by Zafar Siddiqui
In June 1991, Zafar Siddiqui — writing under the network account of his friend Hameed Ahmed Mohammed — posted this extended study to soc.religion.christian as part of an ongoing interfaith exchange about the person of Jesus Christ. The post extends the argument begun in Mohammed's two-part "Christianity and Islam — Towards a Better Understanding" (also preserved in this archive) by bringing New Testament Greek philology into dialogue with Quranic theology.
Siddiqui's central argument is textual: the expression "Son of God" does not appear to have been used by Jesus of himself in the New Testament, while "Son of Man" — which he argues carries a Semitic meaning of "prophet" or "messenger" — appears many times. Drawing on Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, Greek lexicography of the New Testament (pais/paida), and Quranic verses from Surahs 4, 6, and 9, he argues that the Hellenistic interpretation of divine Sonship was a later overlay on an originally Semitic monotheism shared by Jesus and his earliest followers — and still shared, he contends, by Muslims.
The post is a piece of grassroots interfaith scholarship: non-academic in register, earnest in intent, and representative of a tradition of Muslim-Christian dialogue that flourished briefly and genuinely in the early internet before the medium fragmented into its current polarization.
In the name of God most Beneficent, most Merciful.
After centuries of dogmatic decree that Jesus was the Son of God, modern Christendom 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?
Jews and Muslims have held throughout history that Jesus could not have been the Son of God. But whereas Judaism 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 say only an unbeliever would ever deny Christ's Sonship; Muslims say 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 considerably. For one thing, we find in the mouth of Jesus the Shema' of Israel — in Hebrew, "Shema' Yisrael Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad" (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 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29, New Testament)
Jesus himself confirmed the monotheistic creed of the nation from which he sprang: God is One. Since God is One, it follows logically, as the Quran inquires:
"How can He have a son when He hath no consort?" (Quran 6:100)
The Virgin Birth and Sonship
Christianity admits of no female God-principle, but attributes the Sonship of Jesus to the Virgin Birth. Islam recognizes the Virgin Birth but points to the obvious: this makes Jesus the Son of Mary, not the Son of God — whether one 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 repugnant to reason. If, as the Bible says, "There shall no man see Me and live" (Exodus 33:20), and human sight cannot bear to look upon the Glory 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 is found in the New Testament most frequently 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 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).
"Son of Man"
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 emphasizes that Jesus thought of himself as a man only. Further, scholars determine that Jesus's usage of this term was meant to be reminiscent of that of the prophet Ezekiel — that is, "a prophet" or messenger of God. "Son of Man" is consistent with the Quran's statement:
"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." (4:171)
This Quranic verse confirms some of the most precious truths of unadulterated Christianity:
- Jesus is Christ.
- He is "Son of Man" — that is, a prophet of God.
- He is the product of a special act of creation, the Virgin Birth ("His Word and a spirit proceeding from Him"), one of blessed mission.
At the same time, this passage affirms that none of these facts makes Jesus the "Son of God" in the sense of an incarnation of 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." (4:171)
Greek and Semitic Usage
If the title "Son of God" has any validity, Semitic usage would never have allowed for the literal sense, even though such an expression would be interpreted 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).
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." (19:92–93)
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 Gentile — 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 fourth century onward, had raging controversies over the nature of Christ. What was obvious to earliest Christians became 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 Christians and Muslims, because essentially Muslims believe the same things about Christ as did the earliest Christians. It is only the unfortunate encrustation of old pagan mythology 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 3:160)
Peace be on all the Prophets.
Colophon
Written by Zafar Siddiqui and posted under the account of his friend Hameed Ahmed Mohammed ([address removed]) to soc.religion.christian on June 23, 1991. Siddiqui notes at the end of the original post: "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 within a few weeks." The post is part of a sustained interfaith exchange initiated on soc.religion.christian by Mohammed and Siddiqui throughout June 1991; see also "Christianity and Islam — Towards a Better Understanding" (preserved in this archive).
Scholarly references cited: Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, revised edition (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963); A Greek-English Lexicon, Rev. Thomas S. Green, BA (Samuel Bagster and Sons, London).
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].
🌲