ham@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Hameed Ahmed Mohammed) (06/23/91)
In the name of God most Beneficient most Merciful
The Sonship of Jesus.
---------------------
Peace be on you!
After centuries of dogmatic decree that Jesus was the Son of God, modern
Christiandom is no longer sure just who he was. Since a large segment of the so-
called Christian world believes practically that "God is dead", where does that
leave Jesus? (I was just horrified to read the caption "Could Jesus have sinned?on the net. We Muslims believe that the Prophets are immune from sin.)
Jews and Muslims have held throughout history that Jesus could not have been theson of God. But, whereas Judiasm does not accept the mission of Jesus, Islam
accords him the exalted position of Prophet of God to his people. Nevertheless
this question of sonship stands as a barrier between Christians and Muslims,
being the cause for each labelling the other infidel:Christians only ans unbeli-ever would ever deny Christ's sonship; Muslims because only an unbeliever would
associate anything with the One God. The Christian charges "antichrist", the
Muslim,"mushrik" ( one associating other than God).
Yet, if we examine the New Testament and what scholars consider most likely the true sayings of Jesus, we are surprised. Despite centuries of Christian tradition and theology, when we look into the source book of Christianity, the gulf
between Christian belief and Muslim belief shortens considerabely. For onething
we find in the mouth of Jesus the Shema' of Israel( in Hebrew, "Shema" Yisrael
Adonai Elohenu , Adonai Elohenu, Adonoi Ehod," Deut. 6:4 in the Torah), which
corresponds with the first part of the Kalimah of Islam(There is no god but God)and of sura Ikhlas of the Quran ( say God is one and only one ) : "Hear O Israelthe Lord our God is one Lord".(Mark 12:29,New Testament). Jesus himself confir-
med the monotheistic creed of the nation from which he sprang : God is One. Since God is One, it follows logically, as the Quran inquiries, that " How can He
have a son when He hath no consort?" (Quran 6:100).
Christianity admits of no female God-principle, but inputes the sonship of
Jesus to the virgin birth. Islam recognizes the virgin birth but points the
obvious: this makes Jesus the Son of Mary, NOT the "the son of God" either
because it contends that God took on flesh and was born from Mary's womb as a
man, or that God sent one of His angels into Mary's womb to be born as a man.
The first idea is very repungent to reason. If, as the Bible says," There shall no man see Me and live."(Exodus 33:20), human sight cannot bear to look upon theGlory of God, how can human flesh bear to have this Glory, of the God of Glory
wrapped up in it? The second thought does not confer literal sonship, but calls for a special form of creation.
The vital point, however, is that the biblical expression "Son of God" cannot
be said to have ever come, authentically, from the lips of Jesus himself.
According to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible,"Whether Jesus used it of Himself is doubtful."(Revised edition, 1963. Charles Scribner"s Sons, NY,p. 143).It isfound in the New Testament most frequentlu on the lips of others. And this is
mentioned in the Quran as merely following in the customs of the pagans, notably the greeks and Romans of the time, whose gods had sons. "The Christians call
Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say."(Quran 9:30). Even if Jesus had
occasionally used such or a similar title, "Semitic idiom must be borne in mind ... In various (Bible) passages Israel is referred to as "God's son," and in
others the righteous are thus described .. So a "Son of God" is a man, or even a people, who reflect the character of God." (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, p.143).
Contrasted with the non-use or limited use of the title "Son of God" by Jesus himself, we find him using the expression "Son of Man" many times in the New
Testament. What does the phrase mean? In the first place an expression like this automatically negates any literal interpretation of "Son of God". It emphasizesthat Jesus thought himself as a man only. Further, scholars determine that
Jesus' usage of this term was meant to be reminiscent of that of the prophet
Ezekiel, i.e.,"a prophet" or messenger of God. "Son of Man" is consistent with
the Quran's statement (4:171) that "Christ Jesus the son of Mary was no more
than a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit
proceeding from Him."
This Quranic verse confirms some of the most precious truths of unadulterated
Christianity:
1. Jesus is Christ.
2. He is "Son of Man", I.e., a prophet of God.
3. He is the product of a special act of creation, the virgin birth("His Word--
and a spirit proceeding form Him," one of blessed mission. At the same time,
this passage affirms that none of these facts make Jesus the "Son of God" in
the sense of an incarnationof God as it concludes: "So believe in God and His
apostles. Say not "Three", desist; it will be better for you, for God is One
God. Glory be to Him; far exalted is He above having a son. To Him belong all
things in the heaven and on earth."
If the title "Son of God" has any validity, Semetic usage would never have allowed for the literal sense, even though such an expression would be interpteted
literally in the Hellenistic world of Jesus's later followers. No doubt here is
where the confusion arose. But if Jesus or his earliest disciples said "Son of God" they could have meant only "servant of God". For example in Matthew 12: 18 and Acts 3:13 we find that some Bible versions read "Son" with reference to
Jesus while others translate "servant". This is because the New Testament Greek words used in these passages (pais and paida) mean "boy" or "son" IN THE SENSE
OF A SERVANT, ATTENDER OR MINISTER.( A Greek-English lexicon, by The Rev. Thomas S. Green, BA,Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., London (n.date), p. 134). The Quran
puts it clearly:"And they say:"God most Gracious has begotten offspring. Glory
be to Him."They are but servants raised to honor." Both the Quran and the Bible
agree that son(s) of God can mean only servants of God. No physical sonship or
incarnation was intended in the Semitic usage of the earliest Christians, but
when Christians became predominantly Gentie, of Roman and Greek background, the Semitic meanings of "Son of God" were lost, and pagan Hellenistic meanings took their place. This is why the Church, from the 4th century onward, had raging
controvercies over the nature of Christ. What was obvious to earliest Christiansbecame lost and distorted to late converts. They began to interpret sonship
literally according to their pantheistic upbringings, thus overriding the basic
monotheistic imperative of Jesus's teachings.
There is ground for closer relations between Christiana and Muslims, because,
esentially the Muslims believe the same things about Christ as did the earliest
Christians. It is only the unfortunate encrustation of old pagan muthology that
divides them.
"If God helps you then there is none who can overcome you. But if He forsakes
you then who is there who can help you after Him. Surely in God should the
believers rely." (Quran)
Zafar Siddiqui.
Note: It is I who am writing the letters and posting on the network. Hameed is my friend who has allowed me to use his account. God willing I will be getting
my own account with in a few weeks.
* peace be on all the prophets.