|
It is universally held among Muslims that all prophets. as a class,
were sinless; and sometimes there is quoted in support of such a notion the Quranic passage: “No apostle have we
sent before thee (Muhammad) to whom We did not reveal that 'Verily there is no God beside Me; therefore worship
Me',.... They speak not till He hath spoken; and they do His bidding",
Surah 21:25, 27.
Commenting on the latter verse a (# Maulana Muhammad Ali, in loc cit,
note 1624) an exponent of this view says: 'This verse gives us a conclusive testimony to the sinlessness of
prophets. When they speak they do not precede Allah in speech, i.e. they speak according to what He has taught
them, not speaking of their own accord. And when they act, they act according to His commandment. Thus both their
speech and their actions are in accordance with Divine will, and therefore it cannot be said that they commit
sin,"
Occasionally it is stated by Christian writers that Jesus Christ is the
one sinless prophet in Islam, but that must not be taken to represent the Muslim view: for whatever the Qur'an may
say about Him, it nowhere states that He, or any prophet for that matter, was' sinless'.
ISA DECLARED TO BE PURE FROM SIN
 Nevertheless,
while by inference from the Qur'an itself other prophets have sinned yet there is not a hint there, or anywhere
else in Islamic literature, of sin in Jesus. On the contrary, definite support for the common belief of the masses
that He was without sin is to be found in a well-known, tradition, attested by both Bukhari and Muslim, which runs
as follows:
"The Prophet said, 'There is no son of Adam born, except Mary and her
Son, but Satan touches him when he is born and he cries out from the touch of Satan," This tradition is
quoted by Baidawi in his comment on the verse. "I have named her Mary, and I take refuge with thee for her
and for her offspring, from Satan the atoned". Surah 3: 31,
A variant form of the tradition is as follows:
"The apostle of God said, Every child of Adam is at its birth, struck
in the side by the devil's fingers, except Jesus, son of Mary. The devil went to stick his fingers into his side,
but struck them in the membranes enveloping the foetus'." (# Mishkatu'l-Masabih, Book I,
chap. 3, pt.1, and Book 14, chap. 1, pt.1, (trans. Matthews).
And the Qur'an itself makes Gabriel say to Mary that she is to have "a
holy son" Surah 19:19; which Baidawi interprets to mean pure from sin.
Yet now, the Ahmadis are maintaining that Jesus was far from blameless
in character. The lead in this matter was given by the founder of the sect, who in face of
the angry protests of the orthodox, defended himself by declaring that he was not attacking the 'Isa of the
Qur'an, but the Jesus of the gospels-an excuse that deceived nobody. He sought to establish his contention on the
gospel narratives themselves. How he wrested the meaning of passages in his determination to degrade Jesus, will
be realized by a perusal of a list of his charges.
Maulana Muhammad Ali, himself the Mirza's disciple, bases his
repudiation of the sinlessness of Christ on other grounds. He maintains (and quite rightly) that mere "sinlessness"
is no proof of greatness. Rather, greatness depends upon the amount of good done to one's fellow-men. Judged by
this standard, he asserts that Muhammad is easily the greatest benefactor of humanity; and, in reference to the
call to the prophetic office, says: "He did not stand in need of being baptized by somebody as Jesus did".(#
Muhammad and Christ, pp. 52,117)
One finds it difficult to understand how such writers still maintain
that they reverence the name of Christ, when they go out of their way to make the gospel narrative yield the
meaning that Jesus was guilty of various moral offences. After all, the only ground on which anyone, be he
Christian or Muslim, can base the claim that Jesus was without sin is the account that we have of Him in the
gospels, for the reason that they are the only source for our knowledge of Him.
The author of the book just quoted singles out for criticism another
Christian doctrine which has its bearing on the subject before us. "The fundamental difference between
Christianity and Islam is that the former teaches that every human child is born sinful, while the latter teaches
that every human child is born sinless. According to the former….sin is inherent in human nature and man therefore
can only be saved by the redemption of the Son of God. This view is abhorrent….That man is born sinful, or that
sin is inherent in human nature, is to take the lowest possible view of human nature." This dogma of Original Sin,
and belief in it, he says, "forms the foundation-stone of the Christian religion". It would seem that Muslim
writers quite fail to distinguish between original sin and original guilt the latter is not held by Christians.
AHMADIS IMPUTE SIN TO JESUS
 As
the Ahmadis make much capital out of the doctrine of Original Sin and seek, through their interpretation of it, to
involve Jesus Christ in the general sinfulness of the race, we are obliged to examine rather more closely what
exactly we do mean when we ascribe to Him " sinlessness ". It has frequently been remarked that it is unfortunate
that so much stress has been laid by Christian writers on this word in regard to Christ, because, at best, it is
negative; and it is impossible to prove a negative. Besides, the term suggests the entirely erroneous notion that
the highest achievement in the realm of ethics is "to do no harm". On the contrary, what we believe concerning the
character of Christ is something positiv. We extol in Him "the full and positive response
of His whole being to God, whom He knew as Father"; we have in mind "His active, unstinted, triumphant love and
loyalty toward God and man, as shown in His life and supremely in His death".
It is not improbable that this phrase owed its origin to the concern of
theologians to maintain that Christ, in effecting a substitutionary atonement for sinners, was free from the
very liability to sin; in other words, that He was super -
uatorally sinless. Some such exponents thought to find the assurance of that immunity in the fact that Jesus was
born of a pure virgin. But there is a very real confusion here between two different things, viz-: a tendency or
liability to sin, and actual sin. One cannot inherit an act, nor can one be held guilty for what one has not done.
That men are born into this world with a tendency to sin, or, more precisely, with a nature readily susceptible to
evil temptation, is quite a different matter.
There seems then, no reason in the gospel records for claiming that
Jesus was super-naturally immune from the approach of evil; i.e. from temptation, as such. Certainly birth from
one parent does not give that immunity. For, without irreverence, we may say that, if God had so chosen, He could
have become incarnate in the son of two parents, through the normal processes of generation. The absence of a
husband would not have rendered Mary "sinless".
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS
It is far more satisfactory, however, to approach this question of the
moral character of Jesus Christ with the mind freed from theological dogma and presupposition.
When we turn to the synoptic gospels - the case
is different in the Fourth Gospel - we find but slight suggestions of "doctrine" in respect
of His character. This is because Matthew, Mark and Luke are obviously concerned with history rather than
theology. They tell their story so vividly that we feel it is drawn from life; it rings true. Their Jesus is not
weak nor sentimental, but a man - resolute, bold, determined, keen in debate, terrible in
wrath, denouncing hypocrites, and yet there is in Him no sin.
Nevertheless, there are certain incidents in their narratives which,
while not attributing sinfulness, seem at first sight to exclude sinlessness; and because these have been cited
from time to time by Ahmadi writers as proof of their contention, that Jesus sinned, we are obliged to examine
them briefly here.
There are three incidents, in particular, that are apt to cause
difficulty:
l. The Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:4-5,9; Matthew 3::13-17). The question
inevitably suggests itself to the mind - how could the Saviour of
the World submit to a rite which, for all others, amounted to a confession of sin?
We need to bear in mind, however, that baptism, even for others, was
always more than just that. For all, it was an act of self-consecration, marking the beginning of a new epoch;
as St. Paul says:
"We who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His
death.... that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in
newness of life” ( Romans 6:3-4)
It was this for Jesus-it marked the beginning of a new epoch in His
life; and yet for Him it meant much more.
(1) Among the Jews the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit was the expected
sign of the dawn of the Messianic Age, cp. Joel, 2: 28-39; and it was such an out-pouring that Jesus experienced,
as all the narratives declare. (Mark 1:10; Matthew 3:16; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)
(2) For Him the incident signified His consecration to the office of
Messiah; this was part of the "righteousness" He felt Himself under an obligation to 'fulfil". Matthew 3:15.
(3) By this act Jesus identified Himself with the human race-"Thus it
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness", "it behoved Him in all things to become like unto His brethren". Hebrew
2:17, we may say that He was baptized as "Son of Man". He stood down with the crowds, identifying Himself with
sinful men, yet remaining Himself "without sin". Shortly afterwards He was sorely tempted to stand aloof from men,
to hold Himself above them as "Son of God" - Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:3.
So that He fulfilled this purpose of the Incarnation - He identified
Himself, by the act of baptism, with the race of men. Nevertheless there was in this act, as He performed it, not
the remotest suggestion that He felt He needed purification, nor yet any confession of sin.
2. The Temptations of Jesus, The main conclusion to be drawn from the
Synoptic writers' accounts of the temptations is that Jesus was really tempted - Mark1:12-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke
4:1-13. That is the view, too, of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Hebrews 2:18; 4:15.
What then are we to infer from this clear statement? Certainly not that
He was, thereby, sinful. For to be tempted is not to incur sin; rather, as written in James 1:2 and 12 man is to
be praised who endures temptation and overcomes it.
Surely the truth is that Jesus could not have been really tempted
unless He was really able, if He chose, to yield. That He never did so choose and never did yield are, likewise,
facts equally well-attested in the gospels. Jesus being man was tempted, but being the Man He was He did not sin.
We see that He was spared no obstacle, no pang. He had to resist
temptation by exercising His strength. Nowhere is this fact more strikingly set forth than in the account of His
ordeal in Gethsemane.
 And
when it is recorded of Him that "He was tempted at all points as we are", what is meant is that He was tempted at
all points of His sinless character as we are tempted at all points of our sinful character. Yet if ever it can be
said of anyone, it should be said of Him, that there were certain things He simply could not have done. It has
been truly observed that His will always showed its strength chiefly in certain splendid incapacities.
Any other view of His sinlessness would rob His character of all moral
complexion. Certainly He would not have become a creative moral force in history if at the age of thirty He had
never yet-in things physical as well as spiritual-heard the tempter's voice. As it is, we see that He surmounted
all His temptations-that is something that immensely helps us who also wrestle, and makes true what is
recorded of Him: "for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted. He is able to succour them that are tempted"
- Hebrews 2:18.
3. Yet another difficulty is presented in the remark of Jesus, "Why
callest thou me good; none: is good save one, even God"- Mark 10:17. It is sometimes suggested that we have here
an avowal of failure, a plain denial of sinlessness. But to put such an interpretation on the words would make
nonsense of the Marcan Gospel. Jesus, according to Mark, is the Messiah in Whom the Righteousness of God is
concretely present in the midst of Israel."
The passage really has no bearing whatever on the question of the
sinlessness of Jesus, but indicates that He is anxious to correct this young ruler's idea as to what constitutes
"goodness". For, even though we may agree that the man was sincere, it is obvious that he had not given due
thought to the import of the words he used.
Moreover, Jesus' rejoinder is not mereiy a declining of the youth's
too-glib tribute-it is that-but a challenge to him to contemplate the Absolute Goodness, an attribute of God
Himself, and then measure himself, and the righteousness he professes, by that supreme standard. Let him think
what Goodness means to God, and then think out what it must mean to call Jesus "good". Goodness, in its fullest
sense, is not human at all, but an attribute of God alone. We thus arrive at a thought-provoking conclusion
- viz. that only after giving due consideration to the essential meaning of Goodness
and its bearing on the fact of Christ, is a man in a position to give to Him the praise that is His due.
And even then, praise alone is not enough. Christ asks for, and expects, allegiance also. It was in this that the
ruler signally failed, Like many Muslims, he found it easy to praise Christ, but when faced with the obligation to
follow Him, he turned away, unwilling to make the sacrifice.
HE KNEW NO SIN
In conclusion it can be stated without fear of contradiction that there
is a total absence of a consciousness of moral guilt on the part of Jesus in the gospel records. Jesus never
prayed for forgiveness, yet He asked others to do so. He expressed no need for reconciliation with His Father. He
had no seasons of self-abasement, born of a sense of transgression, At each stage "His will was undamaged by the
previous admission of sin" there was no enemy of self - will within, and therefore no danger of defeat".
This is something that greatly impresses the unprejudiced reader.
And in Jesus this arresting feature is an essential part of Him; it is
not the effect of pose. He who so severely condemned hypocrisy in others, combined with His own claim to
sinlessness the possession of a sincerity transparent and undisputed, All others, the world's greatest heroes, are
conscious of shortcomings. Even the saint has the sense of unworthiness, only much more acutely. But in the case
of Jesus the serenity of His vision of God was unclouded. His fellowship with the Father was maintained unbroken
in the face of well - nigh overwhelming temptation. The perfect harmony was never marred, if we except those few
hours of agony on the cross. From the outset to end, no desire , motion, conception or resolve existed in the soul
of Jesus, which was not the affirmation and execution of the will of God dwelling in Him and Informing His entire
life.
There are those who seek to cast doubt upon the conclusion thus drawn
from the brief records in our possession, by suggesting that we do not really know what transpired in the hidden
years before the ministry.
e.g.
Thus the Mirza of Qadian says "It is a noteworthy fact noted by all
critical biographers of Christ that the writers of the gospels have carefully refrained from making even a passing
reference to his earlier years. But the writers of the gospels have intentionally omitted to give any account of
his first thirty years. They have chosen to start with that moment in his life when he emerged out of the sacred
waters of Jordan a purer and perhaps a better man". Unity versus Trinity, p, 65,.
This is definitely not true, e.g. we are told that "the child grew and
became strong and full of wisdom, and the grace of God rested upon Him"; and in that glimpse of Him as a boy of
twelve it is recorded that "Jesus increased both in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man", Luke
2:40 and 52.
The sufficient answer is that we find no "scars"
on Jesus, detect no regrets and hear no cry of remorse. From this, backed by the whole narrative, we have the
right to conclude that those hidden years correspond in character to the brief years of His public ministry. All
of it was a close walk with His Father. In a word, the gospels record of Him no sin, because there was no sin to
record.
APPENDIX
Some of the base charges that were brought by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of
Qadian against the moral character of Jesus Christ :
He "was addicted to drinking", and "opened the way to excess and
wholesale drunkenness" ( through the use of wine at the Last Supper ).
He "insulted his mother" ( in addressing her as "woman"), and used
"vulgar abuse to the learned priests of the Jews".
He "had free and intimate connections with women of dubious character".
"Some of the ancestors of Jesus were harlots"
He "transgressed many precepts of the Law".
He "intentionally caused wrongful loss to an innocent person by
destroying his property" ( the Gadarene swine ).
Jesus "practised deceit", and "was enraged with an inanimate object" (
a fig - tree ).
"Jesus Christ was evil-minded and overbearing. He was the enemy of the
righteous. We cannot call him even a gentleman, much less a prophet."
"It should be remembered that Jesus was a liar."
"He was profoundly disturbed through fear of death."
(Extracts from Sinlesness of Prophets, Unity
versus Trinity, Zamima-Anjam-I-Atham, Kashti-I-Nuh) |
