s Spirit – see 2:253; 5:110!) Jesus had to be fully divine, if the true judgment and the true reconciliation between God and man was to happen in him: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Now we can look at the list of quotes from the New Testament, which you provided and which speak very clearly of Jesus as a servant of God, submitted and subordinated to him. These (and indeed many other) passages show and affirm the fully human nature of Jesus. Not to believe this would be a serious error – actually New Testament strictly forbids denying that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (ie. in the human nature; 1 John 4:2). Affirming the humanity of Jesus is necessary and doesn’t take away anything to his divine nature – to the contrary, it adds to it! The Christian claim is that in Christ God assumed human nature, took it on himself, clothed himself with it – to effectively “speak” to us, to effectively do his work within the mankind.
This now should also provide a clear answer about Jesus’ prayer: he was praying as one of us, as the second Adam, leading the humankind back to God and teaching us how to pray as a true, faithful, renewed and liberated human being.
The insight into the two natures of Christ guards us from the severe error of saying that there are now two (or with the Holy Spirit, three) Gods. God forbid! Anyone who would assert this would be a pagan, a tritheist, not a Christian! God is one and Jesus himself affirmed this very strongly (for example in Matthew 19:17 – in the same Gospel where Jesus hints that he is the true temple of God and where he is presented as “Emmanuel – God with us”). The same strict monotheism was confessed and maintained by the early Christians (for example by Paul in Galatians 3:20). In Jesus, the one and only God is fully and definitely revealed – in him, through his body, through his life and actions. “In him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9).
Again, if all this sounds far fetched, the parallel with the written Word of God can be helpful. The written Word, as it now exists in the world, must necessarily have two aspects, “two natures”, divine and human (even material: ink on the paper or audible speech), yet it is not two Words of God, but one Word. There is no contradiction in this. It necessarily must be both distinctly yet simultaneously if it is to be truly the one Word of God to us.
When we Christians speak about Christ in this way, we are therefore not saying something substantially different than what you Muslims believe about the Qur’an and its existence in the world. The difference is only in this: we maintain that a whole human person is a better medium to communicate God than just human words (which are merely a part of human person). Yes, a greater miracle and a better revelation is claimed – but a miracle and revelation of the same kind! This is also the reason why in Christian theology the Living Word of God, the Word of God “incarnate” in Jesus the Messiah, takes precedence over the written Word of God, the Bible – the latter is the reflection and authoritative testimony about the former.
Dear Mohammed, I hope I have thus provided enough evidence for you to be confident, that when Christians speak that “Jesus is God”, we don’t contradict the oneness of God, which is so zealously and rightly emphasized in the Qur’an. We don’t negate that Jesus was a fully human servant of God; and God who was “fully dwelling” in him was not some other God, but the one and only true God himself. We do not worship anyone else or any created thing in his place, but we want to worship him by respecting his “Word who became flesh” (John 1:14). Therefore the only thing that you can accuse us of, is that we regard Jesus in a similar way that you regard the Qur’an. As any truth claim, of course, this can be true or false. It needs to be proven. But since even the Qur’an itself seems to affirm that Jesus is “the Word of God”, I suggest this claim might have some weight.
Son of God
Now we can look at the title that seems more controversial, since here the New Testament and Qur’an seem to sharply contradict each other – or at least, this is what most people think. Let us first look at how this title is used in the New Testament.
Contemporary scholars of very diverse backgrounds agree that the meaning of “son of God” has developed more or less as follows. The title is taken over from the Old Testament, where kings from the Davidic dynasty were occasionally referred to as “sons of God” (2 Samuel 7:13–14; Psalm 2:7; 89:26–27). There the title is of course meant metaphorically: they are like sons of a king, heirs to the throne, upon whom the king is conferring his authority. The title denotes that God is somehow sharing his divine reign, his sovereign authority and power with them. They are even referred to as ones who “sit on God’s throne” (1 Chronicles 29:23). But they are clearly ordinary human beings, upon whom God has bestowed this special grace and honor. Thus they act as God’s representatives. At least in some of these passages, the title has also a messianic overtone: the “son of David”, who will also be “the son of God” in this sense, is someone who is yet to arrive on the scene and who will set everything right.
In some other Old Testament texts, the title “son of God” or “firstborn of God” is used metaphorically for God’s people as a whole (Exodus 4:22–23; Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 11:1). Here it has a more general meaning and it implies special nearness to God and that God favorably hears their prayers.
It is easy to see how the “son of God” as a messianic title was applied to Jesus – it simply fully affirmed that he is the true ruler whom God has send to liberate and to govern his people. But the New Testament writers were also aware of the other meaning (eg. in Matthew 2:15). This is striking and tells even more: not only is Jesus the second Adam, he is also the second Israel. Since the “first Israel” disobeyed God (a theme that is very much present in Qur’an as well), God chose to restore it in the person of Jesus; he chose, so to speak, to start it anew through his person and his followers. That’s why, for example, he had a group of twelve principal disciples – as the number of the tribes of Israel (see Matthew 19:28). Jesus is thus the beginner of the new people of God, which is not limited just to the nation of Israel anymore, but now includes people from all the nations of the world.
Both of these meanings of the title “son of God” in and of themselves still denote only a human figure, exalted and blessed by God, just like in the Old Testament. This is clearly not the meaning that the Qur’an criticizes. But these titles do emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus, his special nearness to God and the awesome grace of God that is bestowed upon him and through him to us. Together with the growing insight that Jesus is the Word of God, which we discussed above, the title later (eg. in Hebrews 1 and even more in the later Christian theology) acquired new meaning: it came to denote the divine, preexistent aspect of the Word of God dwelling in Jesus. The language of the “Son” was deemed appropriate, since it corresponded to the way the Word of God “naturally” issues or proceeds forth from God, carries all his power and authority and expresses him to the world. The “Son of God” is therefore no separate, other, second deity alongside the One True God (as rightly criticized in the Qur’an in 23:91), but is the same one and only God in his speaking, in his revelation to us. And you will surely agree, that when God sovereignly chooses to express himself to us, he still remains God in this expression of his. This is what we mean by the “Son of God” – God’s own divine expression or image of himself.
When we talk about the “Son of God” (in this third sense, with a capital ‘S’), we are therefore meaning basically the same as the “Word of God”, and I hope that above I have shown clearly enough that this is not so foreign to the Qur’an as it is generally assumed.
When we look at the Qur’an, we quickly see that it actually criticizes an idea of “Son of God” that is completely different from what we presented here. It actually speaks against something that no true Christian believes. This is clear from the language that is used in the Qur’an:
“Allah has not taken to Himself any son” (23:91).
“If Allah had desired to take a son, He would have chosen whatever He willed out of His creation.” (39:4)
“Exalted be the Majesty of our Lord, who has neither taken to Himself a wife, nor a son!” (72:3)
“Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to the people: ‘Take me and my mother for two gods, other than Allah?’” (5:116)
It is quite clear what these texts speak against: they criticize a perverse pagan idea, a kind of tritheism, where God would be a divine Father, Mary would be his divine Wife and Jesus their divine Son, whom God “took for himself” or “acquired” in this almost physical or sexual way – like many pagan ‘gods’ did! It is possible that such syncretistic ideas existed among the pagans or apostate Christians in the time when the Qur’an was written. But, dear Mohammed, let me reassure you: they are completely foreign to the New Testament. As a Christian, I can only strongly affirm this quranic critique. Jesus is not the Son of God in the sense that Mary, his mother, is God’s wife! God forbid!
The Cross
Now we can finally address the issue that is absolutely central to the New Testament – it is referred to in page after page and in passage after passage. Before we look at the apparent contradiction with the famous passage in the Qur’an that you quoted (4:156–159), let us observe first how this topic is presented and developed in the New Testament, especially in relation to what we said above.
When we start to research into this, we very soon arrive to a striking and shocking realization: the crucifixion of Jesus is fundamentally related to the fact that he is the Messiah. It is actually a proof of it. It is – paradoxically, in God’s wisdom that transcends and defies human logic – the inauguration of his kingship. This is not only affirmed by the Pilate’s cynical inscription on the cross, but actually by Jesus’ clear anticipations of it. It is very clear that Jesus knew what was going to happen to him, but was fully persuaded he must do it to fulfill the purpose that God had with him. His disciples were naturally skeptical about this idea, but he rebuked their doubts as satanic. Please read carefully Mark 8:27–33 and note the sequence of events: first the disciples recognize him as the Messiah, then Jesus explains to them what this will include, the disciples harshly object and then he strongly rejects their thoughts as typical human disobedience.
Please see that this most humiliating, wretched and indeed accursed way of dying is not the end, but just the first act in the divine drama of “vindicating his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13), which is then fulfilled by his bodily resurrection and finally with his being raised up to God in heaven. This threefold act, or this three-stage drama is the work of the Messiah, his central task and purpose. Without this, he would be just another prophet. Everything that Jesus said and did before, all his miracles, parables and encounters point to this event. With this event, it all starts to make sense and becomes one coherent whole. And not only Jesus’ earthly ministry, the whole story of Israel, which God patiently built for centuries, starts to make sense. With Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and exaltation, this story comes to its fulfillment, to its astonishing completion. This understanding is explicitly confirmed by Jesus himself: “It was necessary that the Messiah should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead” (Luke 24:46, emphasis mine).
The idea that the Messiah should suffer therefore didn’t come from Jesus or from the early Christians, but was already there in the Old Testament. Passages like Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and Zechariah 12:10ff come to mind, but beyond them, we should look at the whole system of sacrifices for the atonement for sin and for the purification, which enabled people to come into the presence of God. Jesus came to fulfill and fully accomplish all of this.
From this it now also becomes clear why the “two natures of Christ”, of which we spoke above, are necessary, why the Messiah had to be fully human and fully God. To really accomplish the liberation of the humankind, he had to become one of us, so that as one of us he could fully obey God, and sacrifice himself, though he was perfectly innocent, and thus reconcile us with God. He won the victory from our side, so to speak, on our own territory, in our place, and could thus represent us before God. And God, who was in him (see 2 Corinthians 5:19 above), received this offering and obedience. Thus the Messiah can truly become the meeting point between God and man, the temple, where God dwells and accepts his people and reconciles them with himself. All this happens in the person of Jesus – all this takes place “in Christ”.
For similar reasons, Jesus’ bodily return to life is so important. It means that God didn’t abandon his servant to the shameful condemnation of his accusers, but judged in favor of him and set him up as a ruler over them – absolutely contrary to their expectations. God’s kingdom is thus established in a concrete, bodily manner. A new rule is now operating in the world. This further means that already here and now, in the conditions of this present world, a new human life appeared and was established by God himself – a life, over which the sin, corruption and death don’t have any power anymore. This is the other reason, beside his birth, why Jesus can be called the second Adam, the new beginner of the humankind.
Now, we have all heard that the Qur’an contradicts all this. This is truly the perception we can get from the passage 4:156–159. But if we look at that passage from afar, we cannot fail to see two things.
First, it presents the perspective of the Jews (and Romans) who tried to eliminate Jesus and who blasphemed by treating him not as the Messiah, but as just another criminal and troublemaker. They certainly did not succeed in this – this is the main point that the Qur’an makes here. This is congruent with the New Testament: it was exactly as the direct result of this rebellious and blasphemous action that God powerfully and gloriously installed Jesus to be the Messiah by resurrecting him from the dead (see Romans 1:2–4) – thus he clearly showed on whose side he is.
Second, Qur’an presents the same overall picture: Jesus was first humiliated and rejected by men, and then vindicated and exalted by God. It seems that instead of the three-stage drama of the New Testament, Qur’an presents us with a two-stage shorter summary, with the same final result: Jesus ends up exalted, “raised up to God”, and his enemies defeated. Qur’an seems to tell us the same overall story, but doesn’t provide all the details. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the verb “to raise”, which is used here, is the main verb to describe the bodily resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament. And in the Qur’an it is emphatically asserted that Jesus will die and will be “raised to life (again)” (19:33). Therefore the Qur’an might affirm more than is generally granted.
But even if you disagree on this, the least we can say is that the Qur’an affirms not only that Jesus’ birth, but also that the end of his life was something extraordinary. God intervened powerfully and sovereignly into it, to make it something else than Jesus’ enemies thought and also to make it something else than a normal human death. I think we can both agree on this.
A Question
Dear Mohammed, I think I have presented a clear enough response to why the New Testament talks about Jesus the way it does, which was the subject of your critique and challenge to us, Christians. It is simply necessary to be so, to accomplish God’s sovereign purposes. In this way, the New Testament proves to be internally coherent, and even more importantly, to be congruent with its independent external witness, the Old Testament, which it claims to fulfill.
Now I would like to conclude with a question for you.
Although I am no expert for the Qur’an, I have observed with some astonishment how many great things it affirms about Jesus. This is even more astonishing if compared with what is claimed for Muhammad, the “Last Prophet” in Islam.
Let me just list the most obvious differences:
- Jesus was born extraordinarily, from a virgin (3:47; 19:16–28; 21:91) – Muhammad was not.
- Jesus is not only a prophet and messenger of God, but also the Messiah (3:45 &c) – Muhammad is not.
- Jesus is likened to Adam (3:59) – Muhammad is not.
- Jesus is called the “word [of Allah] and a spirit proceeding from Him” (4:171, see also “word of truth” in 19:34) – Muhammad is not.
- Jesus was “strengthened with the Holy Spirit” (2:253; 5:110) – Muhammad was not.
- Jesus performed many miracles: healing people, giving life to inanimate objects, raising people from the dead &c (3:49; 5:110) – Muhammad did not.
- God intervened miraculously at the end Jesus’ life on earth: according to the common Islamic understanding, He took him alive to heaven; that is: bodily, without dying (4:156–159; see above for discussion) – nothing of the like happened around the death of Muhammad; he died and was buried.
- According to Islamic expectation (based mainly on the Hadith, but see also Qur’an 43:61), Jesus will return at the end of times to judge and rule the world in universal peace and justice – Muhammad will not. It is also very telling – indeed, surprising! – that the returning Jesus will have to fight against the Antichrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), not an Anti-Muhammad or an Anti-Prophet!
It should also be considered that Jesus fulfilled many independently witnessed Old Testament expectations, including a great number of very specific passages – nothing of the like can be shown for Muhammad. And even in the Qur’an we find an attestation that Jesus was sent to “confirm the Torah” (61:6; see also 3:50 and 5:46), although this might not necessarily mean the fulfillment of its promises.
All this clearly points in one and the same direction: according to the Qur’an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad. I know that in Islam, Muhammad is considered the greatest, because he came last. But isn’t this general statement in stark contradiction with the actual quranic revelation, which clearly shows something else? Should not this huge difference in substance between the persons of Jesus and Muhammad in the Qur’an have some meaning? Shouldn’t this be an occasion to go back to the start of our discussion, and again, in all honesty, to ask oneself:
“Who, indeed, is this Jesus?”
I wish you grace and mercy from the One and Only God!
Matjaž Črnivec
August 2013
Matjaž Črnivec 