kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

Jesus in the Qur'an (Part 2)

( . . . continued from part one)

We can also recognize that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had contact with perhaps not-so-orthodox Christianity. When the Qur’an denies the Trinity, is it the same thing as the “official” Christian doctrine of the Trinity? The Qur’an is set within its historical and cultural context. Not only is the Qur’an colored by Arab interaction with Monophysites or Nestorians (for example), but it also appears to reference later non-canonical works, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Qur’an seems to refer to a story of Jesus giving life to birds that are made of clay (Sura 3:49; 5:110), which can be found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (4:2). The fact that both the NT and quranic understandings of Jesus are historically and culturally conditioned is in itself a bridge (even if that bridge will be little traveled–since people in both faiths often feel uncomfortable with [and even deny] the historical setting of their sacred texts).

Even if the christology of the Qur’an and the New Testament greatly differ, we should note that the Qur’an has an overwhelmingly positive depiction of Jesus. We should expect as much when we note that the quranic Jesus is in many ways a forerunner to Muhammad, as perhaps John the Baptist is to Jesus in the NT. Jesus brings a new sacred text to the world (the Qur’an has Jesus writing the Gospels rather than simply being written about in them). Jesus is a messenger of God who faces persecution for his message. The quranic emphasis on Jesus humanity is to demonstrate that Jesus pointed the way to God through his miraculous signs.

People often use the Gospel of John as a point of discord between the quranic Jesus and the biblical Jesus. I would like to suggest that John offers a unique point of contact. Like the Qur’an, John depicts Jesus as an agent or messenger of God, pointing the way to God through miraculous signs. What do the Johannine Jesus’ signs reveal? The first sign that Jesus performs—changing water into wine—is described as “revealing his glory” (2:11), which harkens back to the prologue’s proclamation that “we have seen his glory,” that is the glory “as of a father’s only son” (1:14). Jesus’ glory does not come from humans (5:41), nor does he seek his own glory (8:50), but his glory comes from God alone (5:44; 8:54). In a question that seems particularly relevant to the Qur’an’s monotheistic concerns, Jesus asks, “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?” (5:44).

Though the Gospel of John may suggest the pre-existence of Jesus (“In the beginning was the Word . . .”), both John and the Qur’an have Jesus directing people to God through signs as God’s messenger. The Quranic emphasis that Jesus is able to do miraculous signs by the “leave of Allah” (Sura 3:49; 5:110) is fully in tune with the Jesus of John, who says, “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. . . . for I always do what is pleasing to him” (8:28, 29).

Though the subordination of the Son to the Father is later denied as heretical by the church, many NT texts seem to suggest such a relationship. Luke’s depiction of Jesus is not simply as the Christ, but as God’s Messiah (Lk 9:20; Acts 3:18). In the transfiguration, God declares that Jesus is “my chosen” (Lk 9:35, cf. Acts 3:20). The testimonies of Acts proclaim that Jesus is God’s servant (Acts 3:13, 4:27). Like John (“the one who sent me is with me,” John 8:28), Luke acknowledges that God is with Jesus (Acts 10:38), empowering him to do the work of God (“deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you,” Acts 2:22). While they do not show the same sort of agency, Mark and Matthew espouse themes of apparent subordination, for example, in knowledge of the coming eschaton: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mk 13:32; Matt 24:36).

So, we can see some interesting thematic connections between the NT Jesus and the quranic Jesus. Some like to highlight the titles used for Jesus in the Qur’an as showing similarities in thought, but that is generally a non-starter as the meanings of the titles seem quite different. “Messiah,” for instance, seems to simply be borrowed from the Christian use of the term, “Christ Jesus.” Rather, I think it is interesting to note the “messenger” quality of Jesus in both sacred texts and also to remember all the difficult nuances of historical and cultural settings of these texts.

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

7 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  September 24, 2008  /  Posted in: Christology, Gospel of John, interfaith, Islam, Jesus, Koran, Muhammad, new testament, Qur'an, Trinity
« Previous post
Next post »
  • http://patmccullough.com/2008/09/24/jesus-in-the-quran-part-1/ Jesus in the Qur’an (Part 1) « kata ta biblia

    [...] Jesus in the Qur’an (Part 2) [...]

  • steph

    what makes you so sure that the Qur’an is coloured by interaction with Monophysites or Nestorians. Is it not possible that the non human aspects of Jesus were rejected without their influence?

  • http://patmccullough.com/ Patrick George McCullough

    Steph, Thanks for the comment. Well, I’m not “so sure” to be honest. This is basically conjecture based on what I have read. I am by no means an expert on the Qur’an or Islamic origins. But if Muhammad had interaction with these types of Christians, they would certainly color his understanding of Christianity. Perhaps the divine elements of Jesus would have been rejected anyhow, but maybe it was rejected so strongly because of the emphases of the sort of Christianity that was known to Muhammad. Again, I’m not certain, but it seems likely to me.

  • steph

    I think the divine elements are just as likely to be rejected strongly because he knew of the Christianity that elevated them.

  • http://patmccullough.com/ Patrick George McCullough

    Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Monophysitism is “the Christianity that elevated” the divine nature of Jesus (more so than the “orthodox” position of the church councils). I am trying to say that the brands of Christianity that Muhammad ran into colored his opposition. The Monophysites emphasized the divinity of Christ so much that they said it was his only nature to the exclusion of his humanity. Perhaps the Qur’an responds to that overt emphasis on the divine so that it emphasizes Christ’s humanity to the exclusion of the possibility of divinity. So, I believe we’re saying the same thing, no?

  • http://www.uucastine.org/ Rev. Mark Worth

    Patrick,
    Thanks for your thoughtful take on Jesus in the Qur’an. Yes, it seems clear to me (a Unitarian Universalist) that Jesus is subservient to God in the New Testament, as you point out. Other examples might be “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “God is supreme over Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). As Harper’s Bible Dictionary admits, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” A few years ago I audited a course on Islam and the Qur’an at Bangor Theological Seminary. The professor, who is a Muslim, assumed that the Trinity was taught in the New Testament. I believe it is not. Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis.

  • http://patmccullough.com/ Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks for your comment, Mark. I’m actually from New England and I spent some time as a Unitarian Universalist myself in my teenage years (just before I became a fundamentalist Christian for two years!). I’m happy to have you visit! I agree with you and Harper’s Bible Dictionary that the full-fledged doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the New Testament. As a historian, I recognize the development of the tradition. This statement in itself does not mean that the Trinitarian doctrines from the councils is wrong, but I do think many Christians have to think a bit more critically about where they find their Trinitarian theology. Jesus doesn’t walk around spouting fourth century doctrinal statements, nor do any of the NT authors.

    I would, however, like to qualify your quotation of 1 Cor. It appears that you’re grabbing 1 Cor 11:3 from the Good News Translation, which is not a reliable translation for this kind of biblical study. It is a dynamic equivalent translation and thus is something closer to a paraphrase. The Greek term there is kephale, which literally means “head.” “Head” means no such thing as “supreme over.” That translation is motivated, I suspect, more by the desire to make the husband “supreme over” the wife than by a commitment to sound translation. Kephale means something more like “source” than a head that is an “authority”–thus harkening back to the Genesis 2 story perhaps (see also verse 12).

    Even if the quote from 1 Cor 11 is a bit off the mark, though, your quote from John is an excellent example of the point.