|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Son of God
in the Bible and the Qur'an I post this for
information and discussion, I have no doubt that the God of the prophets and
the Christian God and Allah (SWT) are one and the same.
The Son of God in the
Bible and the Qur'an Frequently one will hear the statement, "What you believe
is very similar to what we believe except we don't believe Jesus was the Son of
God." Although Muslims and true Christians both believe in Jesus as a
Prophet, yet the difference in the understanding of this word, son,
causes them to believe different things about this great Prophet. Why is this?
What does the word really mean? Why is there such great misunderstanding? THE SON OF GOD IN THE QUR'AN Part of the misunderstanding has arisen because of a
misunderstanding of the word ibn, ﺍﺑﻦ . Though not specifically addressed to Christians,
but people in general, and most likely idolators who referred to their idols as
sons and daughters of God, the issue of whether God can have sons or daughters
is addressed in the Qur'an in Sura 6:100 and the following
verses. Verses 100 and 101 state, Yet they make It states that those who have no knowledge say that God has
offspring, ﺑﻧﻴﻦ
and ﺑﻨﺖ
, male and female, coming from the Arabic word, ibn ﺍﺑﻦ , having a
spiritual or physical meaning.(1) It
follows directly on by stating that God could have no son walad ﻮﻟﺪ (also having a
spiritual or physical meaning)(2)
since he has no wife (sahiba). So we see from the context that the term,
ibn ﺍﺑﻦ , which can have a physical or spiritual meaning,
was understood to have a physical meaning. It was this physical meaning
that was negated. Since the Bible never refers to Jesus as the physical
son of God, it is clear that the Qur'an is not addressing what the
Scriptures (the Holy Bible) of true Christians say. Instead the Qur’an
is most likely addressing pagan beliefs or perhaps the beliefs of those who
claimed to be Christians but who had erroneous beliefs that were not taken from
the Bible. If it was intended to refute what the Christian scriptures state,
then it is clear that there was a misunderstanding of what the Christians
scriptures actually said about the Prophet Jesus. How do we know there was a
misunderstanding? All but one reference in the Qur'an that negate the
Sonship of Jesus Christ, 'Isa al-Masih, ibn Miriam, in the negation use
the Arabic word, walad ﻮﻟﺪ , generally meaning a physical son in the nominative
but also able to have a spiritual/metaphorical meaning.(3)
Sura 9:30, “The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ
the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate
what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are
deluded away from the Truth!”, is the only place in the Qur'an where
Jesus Christ is referred to as the Son of God using the word, ibn ﺍﺑﻦ .
However, the second part of the verse containing the actual statement
denouncing the confession of Christians that “the Messiah is the Son of God”,
uses neither the word ibn ﺍﺑﻦ nor the word walad ﻮﻟﺪ in its
denunciation. Since ibn ﺍﺑﻦ can have either a physical or spiritual meaning,
without a specific word used in the negation it is unclear whether the physical
or spiritual meaning, is denounced. There are three possibilities in it's
interpretation. Either only the physical meaning is denounced, only the
spiritual meaning is denounced or both are denounced. When one applies the
context in Sura 6:100-101 and Sahih Muslim Vol. 1, chapter 81, number
0352 (see footnote 13) to determine the correct interpretation of Sura
9:30, then only physical sonship was understood from the word ibn
ﺍﺑﻦ in
this situation and only physical sonship was denounced because both
passages state and then negate the presence of a wife in the process. USE OF WALAD AND IBN IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES The Prophet David was anointed to be King of the bani-Israel. In
Psalm 2:7 of the Zabur زبور , the Prophet David is referred to as “son”,
an anointed King, who would rule with God’s authority, “I will proclaim the
decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son [ben]; today I have
become your Father [yawlad].’ ” Psalm 2:12 says, “Kiss the Son [ben],
lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way.” From the context it is very
clear that no physical sonship is implied. In referring to the Prophet David,
this verse also refers to the descendant of the Prophet David who was
prophesied to be the Messiah, al-Masih المسيح , the King who would
have an everlasting kingdom. (1 Chron. 17:11-14) The Injil clearly
proves that Jesus is the Messiah that would come. This reference from the
Psalms, Zabur زبور , is cited 3 times in
the Injil as the proof of Jesus’ nature and authority as the promised
Messiah, المسيح
.(4)
The Hebrew word “ben” in Psalm 2:7, 12 corresponds to the Arabic word ibn
ﺍﺑﻦ .
To show the source of the anointing, the word, “yawlad” is used. This is the
verbal form of the Hebrew word “walad” which corresponds with the Arabic word walad
ﻮﻟﺪ .
Therefore to refuse to use the verbal form of the word walad ﻮﻟﺪ in
the proper spiritual sense when referring to the source of the divine nature of
Jesus Christ is to contradict the Holy Bible--Taurat, Zabur, Anbia
(Writings of Jewish Prophets) and Injil. In both the Hebrew and the Arabic, the verbal form of “walad” is
used to refer to physical birth or a spiritual anointing.(5)
Although the noun form “walad” is not used in the Hebrew Scriptures when
referring to the source of Jesus’ divine nature, the verbal form “yawlad” is
used in this meaning. As already cited, “ben” is regularly used to refer to the
“son-messiah” المسيح.
This is the precedent that God has set in his word. The context in Psalm 2 is
the key to understanding the message. It is absolutely clear that this was no
physical birth. This psalm speaks of a grown person who is inaugurated as the
king of God’s people, and the term “yawlad” denotes the giving of the authority
and power of God’s Spirit. When Psalm 2:7 is quoted in the Injil as
referring to Jesus Christ, the Greek word “gennao” which can have a physical or
spiritual meaning is used for “yawlad.”(6)
Again the context is very clear. A spiritual anointing is proclaimed. The
source of Jesus Christ’s immaterial nature is proclaimed as being not only from
God but actually God in him. No one, Muslim or Christian, would deny that Jesus Christ is the
Messiah, المسيح in Arabic. This
Messiah, المسيح , is clearly referred
to as “the Son of God” in both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It is these
scriptures that the Qur’an affirms throughout as true revelation from
God.(7) Surah 21:26 states, “And they say: ‘The Most Gracious has taken
a son.’ Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour.” Dr. Muhammad
Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan in their translation
state that “son” here refers to angels, Jesus, Ezra and others. Here the word
“son” is the Arabic word ﻮﻟﺪ,
walad. It is interesting that the response to this is that these are
“servants raised to honour.” The Bible also teaches that prophets are honoured
servants. That is a significant part of the meaning behind the term, “son of
God”. The issue is this, how and why are they honoured? From its first mention, "son of God" is a term of
honour in the Holy Bible. King David, Hazrat Daoud, and King Soloman, Hazrat
Suliman, are each specifically referred to as a "son" of God in
the Holy Bible.(8) In
each of these references it is clear to see that "son" meant one who
was loved, chosen and given authority and power through the Spirit of God.
"Spirit" here does not refer to an angel or even the breath of
God, but the very being, nature and essence of God.
However, the Qur'an never addresses their sonship specifically. Their
sonship was different than that of Jesus Christ. They were called sons of God
because the Spirit of God came upon them to give them power, wisdom and
authority to reign as kings over the bani Israel. This type of sonship
is one particular type of spiritual sonship. It is that of any human being upon
whom God's Spirit came. However, the sonship of Jesus Christ is different. It
also is spiritual but in a significantly different way. Jesus was not just a
grown human being upon whom the Spirit of God came. He was the very nature and
essence of God who came in human flesh.(9)
Since God is spirit, as stated in John 4:24, this nature and essence of God is
spiritual. This idea of God in flesh is, also, often expressed in the Injil
by the use of the term “Son” on its own, or the term “Son of Man.” This term
“Son of Man” is derived from the revelation of “one like a son of man",
revealed to the prophet Daniel over 500 years before Jesus lived.(10)
It is obvious that this “Son of Man” is no ordinary man. He was one who
received worship and honour due only to God, though he has the form and
appearance of a man. In fact Jesus used this term to describe himself more
often than "Son of God" since "Son of Man" did not carry
the connotation of an earthly political and military kingship that some people
understood the term “Son of God” to mean.(11)
Instead, it expressed a real but spiritual authority and pointed back to the
prophecy of the prophet Daniel. The Son of Man in Daniel's prophecy was one who
had the form of man but who had the authority and character of God and who
rightfully received worship due only to God. It was because Jesus used this
term, "Son of Man", that the Jews accused him of blasphemy. Yet using
this term, he continued to do miracles, rise from the dead and ascend into
heaven, which allowed the people only two choices. Either they must believe he
was God in the flesh or they must believe he was from the devil. Since there is
no doubt that he claimed to be God, to simply believe he was only a prophet or
a good man would be claiming that God allowed this power to be used by one who
was rivaling God. This would be impossible for God to do. THE SON OF GOD IN IBN HISHAM AND THE HADITHS In his biography of Muhammad, Sirat Rasul Allah, Ibn
Hisham quotes the Qur'an as stating that the Christians used the
term ibn allah, ﷲ ﺍﺑﻦ in
reference to Jesus.(12)
This is strongly denounced right along with the Jew, 'Uzayr, being
denounced as the ibn allah ﷲ ﺍﺑﻦ with no
distinction between the two. Yet there is a large difference between the two. 'Uzayr
(Ezra) even as a true prophet of God, would have been no more than a human
being on whom God's authority, power, or Holy Spirit (not Jibra’il)
came. However the Holy Bible
teaches that Jesus existed from eternity as a divine spiritual being, the Word,
who was God (John 1:1), and at a point in time he took on flesh (John 1:14).
Yet, the Qur’an never states in Sura 9:30 nor in its immediate context why
the sonship of 'Uzayr or Jesus is denounced nor which meaning, the physical
or the spiritual, is being denounced. One must go to Sahih
Muslim to find the reason that calling Jesus Christ ibn allah ﷲ ﺍﺑﻦ is
denounced--because he is not the walad ﻮﻟﺪ , physical son, of God.(13)
In fact every time that the sonship of Jesus Christ is denounced in the Qur’an
and the reason why the denunciation is given, an inaccurate view of the
Bible is evident. Ibn Hisham brings further light to this by pointing
out that Muhammad thought that the statements of the Christians from Najran
about Jesus, diminished God's power and authority, denied the Oneness of God
and made Jesus a rival to God.(14)
Yusuf Ali, too, shows this same understanding of the phrase "son of
God" by his comment on Sura 9:30, equating Christians with blasphemers by
accusing them of, "Taking men for gods or sons of God."(15)
However, Jesus' Sonship in the Bible which is always spiritual in nature
is never presented as diminishing God's power or authority, denying the Oneness
of God nor making himself a rival to God. The will, authority and power of
Jesus' divine spirit is never in conflict with the will, authority and power of
God, because Jesus was the Word. This eternal Word of God became flesh without
ceasing to be God or beginning to compete with God. A few observations are necessary here. First, Ibn Hisham states
that the Christians from Najran believed that Jesus was the walad
of God ﷲ ﻮﻟﺪ .(16)
Second, there is no evidence in Ibn Hisham’s Sirat Rasul Allah that they
claimed to believe this in the physical sense. Ibn Hisham states here also that,
starting at the beginning of Sura 3, more than 80 verses were revealed as a
result of the visit of the Christians from Najran. The fact that there is no
specific refutation to their claim using the word walad ﻮﻟﺪ in
the Qur’an in the whole of Sura 3 makes it difficult to ascertain what
they said or meant. We only know that it would be against their scriptures to
use walad ﻮﻟﺪ in the physical sense. This is plain when we examine
the Scriptures in their original languages as well as the commentaries written
by early Jewish and Christian scholars.(17)
No honest scholar ever understood the Biblical passages speaking of “the Son of
God” in a physical way. Third, it is clear that the Qur'an and the Bible
do not agree regarding Jesus' nature. The Bible presents him not only as
a prophet, but actually more than a prophet--his spiritual nature being
the very nature of God. When we look at Sura 5:18, we see that when men claimed to be
"ibn allah" ﷲ ﺍﺑﻦ the Qur'an
presents its understanding of the phrase "ibn allah" ﷲ ﺍﺑﻦ as
those who were more than men and who were without sin or at least not subject
to punishment for sin. Ibn Hisham confirms this understanding. We see this
because it is stated that they were "but mortals, of those men He [Allah]
has created" and were subject to punishment for sin.(18)
Yet the Qur'an, the Muslim traditions and the Bible all agree that
Jesus, unlike any other prophet, had no sin or even a fault or mistake ever in
his life. Ibn Hisham records the
following, concerning the verses that came down, denying Jesus being the Son of
God in the context of the coming of the Christians from Najran to Muhammad:
They argue that he is the son of God in that
they say he had no known father; and he spoke in the cradle and this is
something that no child of Adam has ever done.(19) As a result of what these Christians said, Ibn Hisham
records that the revelation concerning Jesus speaking in childhood in Sura
3:45-49 and Sura 19:27-35 came along with other verses about Jesus'
life. However, as already mentioned when we look at what the Christians are
reported to have said, we see that the reason the Christians from Najran
gave, is not the reason the Bible gives why God called Jesus his Son. In response to this, Norman Anderson, formerly Professor of
Oriental Laws and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the
University of London states, Christians, moreover, do not claim that Jesus
was the Son of God because he was born of a virgin. On the contrary, it was because
he was Son of God, when that term is properly understood, that he was
born in that miraculous way.(20)
(Bold emphasis, mine.) Professor Anderson's statement is in absolute agreement with the
Bible. SON OF GOD IN THE TAFSĪR TRADITION In his article, “Jesus
the Son of God: A Study of the Terms Ibn and Walad in the Qur’an
and the Tafsīr Tradition”, Mahmud Mustafa Ayoub cites the
writings of a number of Muslim scholars from different eras and persuasions of
Islam. The following is a table based on the specific statements he highlights
showing their understanding of “divine sonship” and therefore why they objected
to it. Understandings of and Reasons for Muslim Commentators’ Objections to “Divine Sonship”
Ayoub sums up his
observations by stating, “ . . . It must be observed that the language in most
of them is the same. They contrast God’s transcendence, omnipotence,
origination of all things, and sovereignty over all His creation with human
non-self-sufficiency, and hence the need for offspring.”(21)
As we look at the reasons for which these Muslims scholars reject their
understanding of the “sonship” of Jesus Christ, we see that none of these are
even in the slightest way implied in the Holy Bible. God’s taking on flesh was
not out of his need but ours! The Arabic word walad
corresponds to the Hebrew word walad which shares a common root
with the Hebrew word “yawlad” in Psalm 2 in the Holy Bible. Ayoub makes some
important observations. Though he fails to specifically address the use of the
Hebrew word “yawlad” in Psalm 2, he does state that the Arabic word walad
ﻮﻟﺪ , “primarily signifies
physical generation and sonship.”(22)
This is important for two reasons. First, it does acknowledge the fact that
even though, primarily, the Arabic word walad ﻮﻟﺪ is used for a physical
sonship, like the Hebrew word walad this is not the only meaning
for which it must be used. Second, from this we can begin to see that the
meaning that God clearly ordained for the word walad in Psalm 2,
referring to a real but spiritual sonship, has usually been taken by Muslims in
a physical sense and therefore clearly misunderstood. This helps us understand
why in the Qur’an only the term walad ﻮﻟﺪ was used to denounce the
sonship of Jesus, except in Sura 9:30, as cited above. Ayoub points out that
Abū Qurra, a Syro-Arabic Christian theologian and cleric, .
. . would leave no doubt in the mind of a Muslim reader that Jesus is the son
of God, engendered by Him from eternity. For, while Abū Qurra uses ibn
for son, he always uses the verb walada, to engender, or give birth to,
when speaking of God the father and Jesus His son.(23) As we have seen, it is
very clear that this “engendering” in the Holy Bible refers to the divine
nature of Jesus Christ and never the physical nature of Jesus Christ.
Ayoub also states that most Muslim commentators agree “that the word ibn,
ﺍﺑﻦ is used metaphorically in
the Gospel to express a relationship of love and intimacy.”(24)
He further cities Muhammad Mahmud Hijāzī, Muhammad Rashīd
Ridā, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and al-Alūsī as making
specific statements to this affect using words such as love, high honour, and
favour. Again, two things are important in this statement. First, it
acknowledges that the word ibn, ﺍﺑﻦ was legitimately in the Christian
scriptures and was rightfully used by them. Second, it acknowledges one
important aspect in the meaning of Jesus’ sonship. Unfortunately, as we have
already seen and as we will further see, the significance and the reason behind
that supreme relationship of love, favour, high honour and intimacy as clearly
stated in the Holy Bible has been misunderstood by Muslims. HUMAN SONSHIP VS. SPIRITUAL SONSHIP When a human father has a physical son, that son reflects the
humanness of his father but he has a separate spirit, will and mind. Therefore
he would have a separate accountability before God. Because he has a separate
spirit, will and mind, he could at some time or another contend, rival and seek
to oppose his father. If the "sonship" of Jesus Christ were seen
in the same way, he also could eventually oppose and rival God. However, that is definitely not the view of
"sonship" that the Bible teaches. The Bible never teaches that
the "sonship" of Jesus Christ was the result of any physical union of
two partners. Nor does it imply that God is a created being. The Bible clearly
teaches that God is eternal.(25)
The "sonship" of Jesus Christ was purely spiritual in nature. The
immaterial nature of Jesus Christ was made of the same substance as God--his
will, purpose and mind being the same as that of God with no conflict, but
perfect harmony. His flesh was flesh and was not God--it was only where the
essence of God dwelt to reveal himself to the world without the essence itself
being physically seen. The Bible also clearly
teaches that God is spirit.(26) Jesus
himself said that flesh comes from flesh but spirit comes from spirit.(27)
The immaterial essence of God that dwelt in him according to the will of God,
was God’s immaterial essence--not separated from God nor in conflict with God.
The flesh of Jesus Christ responded perfectly to God in every situation of life
because that God’s immaterial essence in him kept his flesh pure. This is why
it is important to realise that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man--human
emotions being expressed without human sin. His flesh was not God even though
the nature or essence, which indwelt that flesh was the very essence of God to
whom he would return shortly. Perhaps it was for this reason that Jesus rarely
asked people to worship him though he never refused their true worship. He
asked people to worship God, yet claiming to be equal with God and deserving
the honour that is due only to God.(28)
He wanted people to understand the true character of God before they worshipped
God. He wanted people to realise that the essence of God was in him. This is
why it is important to first understand what the Holy Bible--Taurat, Zabur,
Anbia (Writings of the Jewish Prophets) and Injil teach about the
nature of God, so we can understand the true spiritual nature of Jesus Christ
in the Injil. GOD IS LIGHT ( ﷲ ﺭﻭﻧ
) Those who have a difficult time understanding these things,
should remember the fact that God is light.(29)
Since God uses the illustration of light to describe himself, we must think
about this. What kind of light is meant? Is it like the light in the sun or
light bulb that people squint to look at or like the light that falls on a page
and enters the eye, illuminating the words? Is it like the light that we back
away from or like the light that comes to help us? In reality we know that they
are one and the same light. One is simply concentrated in one spot--the
source--which needs to be bright so that the light that falls on the page is
the right intensity to meet our needs and relate to us as men. Yet, when we
turn the light switch off, we realise they are one and the same light. Since
they are one intrinsically, they are intrinsically inseparable but they
are also practically inseparable in completing the work they do. In the
same way when some people saw Jesus, they didn't realise he was God because he
didn't have the appearance of God--the God that appeared to the Prophet Moses ﻤﻮﺳﻰ ﺤﺿﺮﺖ was too bright to
look at. Only after Jesus Christ had ascended up into heaven did many people
realise fully who he was. THE QUR'AN'S PRESENTATION OF THE
"CHRISTIAN TRINITY" It is also helpful to note the difference between the
"trinity" of the Qur'an and the "trinity" of the
Bible. The "trinity" is alluded to in the Qur'an in Sura
5:73 in such a way that Yusuf Ali in his translation of the meaning of
the Qur'an after, "They disbelieve who say: Allah is one of
three " adds the phrase "(In a Trinity)". Sura 5:116
states, "And behold! Allah will say: In light of the context of the verses that follow this verse, we
see that this is the Qur'an's presentation of the “Christian trinity”. Ibn
Hisham states that this presentation of the "trinity" was being
promoted by the Christians from Najran.(30)
Yet, the Qur'an's presentation of the "trinity" is definitely not
what God has revealed about himself, Jesus Christ, or Mary (Miriam), the
mother of Jesus, in the Bible. From the Bible we know that God has no other
equal, Mary is not God's wife nor was she divine and Jesus Christ was not God's
physical Son. Again in Sura 4:171 it states, Christ Jesus the son of Mary This portion is addressed to the People of the Book, which could
include Jews and Christians. Since the Jews did not refer to Jesus as the Son
of God, this has to be in response to Christians. Here, again, in the last line
in the negation of God having a son, the Arabic word, walad ﻮﻟﺪ , is used. As we
have seen, the scriptures of the Christians teach that there is One God and never
refers to Jesus as the physical son, walad, ﻮﻟﺪ of God. The phrases
"Son of God" or "son of God" in the Christian scriptures is
only used in a spiritual, metaphorical sense. THE "CHRISTIAN CREED" AND THE SON OF
GOD The term "Son of God" is used so often by those who
follow Jesus and believe on him that some people may think that the phrase
"Son of God" is part of a creed that must be recited by anyone who
wants to be a Christian, in a similar way that Muslims must recite a creed to
become a Muslim and to declare their continued allegiance to their faith.
Because many Muslims have been taught that Christians believe that Jesus was
the physical son of God, they naturally find this very repulsive. Though some
might long to believe in Jesus they would never seriously think to do so for
the reason that they may be expected to use this term. This term would be
misunderstood and very repulsive to their family and friends. The fact is, no
one is required to refer to Jesus using the term, the Son of God, to be a true
Christian. Of course, one would need to understand the true meaning
behind the term and definitely believe the true meaning behind the term.
But there are other words to describe the same concept, such as a proper
understanding of the prophet Daniel's "Son of Man" prophecy or the
expression, "the most beloved vice-regent of God who was the very
nature and essence of God, making him God Himself in human flesh." GOD OR SON OF GOD Some people ask, “Was Jesus Christ God or the son of God?” As we
have seen, referring to someone using the term "son of God" does not
mean that person is God. But the term "the Son of God" points
to the fact that, spiritually, Jesus Christ was God. As we have already seen,
this term refers to his eternal nature and essence. It also many times refers
to him being an anointed vice-regent of God, endued with the power, blessing
and authority of God because of this eternal nature and essence.
"Son" is also used to express the fact that he was not just a
servant. Even though he submitted as a servant, he was considered a son,
who had inheritance, privilege, honour and special love. He was not just in
the house, but of the house.(31)
Jesus Christ was also called "the Son", which not only included these
last three meanings but also the concept of "the Son of Man" given in
the prophecy of the prophet Daniel. (Daniel 7:13-14) "SON" IN CULTURE As we have already seen, "son" can be used in
difference ways. Egyptians are called "sons of the Nile." The Qur'an
refers to a traveler as a "son of the road" (ibn al-sabeel, ﺍﻟﺴﺑﻴﻝ ﺍﺑﻦ).(32)
Daughters are called "sons" in many cultures by fathers who love them
very much. In Pakistan and Iran devout followers of God are called farzandan-i-tawheed,
ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻔﺮﺯﻨﺪﺎﻦِ ,
meaning "sons of unity."(33)
Any English dictionary shows that "son" is used in a figurative or
metaphorical sense as the "inheritor of a quality."(34)
So it is clear that there is no problem in using the term "son of
God" in referring to Jesus Christ. The Bible even refers to Jesus Christ
as the Son of God, which not only suggests a special relationship with
God but it also means that he is the Son above all sons--the one whose
relationship with God is superior to anyone's relationship with God. This kind
of claim definitely needs the evidence to back it up. To understand what kind
of relationship Jesus had with God we need to look at what the Holy Bible says
about him. THE SON OF GOD IN THE BIBLE As we have seen, the Bible presents Jesus as the beloved Son of
God and the Son of Man. This Son was prophesied by the prophets; he had a human
nature but was called “the Son of God" because of his indestructible,
spiritual nature, which was proved by his resurrection from the dead.(35)
His message was for all people for all times.(36) The Injil states, . . . in these last days [God] has spoken to
us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made
the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After
he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he
has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever
say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father and he will be my Son"? And again, when God
brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels
worship him." In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels
winds, his servants flames of fire." But about the Son he says, "Your
throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with
the oil of joy." He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord you laid the
foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will
perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll
them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the
same, and your years will never end. To which of the angels did God every,
"Sit at my right hand until I made your enemies a footstool for your
feet"?(37) Because through him and for him all things, mankind included,
were made,(38)
and because of his unique origin and power which caused him to rise
victoriously back to life from the dead, he has been appointed to be the judge
of all mankind.(39)
These and many more things about him are recorded in the Injil. THE SON OF GOD AND US The result of him being the Son of God, is that eventually he
might destroy the devil and his works. Being God, he had all the power and
authority that was needed. Being man he could identify with the sufferings of
man, and offer the sacrifice of his life that never needed to be repeated,
rescuing man from spiritual death--separation from God--giving him eternal life
and peace from the shame of sin and disobedience.(40) This message is a message of hope because as human beings we
deserve the wrath of God. God says that everyone deserves his wrath and
even if we kept the whole law and yet failed in only one point, we would be
guilty of breaking the whole law.(41)
Because Jesus Christ has been appointed to be the final judge, we know that we
will not escape God's judgment. Therefore, we must recognize the seriousness
of just one sin and it's full penalty--eternal separation from God--and humbly
receive in thanks the gift of Jesus' right standing with God that Jesus Christ
is willing to share with us. Because of this Son, Jesus Christ, we have the
possibility of spending eternity in the presence of God. Only through this
process can true repentance and salvation take place that truly
gives glory and honour and credit to God.(42) May God bless you with his peace! ENDNOTES (1) Wehr, Hans. A
Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. London: MacDonald and Evans Ltd.
©1961, p.76. (2) Ibid, pp. 1097-1098. (3) The following are the verses that negate
the possibility of God having a son using the word walad ﻮﻟﺪ :
(4) The Holy Bible,
Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5. (5) Harris, Walke, and
Archer. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Moody Press: Chicago,
Ill. ©1980, p. 378-380 shows that the Hebrew word “walad” can have a physical
or metaphorical meaning. It states the following concerning its metaphorical
meanings: “The word is often used in a figurative sense. Thus it may refer to a
city or nation as having given birth to its inhabitants. . . .” “In most every
instance actual paternity is represented by the Hiphil and a more general relationship
like relationship of peoples . . . uses the Qal. Thus Ps 2:7 is not causative,
but refers to a relation of love.” It goes on to say, “ ‘yālad’ in Ps. 2:7
(note that it is not Hiphil) refers to the relationship of love between the
Father and the Son.” Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic.
London: MacDonald and Evans Ltd. ©1961, pp. 1097-1098 shows that the Arabic
word walad ﻮﻟﺪ can have a physical or metaphorical meaning. It
gives the following metaphorical meanings of “walada”, the root word for walad
ﻮﻟﺪ :
“to be produced; to cause, occasion, originate, grow, develop, arise, proceed,
follow, result.” (6) Thayer, Joseph H., Thayers’s
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,
Michigan. © 1977 p. 113. (7) The following verses
from the Qur’an show the Torah to be true at the time of Jesus: Sura 19:12,
3:48, 66:12, 3:49-50, 61:6, 5:49, 5:113 The following verses from the Qur’an showing that the Torah and
the Gospel were true and unchanged at the time of Muhammad: Sura 34:31, 35:31,
10:37, 12:111, 6:154-157, 40:69-70, 46:12, 46:29-30, 2:91, 3:3, 4:162-163,
9:111, 5:51 The following Muslim
scholars admit that the text of the Bible hasn’t been changed: Ahmed, Sir Syed
. The Seventh Discourse. (Reprinted from The Mohamedan Commentary on
the Holy Bible). ©1911. Regarding the scriptures of the Jews and
Christians, Sir Syed Ahmed cites Iman Muhammad Isma’il Bukhari stating
in his book that “there is no man that could corrupt a single word that has
proceeded from God”; Ibn Taimiya in his Fathu’l-Bari when
questioned on the meaning of tahreef stating that “doctors of former
times had taken it in two senses; some maintaining that it meant an
interpolation of words; and some that it meant the misrepresentation of the
meaning of a subject; and that many arguments had been adduced in support of
the latter opinion.”; Shah Wali Ullah in his Fuzu’l-Kabir saying
that “the original text was not tampered with”; Iman Fakhru’d-din Razi
in his commentary on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas stating “. . . in the
opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not practical thus to
corrupt the text; because these scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated having been handed down from generation to generation. No interpolation
therefore could be made in them . . .” (8) The Holy Bible,
Psalm 2 and 1 Chronicles 17:13. (9) The Holy Bible,
John 1:1,14, Micah 5:2, Luke 1:35, John 4:24, Philippians 2:5-8. (10) The Holy Bible,
Daniel 7:13-14. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., © 1979, Vol. 1, p. 859,
states, “The last recorded vision of Daniel occurred on the banks of the river
Tigris in the third year of Cyrus (536 B.C.) . . .” (11) Eisenman, Robert and
Michael Wise. Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. New York: Penguin Books, Ó
1992, pp. 68-71. (12) Ibn Hisham, translated
by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi: Oxford University Press,
p. 163, 271, 272, Ó 1955. (13) Sahih Muslim,
Vol. 1, chapter 81, Number 0352. Rendered into English by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi,
Idara Isha’at-e-Diniyat (P) Ltd., New Delhi, India. Ó 2001, p. 132. In Sahih
Muslim when Christians state that Jesus is the Son, ibn ﺍﺑﻦ of God it is negated
by the statement, “You tell a lie: Allah did not take for Himself either a
spouse or a son [walad ﻮﻟﺪ].” (14) Ibn Hisham, translated
by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi: Oxford University Press,
p. 272. Ó 1955. (15) In his
commentary in The Holy Qur'an: English translation of the meanings and
Commentary, Revised and Edited by The Presidency of Islamic Researches,
IFTA, Call and Guidance, Ó 1413 H. , p 507, Yusuf Ali states, “Taking men for
gods or sons of Allah was not a new thing. All ancient mythologies have fables
of that kind. There was less excuse for such blasphemies after the Prophets of
Allah had clearly explained out true relation to Allah than in the times of
primitive ignorance and superstition.” (16) Ibn Hisham,
translated by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi: Oxford
University Press, p. 271-272, Ó 1955. For the Arabic, Sirat Rasul Allah, go
to http://sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=rwd3002.htm (17) The British Library contain the Greek
manuscripts, Siniaticus and Alexandrinus, which date to the 4th and
5th century respectively. A complete Hebrew text of the Old
Testament called the Aleppo Manuscript dates to A.D. 930. In addition, all but
the book of Esther is verified by fragments dating from before Muhammad. Almost
all of the New Testament can be reproduced from the writings of the early
Christian scholars. (18) Ibn Hisham, translated by A.
Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi: Oxford University Press, p.
266, Ó 1955. (19) Ibid, p. 271. (20) Anderson, Norman, Islam in the Modern World, chapter
5, Ó 1990. (21) Haddad, Y. Y and W. Z. Haddad (ed.) Christian-Muslim
Encounters, “Jesus the Son of God: A Study of the Terms Ibn and Walad in
the Qur’an and the Tafsīr Tradition”, by Mahmud Mustafa Ayoub, University
Press of Florida, Ó1995, p. 74. (22) Ibid, p. 66. (23) Ibid, p. 70. (24) Ibid, p. 72-73. (25) The Holy Bible, Deuteronomy
33:27, 1 Timothy 1:17, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 5:10. (26) The Holy Bible, John 4:24. (27) The Holy Bible, John 3:6. (28) The Holy Bible, Matthew 2:11; Matthew 14:33; Matthew 21:12-17; John 5:16-23;
Matthew 8:2; Matthew 9:18; Matthew 15:25; Matthew 28:9,17; This is in contrast
to the Apostle Peter refusing worship in Acts 10:25 because he was “only a
man”. (29) The Holy Bible, Exodus 33:18;
34:29-35, Ezekiel 10:4; Psalm 104:30-31, John 1:18, John 4:24, 1 Timothy 6:16,
1 John 1:5; 4:12, Revelation 21:23. (31) The Holy Bible, John 8:34-36. (32) Sura 2:215. (33) "The Pakistan Post", 14
February 2003 (Picture with words underlined in red). (34) Thompson, Della, (ed.), Oxford
Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, © 1993, p. 870. (35) The Holy Bible, Romans 1:1-4. (36) The Holy Bible, Romans 1:5;
Romans 10:9-12; Hebrews 3:7. (38) The Holy Bible, Colossians
1:15-18. (39) The Holy Bible, Acts 17:31. (40) The
Holy Bible, Hebrews chapter 2 and following. (41) The Holy Bible, Isaiah 53; Ezra 9:15; Psalm 143:2; Romans 3; Romans 6:23; James 2:10. (42)
The Holy Bible, Romans 3:9-20, 23;
6:23; James 4:10, 1 John 1:7-9; John 3:16; Colossians 1:9-14. Scripture taken from
the HOLY BIBLE, NIV® Qur'anic references
from the Yusuf Ali translation ____________________________________________
The Messiah =
The Son of God (an explanation of those two titles and their
relationship) The meaning of
quranic term al-Masih http://cultureandlove.blogspot.com/2009/09/son-of-god-in-bible-and-quran.html |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
