The Person of Jesus Christ

by L Bevan Jones

Muslims show great respect and reverence towards Jesus Christ but He is always only Jesus ’son of Mary’ and remains no more than a prophet. Mr Bevan reviews the reason for this inadequate concept and leads us to the divinity of Christ and the deeper implications of Sonship.

Not with standing the constant assertion that Muslims respect Jesus Christ as much as Christians do, Muslims are quick to repudiate the unique claims which we make for Him. Jesus, "Son of Mary", as the Qur'an repeatedly calls Him, is for them only one of the prophets, and even so, not the last or the best, cp Surah 43:59; 5:79.

Loyalty to Muhammad and a natural preference for him are in themselves, sufficient reasons for their refusing to give Jesus “the name that is above every name“. But there is more; there is a kind of "jealousy for God", as they understand Him that provokes them to denounce as blasphemy any honour paid to Christ which, in effect, makes Him to be more than a man, more than a prophet, and so to encroach on the province of God.

Moreover, this jealousy is deeply rooted in the cardinal doctrine of Islam, tawhid, the Unity, which we find set forth repeatedly in the Qur'an. As Maulana Muhammad Ali says:"The Unity of God is the one great theme of the Holy Qur'an... There is absolute Unity in Divine nature; it admits of no participation or manifoldness….. Continue Islam denies all plurality of persons in the Godhead, and any participation of any being in the affairs of the world... It refuses to acknowledge the incarnation of the Divine Being".(# Preface to the Holy Qur’an pp 8 & 9) And, as though the insistence of the Qur'an were, by itself, insufficient to imprint this doctrine on the minds of Muslims, the offence of shirk, "associating a partner"with God, is declared therein to be the one unpardonable sin, (# Preface to the Holy Qur’an pp 8 & 9)

Mr. Yusuf Ali's translation is, "God forgiveth not that equals should be set up with Him'"; and comments:"Blasphemy in the spiritual kingdom is like treason in the political kingdom... This is rebellion against the essence and source of spiritual Life"; and the Ahmadi writer explains:"The reference is to polytheism or the setting up of gods with Allah ".

There seems little doubt that here - in the constant reiteration of the doctrine of tawhid, coupled with the dreaded sin of shirk - we come upon the two main factors which so strongly prejudice the minds of Muslims that they are not prepared to entertain any exposition of the Deity of Christ, or any explanation of the Divine Incarnation. In particular, one detects strong resentment in their attitude to our use of the terms "Son", and "Son of God", with reference to Christ; it is not too much to say that, by giving to these terms the connotation they do, Muslims positively abhor the doctrine of the Sonship of Christ.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE QUR’AN

And inasmuch as the mind of man grows by what it feeds upon we must needs turn again to the Qur’an if we would estimate aright the influence of that Book in producing and perpetuating such strong feelings. We find that it not only gives pre - eminence to the Unity of Allah, but repeated, and sometimes in the most vehement language, repudiates the notion that Allah "has a son".

Of to read commenting on one the verses referred to below, (39:6), Muhammad Ali states "The Qur'an refers to the error of attributing a son to the Divine Being almost as frequently as to the doctrine of setting up idols with Allah".

It is convenient to classify all such passages in two groups:

(1) Those that refer to pagan Arabs, and (2) those referring to Christians.

Passages referring to the pagan Arabs

Here are some belonging to the first group:

Surah 112:1-4,

"Say:He is God alone:God, the Eternal! He doth not beget, and He is not begotten; and there is no one in His likeness at all."

Muhammad Ali says of this short chapter:"It gives the sum and substance of the teachings of the Holy Qur'an, which is the declaration of the Unity of the Divine Being.... All other objects are secondary as compared with this. The chapter is one of the earliest revelations and contains a refutation not only of idolatry and Christianity, but of every polytheistic doctrine,"Muhammad himself is credited with having declared that the above chapter "is equal to a third of the Qur'an". (# Mishkatu’l - Masabih, Book 8, Chap 1, p.508, Vol 1, Matthew’s translation)

"Say:' If the God of Mercy had a son, the first would I be to worship him:but far be the Lord of the Heavens and of the Earth, the Lord of the Throne, from that which they impute to Him!'' Surah 43:8 1-2.

"And He - may the Majesty of our Lord be exalted' - hath no spouse, neither hath He any offspring,"Surah 72:3

"Had God desired to have a son, He had surely chosen what He pleased out of His own creation. But praise be to Him! He is God, the One, the Almighty."Surah 39:6

"They say 'God hath begotten children'. No! by His glory! He is the self - sufficient. All that is in the Heavens and all that is in the earth is His! Have ye any authority for that assertion? What! speak ye of God that which ye know not "? Surah 10:69

"In their ignorance they have falsely ascribed to Him sons and daughters. Glory be to Him! And high let Him be exalted above that which they attribute to Him! Sole Maker of the Heavens and of the Earth! how, when He hath no consort, should He have a son? "Surah 6:100-101.

Passages referring to Christians

The following passages refer to Christians:

The most cursory study of these verses leaves on the mind two clear impressions:

(a) the denunciations of the Qur'an are hurled at Christians equally with pagan Arabs for using such language in reference to God,

and

(b) the view of "sonship"underlying the phrases is a grossly carnal one.

The comments of so enlightened a Muslim as Mr. Yusuf Ali, on some of the passages quoted in the second group, abundantly confirm the latter impression in its reference to Christians:

"Begetting a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature. God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him"(Surah 19:35);

"the belief in God begetting a son is not a question merely of words or of speculative thought. It is a stupendous blasphemy against God. It lowers God to the level of an animal"(Surah 19:91);

"if words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution to God of a material nature, and of the lower animal functions of sex” (Surah 2:110).

As for the Arabs, we know that they fully merited Muhammad's strictures. His own townspeople the Meccans, among whom he spent over forty years of his life, worshipped hundreds of blocks of stone, taking them to be male and female deities. A caustic reference to them is made in an early Surah,

And what of the Christians? We can be sure that they would have spoken of Jesus as the "Son of God", much as all Christians have from the first century until now. But Muhammad, influenced on the one hand by the current blasphemous expressions of the idolatrous Arabs, and on the other by the calumnies of the Jews who cast a slur on the names of both Jesus and Mary, insisted that He be called Mary's "pure son"(# Surah 19:19). And from this we may infer that, though he himself manifestly believed Jesus to have been supernaturally born, (Surah 3:42) yet still he could only speak of Him as a "son"in the physical sense.

Muhammad reprobated the use of such language as "Son of God", because it inevitably suggested to him carnal relationship. It is all very well for modern commentators, like the two referred to above to insinuate that there would have been no objection to the use of such language had it been employed metaphorically, since both Jews and Christians were known to call themselves "sons of God"in the sense that they believed themselves to be specially beloved, or favoured, by the Divine Being. Muhammad himself knew that, yet the fact remains he seems to have been incapable of attaching any other than a carnal signification to this name by which Christians speak of Christ.

ORIGIN AND REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PHRASE

Since such a gross conception of Christ's Sonship is no less offensive and blasphemous to our minds, a solemn obligation rests upon us to try to explain to Muslims what precisely we do mean when we speak of Jesus Christ as "the Son of God". How is it that we have come to use this phrase and what is our authority for so doing? Many of us will be ready to confess that we have been accustomed to do so from childhood; the words had already been incorporated into our religious vocabulary before we began to consider their true import. That explains some of our embarrassment when we meet with the contradiction of Muslims.

1. But we did not coin the phrase, nor has it crept into Christian usage in the course of the centuries. It is something that we associate with the very origins of Christianity. It is given to us in Scripture. We use it on the authority of the New Testament.

Consider the following array of passages, by no means exhaustive:

God Himself called Jesus His "Beloved Son"at the Baptism, Mark. 1:11 and at the Transfiguration, Mark. 9:7.

Gabriel declared Jesus would be called "Son of God", Luke 1:35.

The Baptist gave Jesus that name, John 1:34.

So did the disciples of Jesus, Matthew 14:33; 16:16; John 1:49; 11:27.

Jesus used it of Himself, John 5:25, 10:36, 11; 4.

The enemies of Jesus used it, implying that He so called Himself, Mark. 14:61; Matthew 26:63; 27; 43; Luke 22:70; John 19:7 (The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the 'Son of God')

The Apostle Paul so spoke of Him, Acts 9:20; Galatians 2:20 and elsewhere. Other writers so referred to Him, Hebrews 6:6; I John 2:22, 4:15 ("Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God"), Revelation 2:18.

There seems to be no doubt that Jesus used this phrase of Himself, or permitted its use by others, or let it be understood as being appropriate and applicable to Himself; moreover, we find that the Jews repeatedly took up stones to stone Him for what they considered blasphemous language on His part. And yet His offence, in their eyes, was not so much that He called Himself "Son of God“, as that by thus speaking, and by calling God His "Father", He made Himself "equal with God"(John 10:33).

That, then, is the first thing to be said about the continuous and universal use of this phrase in the Christian Church we have scriptural authority for it; to be precise the authority of the New Testament.

2. We turn next to enquire how this language, Son of God, is used in Scripture.

(a) It goes without saying that in no place is the phrase employed in a carnal sense, such as the Qur'an has in view.

(b) He is not called "Son of God by virtue of the manner of His birth; conversely, it is not His birth that makes Him the "Son of God".

(c) The simple fact is that the phrase serves, primarily, as a designation, a title for the Messiah. Only in Luke I:35 is it used in connection with the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, and even there its significance is that of a name be given to Him, the "Holy One". As Bishop Gore has well said of this very passage:"Luke's narrative suggests nothing more than that the child to be born was to be the promised Christ.

'Son of the Highest' (verse 32), and 'Son of God' would not, in the context, suggest anything more too Jewish ears". In other words, it is after all, symbolic language, a metaphor, and not to be taken literally. Even so, of all the terms used for Christ it is the one which best does justice to our experience of Him.

(d) Furthermore, the use of the term "Son"in this sense has a history. It was in use in pre - Christian times. (# cp. 2 Edras, 2:45, The Apocrypha) Gradually among the Jews the conception of the Messiah as the 'Son‘, i.e. of God, became part of a fixed tradition in the period immediately preceding the advent of Jesus. We have indications of this in two places in the Psalms, Psalm. 2:7, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"; and Psalm 89:26-27, "I also will make him ( my ) firstborn ". Echoes of these passages are found in the opening verses (4-5) of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "He hath inherited a more excellent name than they", i.e. than all prophets and angels. That name is son.

3. But there is much more to it than this Messianic colouring, prominent though that was to the minds of Jesus and the Jews.

In the New Testament the phrase contains the very special idea that the consciousness of Jesus towards God was a truly filial consciousness. God was to Him "Father"; He was to God "Son". These two lines of usage converge and help us to establish the conclusion concerning the inner significance of such language, True, in the Synoptic gospels this filial relationship is felt as an underlying supposition of the narrative rather than directly expressed in it. Yet, even in them, it is occasionally mentioned as expressly stated in Matthew 11:25-30,

(# These words have been called "the greatest Christological passage in the New Testament"and are held to belong to "the very oldest and safest strand of evidence").

But in the Fourth Gospel the theme is given great prominence, and is worked out in a variety of detail. Moreover, the evangelist stresses the fact that this relationship existed long before Jesus was born a babe in Bethlehem.

4. Still further significance attaches to this Name from the fact that the early Church, following the apostles and most of all Paul, came to identify Jesus with the "Son of God", and so spoke of Him, on the ground of what He achieved historically.

Consider for a moment the terms in which Paul, for instance, refers to the One who has wrought so great salvation for himself and others:

"The Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me ". Galatians 2:20.

He does not think of speaking of Jesus in this connection as "The Messiah", or "Son of Man", "The Word". Only the designation "Son of God "will suffice. He and the rest were forced to name Him thus because of their experience; it wasn't that they were predisposed to so. To quote the late Bishop Gore again:"Belief in Him - 'The Christ', as 'Lord', and as 'Son of God', was claimed by the original apostles on the ground of what they had themselves seen and heard during their experience extending over all the time the Lord Jesus moved among them."

The Phrase predicates Deity

It may seem to some that in all this explanation of its origin and meaning we are merely exhibiting our anxiety to defend the continued use of an admittedly difficult phrase and that we might spend our time more profitably on some other topic. But surely we realize that we have yet to address ourselves to the stupendous claim which underlies this designation. At any rate it is true of the Muslim, as of the Jew in the days of Jesus, that the full force of his protest is directed not so much against the use of this title "Son of God", as against the deeper implication of such Sonship, viz:that there is essential identity between the Father and the Son.

It is to this the implied Deity of Christ, involving as it does the incarnation of the Divine Being that the Muslim takes the strongest exception. Allah is la - sharik, i. e. He "has no partner"a dogma which is expounded to mean, "He is singular, without anything like Him; separate, having no equal".

But now, if this belief of the Christians be admitted, God would be "sharing"His Divine Glory with another; He would have a "partner"and that is a proposition ( shirk) which the Muslim declares to be both blasphemous and impossible. "Islam refuses to acknowledge the incarnation of the Divine Being."

Yet here is something that is fundamental for the  Christian faith. We cannot ignore it, much less can we repudiate it; for Christianity is what it is because of what we believe Christ to be. But can we so state the truth about Him as to make it appear to the Muslim less objectionable, less impossible for thought, and yet at the same time surrender no essential part of it. That precisely is the task before us.

The Muslim's error, and his need, will become apparent if we approach the exposition of this subject by way of his own deeply - rooted conviction about the separateness of Allah. Just as he says in the language of the Qu'ran, "It beseemeth not God to beget a son", so might he retort on the Christian, "Far be it from the God of Mercy to be found in fashion as a man". In other words, he considers it to be derogatory to the Majesty of the Most High to become incarnate, even though it be for man's salvation. One might even venture to express his point of view in some such extreme words as these   rather let man "go to hell"than that God should become incarnate to save him from hell.

What shall we say of the Sonship of Jesus?

The world is so familiar with unchaste stories in pagan mythology about gods disporting themselves with the daughters of men, that it is not difficult to understand the prejudice that leads the Muslim to suspect that we have here merely an adaptation from grotesque legend. But those stories, at best, are expressions of man's guesses about God, whereas we take Jesus to be, as one writer has put it, "the unique and essential appearance of God in history"(# H. R. Macintosh, The Person of Christ page 431).

That phrase is worth pondering, because it holds the key to the "mystery"of the Person of Jesus Christ. We account for Him by predicating an amazing act on the part of God, nothing less than a self - revelation of the Divine Nature. So that we believe Jesus to be the real answer to man's perennial question, "What is God like ?"

He comes before us, not so much as a problem, as a solution of a problem; for what we see in Him inspires in us a profound and triumphant conviction that the Almighty God Himself, Maker of Heaven and Earth, is, supremely and essentially Holy Love.

When, then, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrew. Speaks of this "Son"as "the radiance of God's Glory and the impress of His Essence". Hebrews 1:3

We are already in a position to declare that the highest category which we can apply to that Divine "essence"is ethical. Beholding as we do the love trust and obedience which mark the life of the Son, we infer that, Holy Will and Loving Purpose are of the very essence of God Himself. Beyond this it is profitless to discuss how Jesus shared the "essence"of God. Here is all that ultimately matters - the will of Jesus, as "Son", was one with the Will of God; not partially, not intermittently nor yet in a metaphor, but identically one.

"Sonship"in Christ’s case, then, is not something which indicates His likeness to other men, as though He were on their plane. Rather, "It is something which signalises His distinction from them". It proclaims His incomparable and transcendent dignity, for He was to God what no other can be. As has been truly said, "The root - element in the consciousness of Jesus was a sense of' sonship"to the Divine Father, deeper, clearer, more intimate, more all - embracing and all - absorbing than was ever vouchsafed to a child of man".(# Sandy, art. Son of God, Hastings, Dict. Bible.) Any inferior being, indeed, could not enter so perfectly into the mind of God, or reflect it so perfectly to man. That precisely is His own claim.

"No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him".( Matthew 11:27).

How could the eternal God be in Jesus?

Yet still, the Muslim maintains that it is impossibility for thought that the Maker of Heaven and Earth, the Lord of the Worlds, should be subject to any such limitation as the Incarnation implies. The crudest form in which the objection has been put may be stated thus:

"Did God leave His throne and the rule of the worlds for those thirty - three years when He was in Jesus?"

It is recorded, for instance, that Ibn Hazm(d. 1153) accused the Jacobites of saying that, "Christ is God Most High Himself, and that God Most High (so great is their blasphemy) died and was crucified and was slain; and that the world remained for three days without a ruler, and the firmament without a ruler; then He rose and returned as He was before".(# quoted by L.E. Browne, The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia p.73) One may well question whether the Jacobites, or for that matter any Christians at any time, have expressed their belief about the Incarnation so fatuously; but if they have it should be said that it is a notion utterly incongruous with the view of the Divine indwelling that we have put forward above.

Again, we perceive that the Muslim's difficulty arises from a further unfounded assumption on his part. Conceiving the Deity to be the Infinite and SeIf - Sufficient One, he argues that it would be a contradiction of His very Nature were He to become, in any way, incarnate. That is the position at which the mind of man is apt to arrive by a priori reasoning a conclusion to which he is forced by the very premises he has laid down.

Yet all that we see in Jesus is an emphatic exposure of the fallacy in that kind of reasoning; for He is to us the definite assurance, as we have said above, that the Mighty God is essentially, Holy love. As such God has a boundless capacity for self - determination.

Were He other than that? Were He to be defined, for instance, first and last, as Power then His "glory"might be sullied by an act of condescension, or were He, supremely Intelligence, He might hesitate to appear in lowly guise; or, again, were He best described as Justice, then He might seek some other means to succour mankind; but being Love, Holy Love, He does stoop to save. and, stooping, is not degraded.

But then the Muslim turns to look, as we desire he should, at the life of Jesus as recorded in the gospels, and he is baffled by what he sees there. Where is the proof, he asks. that God was in such a Jesus?

He prays to God, Matthew 26:39;

He was tempted by Satan, Mark 1:13;

He was disappointed at me's unbelief, Mark. 6:6;

He sought information, Mark. 5:30;

He manifested surprise, Matthew 8:10;

He was weary and, by implication, thirsty, John. 4:6 - 7;

He was mocked, spat upon, bufetted, Matthew. 27:29 - 30;

He was crucified, dead and buried, Matthew 27:35, 50, 60.　

Reading all this the Muslim asks, could "the Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faint and be weary?"Could He be tempted, spat upon, killed ? Is it not sheer blasphemy to speak of Him as being "captive, beaten, bound, reviled?"

Moreover, the Muslim thinks he finds repudiation of the Christian assertion of the Deity of Jesus in the very words of Jesus Himself, where He says, for instance,

"I can of myself do nothing ", John 5:30;

and

"Of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only ",

Matthew 24:36.

These, indeed, are features drawn from the known facts of the human life of Jesus, and it is upon the recorded facts that we must proceed. But, now, what do these features really denote? Two facts in particular;

1. That Jesus was fully and completely man ("born under the Law"), though that is not to say that He was only man. He was a Jew, living His life within a body that was "organic to His self - consciousness". He possessed power that was, at times, thwarted by unbelief. His knowledge also, as we have remarked, was limited.(# How unhistorical is the kind of uncanny knowledge with which He is credited in the Qur'an, 3:43; and how contrary to fact are the words it makes Him say, "I know not what is in Thee (God)", 5:116.)

His moral nature was susceptible of growth, and was exposed to life - long temptation; while His very piety and personal religion were marked at all times by dependence upon God. But this only means that the Divine Life within Him found its expression through a truly human nature.

2. That which baffles the Muslim can, in part, be explained if, to what we have already said, we now add that in Jesus we see "Godhead self - reduced but real ". For, since the Almighty has a boundless capacity for self - determination, it follows that He also has the power to bring His greatness down to the narrow measures of our human life. But in any case God could not put more into humanity than humanity will hold, so that this self - limitation, this self - emptying of Deity, which we deduce from the facts of the human life of Jesus, instead of being an impossible conception, becomes the first condition for making any revelation at all. In this matter God must act through the conditions supplied by humanity. This it is that explains the absence in Jesus of certain attributes and functions which we rightly associate with the infinite glory of God the Absolute, viz. omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and the like. These are utterly incompatible with humanity, as such.

Moreover, it is appropriate in Jesus, the Son, that He should manifest a sense of subordination to the Father. Thus He declares,

"The Father is greater than I", John 14:28:

and

"I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of Him that sent me", John. 6:38.

But He also made statements about Himself such as the following

"My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me", (John. 4:34)

because His whole being was always set to do God's will.

And it is in the sense of all that has just been said that we should understand such sayings of Jesus as,

"I and my Father are One", John 10:30;

and,

"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father", John 14:9.

It was in this sense that He could say that His words and works were the words and works of God, and it is this perfect identification with essential Deity that gives the utmost significance to that other saying of His,

"This is life eternal, that they may know Thee, the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent " John 17:3

because to know Jesus is to know what God is like.

And this precisely is what we find; for the character, authority and love of Jesus are to us the character, authority and love of God Himself. The self - revelation of God, then, in Jesus Christ, is in every way adequate to human need. It is more;- it is distinctive - there can be no uncertainty about the quality of the life revealed; and it is decisive and final - we need not wait for more, because revelation can go no further.