Who is Jesus Christ for Muslims in Arabia in the 21

st
century?
Accounts of Jesus Christ's birth, life, ministry, death and return are all contained within the Qur'an.
Therefore for the Muslim there is a body of writing within their own Holy book regarding Jesus.
The ortrayals of Jesus, although often mirroring the !osel accounts are often in contradistinction
to the Jesus of the "ew Testament. There is the further issue of the "ew Testament's interretation
of who Jesus is and the orthodo# credal formulations of "icaea and Chalcedon stressing the
di$inity of Jesus which is in direct oosition to the Qur'anic interretation of who Jesus is.
%n this essay, who Jesus is to Muslims in Arabia in the &'
st
century will be e#amined from the
orthodo# %slamic interretation of Jesus in the Qur'an. The de$eloment of orthodo# Christian
Christology rimarily in the "ew Testament and with reference to the two creedal formulations of
"icaea and Chalcedon will be resented and then comared to the Qur'anic Christology. (inally a
resentation, in light of this comarison, of an orthodo# )iblical Christology to Muslims in Arabia
will be attemted.
The )ible and the Qur'an may ha$e similar narrati$es but they ha$e different uroses. The central
message of the Qur'an is to demonstrate the central truth that the *rohet Muhammed is the
Messenger of the +ne !od, whose re$ealed, di$ine word, the Qur'an, instructs those who are
straying to the 'straight ath'. All the rohets and their rohecy, including Jesus, merely suort
Muhammed's claim to be the final Messenger and the Qur'an the final di$ine re$elation and word
from !od. ,-ingh, &../0'/12 This is a ma3or difference between %slam and Christianity. %n %slam the
Qur'an itself is the re$elation from !od, whereas in Christianity it is the erson of Christ who is the
re$elation of !od.
Christology in the Qur'an has to be seen within the o$erall framework of the doctrine of !od within
%slam. !od is seen as utterly transcendent and searate from man. The icture of !od is not
dissimilar to a *latonic idea of a distant and static !od who is not sub3ect to change. Therefore the
Qur'anic !od, Allah is imersonal. Allah is all owerful and merciful but must always remain
comletely 'ontologically disarate' from the entirety of creation including humankind. ,4ebiri,
'5510'6&2. Allah is comletely abo$e and beyond his creation and is singular in himself 7 %slamic
monotheism is a numerical monotheism ,Coleston, '5/508.2.
%n the Qur'an Jesus is a creature, a mere man e$en though the $irgin birth is attested to, it is not the
di$ine taking on of flesh, the %ncarnation, but a human created miraculously and di$inely ordained.
,-ura '52 The idea of a biological begetting of Jesus is absurd as the eternal cannot be born in time.
Also, inferior and suerior beings do not unite as this would imly a change in !od and affect his
unity and his singularity. ,-ingh, &../0'582. The Qur'an makes a comarison between Adam and
Jesus in the uni9ue way they were created by the :ord of Allah. ,:essels, &...0';52. Jesus in the
Qur'an erforms miracles but to talk of him as di$ine is e#ressly forbidden. %t is blashemy to
ele$ate Jesus to the le$el of Allah as this would iminge Allah's 'ontological disarateness.' ,-ura
60'1, <0'.'7'.&2 Jesus was not crucified in the Qur'an but it states that the Jews were merely under
the illusion they had done so. ,-ura 80'617'652 Moreo$er the Muslim's con$iction uon reading the
Qur'an is that !od does not abandon his own. He certainly could not lea$e Jesus who he had
miraculously created to die an ignominious death on a cross in great suffering. ,Chaman,
&..10&1<2.
As can be seen the Muslim Jesus is a great and re$ered rohet but certainly is not di$ine and did
not die. Allah would not abandon one of his rohets to die in such a grotes9ue and ainful way as a
crucifi#ion. How does this Qur'anic icture of Jesus comare with the Christology of the "ew
Testament and the creedal formulations of the Church=
The early church did not ha$e the "ew Testament as -criture in the '
st
century. The formation of
the "ew Testament canon came about rimarily by e#egesis of the Hebrew -critures. %t was
through looking to the +ld Testament and reflecting on the rohesies and references about Christ
in them that the "ew Testament came into being. >ichard )auckman, in the Crucified !od,
describes that within Jewish monotheism there is a lack of concern about the di$ine nature or
essence, the Hebrew is more concerned with what he describes as the di$ine identity. The Hebrew is
interested in who !od is not what !od is. His use of identity is his own category to describe this
concern, it includes both function, status and in articular ersonhood. ?ahweh had a uni9ue
relationshi with %srael, as her redeemer and agent within the sal$ation story. !od is knowable, has
a name, relates, seaks and acts. He is therefore a erson who %srael has a co$enant relationshi
with. ?ahweh also has two uni9ue characteristics in relation to the world. He alone was the Creator
of all things, the only re7e#istant +ne and he alone is so$ereign >uler of all things. ?ahweh alone
is able act as Judge o$er his creation. @ue to ?ahweh's uni9ue identity and in recognition of it,
?ahweh alone is worthy of worshi, what )auckham describes as monolatry. ,)auckham, '55/0'82.
All of these uni9ue characteristics were ascribed to Jesus by the "ew Testament writers reflecting
on the Hebrew -critures. Throughout the "ew Testament Jesus' so$ereignty o$er all things is
attested, he articiates in ?ahweh's uni9ue acti$ity in creation, he is gi$en the di$ine name in
Hebrews '08 and Jesus is worshied as a recognition of his uni9ue di$ine so$ereignty. )auckham
therefore osits that a high Christology was attested to from the $ery beginning by the early church,
framed in the language of -econd Temle Jewish monotheism. Jewish monotheism was not a
mathematical monotheism, there were ersonifications or hyostatiAations of asects of !od, e.g.
the -irit of !od, the :isdom and the :ord of !od all took a art in creation. They were seen as
intrinsic to his identity and e9uating such asects with the uni9ue identity of ?ahweh allowed for a
lurality within the !odhead. ,)auckham, '55/0&.2 Therefore an ontological Christology was
absent as there was only concern for who !od is, his identity which included his actions as a
erson, and not what he is, his being or essence were imortant.
)auckman says there is a surious common di$ision within Christology. Christology taken from an
early Jewish conte#t wrongly stresses a 'functional' Christology due to a misconcetion that Jewish
monotheistic thought was unable to attribute di$ine nature to Jesus as it would infringe its strict
monotheism. The later atristic 'ontic' Christology used !reek metahysical categories to describe
the di$ine nature in order to coe with the later Trinitaian de$eloments that led to the "icene7
Constantinoolitan Creed, c;/'CB. This creed formalised a metahysical understanding of lurality
within the !odhead, as regards to essence. +nce di$ine identity is understood as a concet then the
"ew Testament's silence on the essence of Jesus' di$inity, his being, can be understood. The silence
on the essence of his di$inity is because it is a category of no interest to the Hebrew mind. @i$inity
was ascribed by associating Jesus with the di$ine identity, which as a category includes his actions,
as a erson. This testifies to 3ust as high a Christology as when defining Jesus as sharing the same
essence as !od and maintains a lurality within the !odhead and emhasises the ersonal,
relational nature of !od.
+ne of the earliest heretical sects who were to deny this di$inity and uni9ue identity of Christ were
the Bbionites. Bbionitism is the term gi$en to those grous who oenly follow Jesus but deny his
di$inity. ,-ence, &../0''2 Bbionitism is a form of Adotionsim, a heresy that osits Christ was
merely adoted for the di$ine urose but was not himself di$ine. The Bbionites were Jewish7
Christians, robably members of the Jerusalem church, that were forced to flee after the Jewish :ar
began in *alestine in <<. According to their critics they adhered strictly to the demands of Jewish
law and re3ected the teaching of *aul with his o$ertly high Christology ,@a$idson, &..80'852. They
belie$ed that Jesus was merely a rohet and not the di$inely re7e#istant -on of !od. This is
similar to an %slamic $iew of Christ but the Bbionites did not belie$e in the $irgin birth, but that
Jesus was the natural son of Joseh and Mary.
The Arian contro$ersy, another form of Adotionism, resulted in the orthodo# confession of the
"icene7Constantinoolitan Creed. ,-ence, &../0&<2 Athanasius started with the sa$ing act of the
%ncarnation in his Christology when countering Arius as only !od had the ower to sa$e. ,?oung,
'5/;0<52 This stresses Jesus di$inity. The "icene7Constantinoolitan Creed stated that Christ was
of one nature, or essence with !od but also assumed human flesh. This set the theological
framework that led to the Chalcedonian @efinition, c86'CB, with its doctrine of the two natures
within Jesus. :here the "icene Creed had clarified that Christ was the same substance and co7
eternal with the (ather, the Chalcedon @efinition clarified how di$inity and humanity e#isted in the
one erson of Jesus. Moltmann agreeswith )auckham and argues that this relationshi between the
di$ine and human nature of Jesus is again not a "ew Testament concern. He suggests that Jesus'
relationshi as child to the (ather and with !od's relationshi as (ather to Jesus is the main
concern, ,Moltmann, '55.06;2 which is fundamentally relational and ersonal. This is in contrast to
the Creedal formulations with their emhasis on the di$ine essence and natures of Jesus.
As can be seen %slam's Christology has similarities to the Adotionism of Bbionitism. The central
issue with %slamic and Christian Christology is that of the di$inity of Christ which is e#ressly
denied within the Qur'an. Therefore the Creedal formulations with their stress on the di$ine essence
and nature of Jesus are a ma3or stumbling block to Muslims. %slam is unlike Christian and Jewish
monotheism which both allow for a lurality within the !odhead. The numerical singularity of
Allah recludes anything else sharing his di$inity. The creedal formulations and the %slamic $iew of
!od both resent an imersonal $iew of !od. How can a resentation of who the )iblical Jesus is
to Muslims in the &'
st
century in Arabia be done which a$oids stressing Jesus di$inity ,such as
resented in the creeds2 as this is an immediate stumbling block to further dialogue while utting
forward a $iew of !od that is relational and ersonal=
-emitic thought, which includes both Jews and Arabs, is dynamic not static. %t is concerned with
becoming not being. This is reflected in the Qur'an's silence on metahysical distinction between
nature and erson. ,)asetti7-ani, '5110'<62 Hans Cung, echoing John Hick, argues that e9uating
Jesus with !od in an ontological formulation is a failure to lo$e Muslims because it is blashemy to
them. Cung's remedy is to use language in which Muslims feel comfortable, before suggesting how
a Christian $iew of Christ could enhance the Muslim one. The ractical outworking of this is to
desist from using the language of the "icene7Constantinoolitan Creed in fa$our of what he
describes as the "ew Testament's 'functional' Christology. ,)eaumont, &..60'<52 Cung adds that
Muslims cannot understand nor accet theology based on !reek metahysical categories. The
Creeds so emhasised the di$ine element in Jesus that his human characteristics faded into the
background. ,)eaumont, &..60'<52 A 'functional' Christology would allow for an e#lanation of
what Jesus did rather than discussing his nature, a Christology from below.
Dyle Eander :erff states that to hel Muslims to answer the 9uestion of Matthew &&08&, :hat do
you think about the Christ= :e must lead them to the higher truth by admitting all the truth they
ossess in the Qur'an. Christology is therefore the strategic oint of contact between %slam and
Christianity and ultimately the Messiah's identity. Jesus in the Qur'an is gi$en different names 3ust
as in the !osel accounts, including the name Messiah, rendered %sa al7Masih. This name is not an
e#lained title and only with the background of the "ew Testament does much of the Qur'anic
accounts of Jesus make sense. The Qur'an itself does not make the charge of corrution of the
Hebrew7Christian -critures found in later %slam. :erff suggests that one way this witness can be
effecti$ely met is to affirm such a title and by careful e#osition and discussion re$eal the "ew
Testament meaning of the title.,:erff '5/50'1<2 This would allow us to begin with a descrition of
Jesus' actions and functions and then ultimately talk of his identity, which is within a -emitic
lausibility structure. This would still lead to a decision oint when the 9uestion of identity is
broached but without the 9uestion itself being dismissed out of hand because of the normal
ontological starting oint of the di$inity of Jesus being. This decision oint can be best $oiced by
Jesus himself in in Matthew ''0&., :ho do you say % am= This acknowledges the relational nature
of a ersonal !od undermined by the formulations of the creeds by affirming his di$inity in identity
not substance.
Bibliography
Arberry AJ
'5/5
The Koran
+#ford
+#ford Fni$ersity *ress
)asetti7-ani !
'511
The Koran in the Light of Christ
Chicago
(ranciscan Herald *ress
)auckham >
'5//
God Crucified
Carlisle
*aternoster *ress
)eaumont M
&..6
Christology in Dialogue with with Muslims
Carlisle
*aternoster
Chaman C
&..1
Cross and the Crescent
"ottingham
%nter7Earsity *ress
Coleston (-
'5/5
Christ or Mohammed?
Herts
"urint Dtd.
@a$idson %J
&..6
A Public Faith
+#ford
Monarch )ooks
@a$idson %J
&..8
The irth of the Church
+#ford
Monarch )ooks
Moltmann J
!""#
The $ay of %esus
Dondon
-CM *ress Dtd
*arrinder !
'515
%esus in the &ur'an
Dondon
-heldon *ress
-ingh @B
&../
%esus and the Cross(Christology in an Alternati)e Theological *tructure
-ingh @B
+#ford
>egnum )ooks %nt.
-ence A
&../
Christology+ A Guide for the Per,le-ed
Dondon
TGT Clark
:essels A
&...
.nderstanding the &ur'an
Dondon
-CM *ress
:erff DE
'5/5
The /ame of Christ in $orshi,
'117'58
:oodberry J@
Muslims and Christians on the 0mmaus 1oad
California
MA>C *ublications
?oung (
'5/;
From /icaea to Chalcedon
Dondon
-CM *ress Dtd.
4ebrini C
'551
Muslims and Christians Face to Face
+#ford
+neworld *ublications