In our previous article we showed how Allah takes on human form when his Ruh [Spirit] visits Mary “in the form of a man in all respects” (Sura 19:17, Hilali Khan). So if Muslims want to use the objection that a God who takes on human form cannot be God, they need to realise it applies to Allah as well. Even if they they concede that God could become a man, the next question is often – why would he need to?
Right from the beginning in Genesis, it’s clear God has a special affection for human beings. He makes men and women uniquely in His image (Genesis 1:27) and walks and talks with Adam and Eve in perfect relationship (Genesis 3:8). Instead of asking why God became man, ask rather – why ever would God make human beings like God, capable of personally relating with him? Why does He invest us with such dignity and honour? (The Qur’an never says we’re made in God’s image – this is an important point.)
Disaster strikes when Adam and Eve think they can live independently of their Maker (Genesis 3:6), so God’s image in them becomes tainted. Worse still, as a result of their disobedience, sin and death enter the world. As their descendants we are all tainted image-bearers, born in sin and subject to death: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And just as Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden, so we too are excluded from His presence . Sin is catastrophic: it is so much more serious than the Islamic understanding of sin as just mistakes and weakness- it is a deadly disease no human wisdom can cure. Don’t miss the strong language of Scripture: in our natural state we are “dead in transgressions and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13) and “objects of wrath” Ephesians 2:3. We are cut off from God and powerless to change our natural state.
And crucially, sin is unique to humanity. A lion doesn’t sin when it eats an antelope. A lion’s taste for antelope may be a consequence of man’s sin, but it was man who fell, not the lion. So it’s man, not the lion, who is deserving of punishment. And yet, God in his extraordinary mercy, decides that it’s men and women, his image-bearers, who in spite of our depravity and rebellion, that He considers pre-eminently worthy of redemption.
How did God redeem his people in the Old Testament? Through the blood of a lamb. At the Passover, the Israelites were commanded to smear the tops and sides of their doors with a lamb’s blood to spare them from the destroying angel. “I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment” (Exodus 6:6) Forgiveness through blood continued via the sacrificial system under Mosaic law. But none of these sacrifices could provide perfect redemption. Hebrews 10:1-4
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
Why was it never going to be enough for a human to be redeemed by an animal? In Genesis 3:15, God hints that the redeemer would be an offspring of the woman – a human – and male. To Satan he says:
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
But it is no ordinary human male; it’s a male who can crush the head of Satan, something only God can do. A God-Man. To re-iterate: the Bible anticipates a God-Man, not a God-Lion or a God-Beetle -because it is mankind who needs redemption, so a like-for-like sacrifice is required. Note how carefully this is explained in Hebrews 2:11-18
“Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.[a] 12 He says,
“I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters;
in the assembly I will sing your praises.”[b]
13 And again,
“I will put my trust in him.”[c]
And again he says,
“Here am I, and the children God has given me.”[d]
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fearof death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[e] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18″
Now let’s turn back to the Qur’an. But why did Allah visit Mary “in the form of a man in all respects”? Why is it only birth of Jesus – not Muhammad – that warrants a visit from Allah in person? The well-explained (Sura 12:111), clear and detailed Qur’an (16:89) doesn’t tell us.
The Bible doesn’t leave us hanging: it teaches that Jesus needed to be fully human, as well as fully God, to be the perfect sacrifice to redeem mankind. He does this because he loves us so much, He would rather die in our place than let us carry on “dead in our sins.” And not only that, but through Jesus’ redeeming work, not just human beings, but one day the whole of creation will be made new:
“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.” Romans 8:20-21
“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.” (Isaiah 11:6)
Freedom, forgiveness, redemption, peace; adopted as sons and daughters and ushers of the new creation. John is spot-on when he writes “see what great love the Father has lavished on us!” – and at what cost. Muslims repent and believe in Jesus, our “righteousness, holiness and redemption” (I Cor 1:30) and stop worshipping a confusing and unknowable counterfeit.
Next time: Is Jesus the Messiah of the Old Testament?
“How can the Creator of everything become a man? How can he limit himself? It’s just not logical. It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Note the phrasing of the objection – “how can God do x?”- puts the questioner above God by implying there are things He shouldn’t be able to do. But why limit God? Isn’t a better question “why shouldn’t God be able do x?” Someone might respond with a conundrum like “is God able to create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?” where either answer puts you in a hole. (If yes, God is not all-powerful because he cannot lift the stone: if no, God is not the perfect creator because there is something he can’t create.) But don’t fall down that hole because it’s a conundrum that applies to Allah just as much as it applies to the God of the Bible. If you’re going to raise objections against the Christian God on the basis of logic, then you have to be consistent and admit that Allah doesn’t conform to human logic either.
And the appeal to logic is disingenuous because Muslims’ highest authority isn’t logic, it’s revelation. They have to believe that Jesus was no more than a human creature not because it’s logical, but because the Qur’an says so. That same Qur’an also claims to confirm the previous Scripture (Sura 2:136, 2:4, 2:41, 3:2-3, 4:136, 5:46-48) which plainly teaches that Jesus is God in the flesh:
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
“Have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (Phillipians 2:6)
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9)
This puts Muslims in a dilemma – to accept that Jesus is God in the flesh in contradiction to the rest of Qur’anic teaching or accept the Qur’an’s teaching that Jesus is not God in the flesh and reject the teaching of the previous Scripture, which is to risk Allah’s wrath:
“O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray.” Sura 4:136
(Most Muslims will pick the third way and claim the Bible has been corrupted, which the Qur’an doesn’t say: it was a theory first put forward by 11th century scholar Ibn Hazam.)
Then there is the issue that having a son is actually impossible for Allah:
“He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can he have children when he has no wife?” (Sura 6:101 Hilali Khan)
Wait – Allah is constrained by his singleness? Even single human beings can have babies if they put their mind to it. Are single human beings more powerful than Allah? It is very odd thing for Allah to say because he shows he is perfectly capable of creating a child when Maryam conceives Isa by his spirit (Sura 66:12). But according to Allah, creating a child is not how you confer sonship; rather sons are something you ‘take’. Sura 39:4:
Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create:but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is Allah, the One, the Irresistible. (Sura 39:4 Yusuf Ali)
Given he claims the previous scriptures as his own, it seems Allah has forgotten that divine Sonship has nothing to do with either fathering or adopting a human creature. According to the Bible, God the Father doesn’t ‘take’ a son, in the sense of fathering or adopting a child. Jesus is not a creation of God; he exists eternally as the Son of God and has done so both before and after his incarnation. But Allah sees sonship in purely human terms, and he is above such things:
“It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He!” (Sura 19:35, Salih International)
While fatherhood might be beneath him, it nonetheless ‘befits’ Allah to come to earth disguised in a burning bush. Sura 27:7-8 re-tells the story of Moses:
“Behold! Moses said to his family: “I perceive a fire; soon will I bring you from there some information, or I will bring you a burning brand to light our fuel, that ye may warn yourselves. But when he came to the (fire), a voice was heard: “Blessed are those in the fire and those around: and glory to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.”O Moses! verily, I am Allah, the exalted in might, the wise!..”
So it’s logical to believe Allah can be constrained by a burning bush, but not within a human body? But Allah can be constrained by a human body, as we read in Sura 19:17 when the spirit of Allah visits Mary:
“She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her our Ruh [spirit] and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.”
So even in Islam, Allah’s spirit becomes a man and is subjected to limitations. This isn’t logical, even by the Qur’an’s own ‘logic.’ How can a monad be constrained? Who is running the universe while Allah is in the bush or talking to Mary? Coming to earth and taking on flesh is not a problem for the Trinitarian God of the Bible – in fact it was predicted He would do so throughout the Old Testament. But why did He? We will look at this in our next article.
4. Muhammad was not an Israelite
Muslims often go to Deuteronomy 18: 18-19 as one of the Biblical ‘proof’ texts which prophesy about Muhammad, according to Sura 7:157. In this passage the LORD tells Moses:
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among you, from their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the Prophet speaks in my name.” (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)
Muhammad was not an Israelite, he was an Arab, so he can’t be the prophet the passage refers to. Objection quashed: or so you’d think. But no, the counter-argument goes, Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and therefore an Israelite by default. But is this true? Was Muhammad really a descendant of Ishmael? And are descendants of Ishmael really Israelites?
What does Muhammad’s genealogy tell us? According to some websites, Kedar is next in the list of forebears after Ishmael in Muhammad’s lineage:
“Prophet Muhammad- Abdullah- Abd Al Muttalib- Hashim- Abd Manaf- Qusaiy- Kilab (Ancestor of the Holy Prophet’s mother)- Murrah- Ka’b. Lu’ayy- Ghalib- Fihr- Malik- Al Nadr- Kinanah- Khuzaiymah- Mudrikah- Ilyas- Mudar- Nizar- Madd- `Adnan- Adad- Zayd- Yaqdud- Al Muqawwam- Al Yasa’- Nabt- Qaidar (Kedar)- Prophet Ismail”
But according to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, the genealogy has Nabit instead of Kedar:
“Muhammad was the son of “Abdullah, b. “Abdu’l-Muttalib (whose name was Shayba), b. Hashim (whose name was Amr), b. “Abdu Manaf (whose name was al-Mughira), b. Qusayy (whose name was Zayd). B. Kilab, b. Murra, b. Ka’b, b. Lu’ayy, b. Ghalib, b. Fihr, b. Malik, b. al-Nadr, b. Kinana, b. Khuzayma, b. Mudrika (whose name was “Amir), b. Ilyas, b. Mudar, b. Nizar, b. Ma’ add, b. “Adnan, b. Udd (or Udad), b. Muqawwam, b. Nahur, b.’Tayrah, b. Ya’rub, b. Yashjub, b. Nabit, b. Isma’il” (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume pp. 3-4)
Why the discrepancies in genealogies which purport to follow the same patriarchal line? Genealogies aside, is there a convincing historical case for Muhammad’s ancestry from Ishmael? According to Islamic sources, Muhammad was from Mecca. Where was Ishmael from? From Israel. Genesis 21 tells us that Hagar and Ishmael were sent away in the Desert of Beersheba (v14), that he married an Egyptian woman and settled in the Desert of Paran (v21.) Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583 says that Ishmael was present in Mecca from infancy:
“Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water.”
Mecca is over 800 miles from the desert of Paran (either site). According to the Bible, Ishmael’s descendants settled in the area from “Havilah to Shur, near the Eastern border of Egypt as you go towards Ashur” (Genesis 25:18) Where’s this? Nowhere near Mecca:
Should we trust the Old Testament account with extant manuscripts from c.800 years before the life of Muhammad, or Bukhari, compiled 200 years after Muhammad’s death, earliest manuscript fragment 1000AD – 4 centuries after Muhammad and 29 centuries after the time of Abraham?There is no documentary evidence to suggest that Ishmael embarked on an epic journey south, and without any epigraphical or archeological evidence to support this, it becomes highly unlikely that Ishmael was ever in Mecca or that he was one of Muhammad’s forbears. (The existence of Mecca itself is highly questionable before the 9th century, but that’s for another post.)
But ultimately, genealogies don’t count, geography doesn’t count, and the previous Scripture doesn’t count – because Muhammad’s lineage is a matter of revelation, not of independently verifiable fact. Islamic tradition says Gabriel told Muhammad he can identify as a descendant of Ishmael, whatever the local tribespeople think:
“Ma’n Ibn ‘Isa al-Ashja’i al-Qazzaz (silk-merchant) informed us; he said: Mu’awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Yahya Ibn Jabir who had seen some Companions of the Prophet and said: The people of Banu Fuhayrah came to the Prophet and said to him: You belong to us. He replied: Verily, (the archangel) Gabriel has informed me that I belong to Mudar.” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume I, p. 4)
Let’s move on to the second question: does the Bible conflate Ishmaelites with Israelites? Do they both have equal rights as God’s chosen people? In Genesis 17, Abraham pleads for this very thing when God announces His covenant with him:
“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”
God considers Isaac the only legitimate son. We see this in Genesis 22:2:
“Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
As such, Ishmael does not inherit the same covenant promises as Isaac; Paul even uses the divergent lineages of Ishmael and Isaac analogously with the new covenant (through Christ) and the old covenant (though the Law):
“These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.”
But there is an even more straightforward answer to the question of who the Israelites are. Who was first given the name Israel? Jacob. Genesis 32:28:
“Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
Israelites are descendants of Jacob, the son of Isaac – not Ishmael. This alone disqualifies Muhammad as the prophet of Deuteronomy 18, before we’ve even got on to whether Muhammad really spoke the words of God or not, whether what he said came true etc etc.
More to the point, the Bible already answers the question when it comes to who the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 might be. In Acts 3:22, Peter says this is referring to Jesus:
“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets,saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.”
Not that Jesus is only a prophet (before you start, Muslims): but it is one of His titles, alongside His other divine titles – Messiah, Son of God, Word of God, Saviour, Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Holy and Righteous One. Our Saviour, Priest and King.
Muslims need to stop asking questions which the Bible has already answered and instead humbly admit they have the wrong man. Not only that, they need to be attentive to what the Scripture goes on to say:
“Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.” (Acts 3:23)
Listen to Jesus and find rest for your souls.
With thanks to Sam Shamoun, who has a lengthier article on this topic here.
By A.P, friend of DCCI.
The authorship of 2 Peter is attacked by many liberal New Testament scholars such as Bart Ehrmann. The claim is that because the Greek writing style of 1 Peter is so strikingly different to 2 Peter, they must have been written by different authors.
However there are good reasons to believe 2 Peter is still authored by Peter. It was common practice at the time to use an amaneunsis (scribe) or secretary to help with letter writing, and that Peter himself needed assistance as we see from 1 Peter 5:12:
“With the help of Silas,[a] whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.”
So it may be the case that Silas was acting as Peter’s amanuensis in 1 Peter whereas 2 Peter was written either by Peter himself or another amanuensis. This was Jerome’s view. So stylistic differences in themselves are not a strong argument against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.
Another argument for 2nd Peter’s authenticity is the strong internal evidence. Peter claims authorship right at the beginning of the letter:
“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”
He also says it is his second letter to the churches:
“Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you”
It claims to come from an eye-witness of Jesus:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.”
The author uses the same words in 2 Peter 1:17 as the transfiguration account in Matthew 17:5:
“While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matthew 17:5)
“He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (2 Peter 1:17)
Is the author just plagiarising Matthew? Or does the author remember the words the same way because he was actually there? Peter seems to be making that very point – unless the author is a brazen liar.
The author of 2 Peter is also fully aware of the writings of Paul and calls him “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter and Paul knew each other personally; Galatians 1 and 2 tells us that Paul became acquainted with Peter three years after his conversion and that Peter, James and John “extended the right hand of fellowship” to Paul. The way the author writes about Paul in the present tense suggests he is still alive and they are contemporaries:
Jesus is God!
Lizzie shows a Muslim that Jesus is God in the flesh from John 8:58 and Isaiah 43:10. Isaiah uses the Greek formulation ‘ego eimi’ (Isaiah in the Septuagint) to refer to YHWH God – and Jesus uses the same forumalation to refer to Himself! Therefore Jesus is YHWH God.
“52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?” “54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
The evidential basis for the Book of Acts
Jonathan McLatchie shows how the book of Acts is historically reliable and how it gives credibility to the claim that Jesus really died and rose again.
For further reading on this topic:
Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
John Saul Howson, The Evidential Value of the Acts of the Apostles
Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary
Stanley Leathes, The Religion of the Christ, Lecture 6
Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View
William Paley, Horae Paulinae
James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul
Alongside our series ‘Why Muhammad is not a prophet’, we thought we’d answer the top ten common Muslim objections to the deity of Christ. This first objection, popularised by Ahmed Deedat, is way the most common and often the first one a Muslim will raise. So here’s a quick rebuttal, which we hope you find helpful.
Objection 1 – Jesus never said ‘I am God, worship me.’
- This is the ‘exact words’ fallacy.
Just because Jesus doesn’t use these exact words doesn’t mean it can’t be true. Just because the Queen is not on record saying exactly “I am a woman and monarch of the United Kingdom” doesn’t mean she isn’t. The Qur’an never says “tawhid [Islamic monotheism] is God’s truth, you must follow tawhid” – does this mean the Qur’an doesn’t teach tawhid? No, the Qur’an does teach tawhid. Besides, who are ordinary Muslims to tell Jesus, who they revere as a prophet, what He should or shouldn’t have said? Why not look at His actual words? This leads us to our next point.
2. Why use an argument from silence instead of going to Scripture?
The Qur’an tells Muslims to believe in that which was sent down to us, Jews and Christians, as well as what was sent to them (Sura 4:136). Allah says he doesn’t make a distinction between the Qur’an and the previous Scriptures (Sura 2:136), that the previous Scriptures are a guidance for mankind (Sura 3:3-4). Why are Muslims preferring the words of human beings like Ahmed Deedat over Allah’s words?
3. Jesus does claim to be God in John 8:58 and Mark 14:62
How does Jesus identify himself in John 8:58? Verses 48-58 give the context.
48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honour my Father and you dishonour me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS BORN, I AM!” (Greek ‘ego eimi’)59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
Who does “ego eimi” (“I am”) refer to in the Old Testament? Isaiah 43:9-13 from the Septuagint (Greek version of OT):
‘All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, ‘It is true. You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord (Greek kyrios, Hebrew YHWH) ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I AM HE (ego eimi). Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no saviour. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘that I am God. Yes, AND FROM ANCIENT DAYS I AM HE. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?’ Isaiah 43:9-13.
“I am” refers to YHWH, the personal name for God as revealed to Moses. YHWH is from ancient days, YHWH is the only Saviour, out of whose hand no-one can deliver. Jesus is from ancient times (John 8:58, Micah 5:2), Jesus is the only Saviour (Luke 2:11), and no one can deliver out of his hand (John 10:27)! Therefore Jesus is YHWH.
What’s more, the Jews understood perfectly what Jesus meant, hence why they tried to stone him for blasphemy. And it would be blasphemy if Jesus were just a prophet, but Jesus’ claim to be God must be true because Jesus was sinless and not a liar – as the Qur’an also affirms.
27 Jesus’ claim to divinity is even more explicit in Mark 14: 61-64, during his trial before the Sanhedrin:
‘Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” (ego eimi) said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
They all condemned him as worthy of death.
In Jesus’ answer, note the parallels with the Divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 who is worshipped by all nations and peoples as God!
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a]coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language WORSHIPPED him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Why is the ‘son of man’ in Daniel worshipped if He isn’t God Almighty himself? Jesus is claiming to be this very Person! Now turn let’s turn this objection into a question for Muslims:
4. So if Allah tells you to believe in the previous Scriptures (Sura 4:136), and that Jesus was sinless and not a liar (Sura 19:19) why don’t you worship Him when He claims to be God?
Lord Jesus open Muslims’ eyes to see you for the glorious God and Saviour that You are.
For more in-depth analysis, read this article by Sam Shamoun