Shahidullah’s Weblog

THE BIBLICAL PATERNITY SUIT

The tabloids are replete with gossip stories about who claims who is the father of whom.  It is serious business with enormous stardust appeal!  Making a false paternity claim can have serious consequences.  For example, TMZ reported on 1 August, 2007, that Scary Spice was filing a paternity suit against Eddie Murphy since DNA tests proved that he was the father of Scary’s 4-month old baby girl [http://www.tmz.com/2007/08/01/murphy-to-be-slapped-with-scary-suit/].  CBS News’ Showbuzz reported on 13 April, 2007 that Kali Bowyer claimed that Chris Rock was the father of a child she had given birth to 13 years earlier [http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/people_hot_water/main2680794.shtml?source=RSSattr=Entertainment_2680794].  And so the story goes on and on.  Many a bitter feud has raged as claims and counter claims have been made, but claims have to be substantiated, and substantiation needs to be valid.  A paternity suit is simply defined as:  “…a legal action which is taken to determine the identity of the father of a child” [http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-paternity-suit.htm].  This study attempts to determine the validity of the Christian claim regarding the identity of the “father” of Jesus Christ [PBUH].  The Christian Bible claims that God is the “father” of Jesus [PBUH].  The Muslim Holy Qur’an claims that God has no “son”.  Only one claim can be correct and valid.  This study investigates the Christian claim, from the Christian Bible. 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION

This discussion essentially presents and evaluates the paternity case of Jesus Christ [PBUH] from the Bible’s perspective.  The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate the glaringly obvious from the Bible’s perspective – that God literally fathered a son with Mary in an adulterous relationship.  The concept “Son of God” in the Bible is inextricably linked to a specific moment in history – the conception and birth of Jesus.  It is this moment in history that needs to be examined since it is the central, defining and meaning-giving context for the topic that we are discussing.  Once the obvious is extracted primarily from the nativity narratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, a comparison is made with the teaching of the Holy Qur’an to demonstrate the fundamental conflict between a juxtaposed Biblical and Qur’anic christology.   

THE SCRIPTURAL PROBLEM

When the Bible and the Holy Qur’an are read in parallel regarding Jesus [PBUH], a clear distinction and difference in facts is soon evident.  One of these differences is that the Bible suggests that Jesus [PBUH] is the “son” of God [John 20:31] whereas the Holy Qur’an suggests that Jesus [PBUH] is the creature of God:  “The stories which we are relating to you are full of signs and wisdom.  In the sight of Allah, the case of the birth of Jesus is like that of Adam, whom he created out of dust and said, ‘Be,’ and he was” [3:58-60].   

The difference is important and the detail is significant.  If I say:  “Hamad is the son of Ali,” then I cannot, in the same breath, say:  “Ali has no son”.  Either Ali is the father of Hamad, or he isn’t.  In addition, if Ali were the father of Hamad, then he precedes Hamad.  Although there is likeness of kind between Ali and Hamad, fact remains that Ali is the “older source” of Hamad, and that there was a time that Hamad was not.  This father-son metaphor creates another christological problem for orthodox Christian teaching which forces it to seek explanations that are figurative and symbolic.  But these explanations are divorced and distanced from the central context of the biblical nativity narrative that gives birth to the introduction of the father-son language in Christian teaching.   

If the nativity language were merely metaphor and symbol, then it begs the question why “father” and “son” are needed to express the relationship between God and Jesus [PBUH].  In other words:  why does Christian teaching need “father” and “son” language if “father” and “son” are not meant?  Clearly, biblical teaching does indeed use father-son language metaphorically of angelic beings [Gen. 6:2, 4], of those who obey God’s commandments [Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14], and of the first created being, Adam [Luk. 3:38].  But, in the context of the literal conception and the literal birth of Jesus Christ [PBUH] the use of father-son language has to take on an entirely literal and obvious meaning, unlike the symbolic-metaphoric meaning outlined above.

Of course, then, none of the father-son language would make any sense without the introduction of “mother” and “wife” into the discussion [the latter issue is raised explicitly in the Holy Qur’an].   In the case of the topic of this discussion, the Bible suggests that God does have a son, whereas the Holy Qur’an suggests that God does not have a son.  The Holy Qur’an avoids any use of father-son language for God’s relationship with anybody, since the use of this would imply that there is another “like” God.  It must be clarified what is meant by Jesus’ [PBUH] supposedly being “the Son of God”.  I have not found a single Christian who would admit this in a literal sense.  Yet, the primary and essential sense in which “Son of God” is positioned in the New Testament is in terms of Mary’s literal conception and literal giving birth to a literal son who was to be called “the Son of the Most High” [Luk. 1:32] and “the Son of God” [Luk. 1:35].   

In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the conception and birth of Jesus [PBUH] are positioned in terms of his human genealogy which suggests that although all the ancestors of Jesus [PBUH] were literal sons of literal earth-fathers, Jesus [PBUH] was the literal Divine son of the literal Divine Father.  In this sense, the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke continue the genealogy of Jesus [PBUH] and, instead of attributing an earthly origin to the conception and birth of Jesus [PBUH], they present him [PBUH] as the “Son of God”.  God, as it were, interrupted the human genealogy of Jesus and inserted Himself into it.  In the genealogy of Matthew [Matt. 1:1-16], the phrase “the father of” is used throughout for the relationship between the fathers and the sons that lead, eventually, to Jesus [PBUH]:  “…and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ” [Matt. 1:16]. 

Notice how the pattern suddenly changes.  One would expect the phrase “…and Joseph the Father of Jesus…”.  However, the New Testament text has quite a different story in mind! The manner in which this divine birth of Jesus [PBUH] is supposed to have happened is clarified in the Gospel of Luke:  “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will over shadow you.  So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” [Luk. 1:35].  Whereas the Holy Qur’an teaches that Jesus’ [PBUH] conception and birth were the result of a creative act of God [3:58-60], the Bible teaches that Jesus’ [PBUH] conception and birth were the result of God’s having literally fathered a son with Mary. 

Since the idea of “son” and “father” in terms of Jesus [PBUH] and God are presented in the context of the literal conception and birth of Jesus [PBUH], it is a rather simple conclusion to make that “son” and “father” are to the conception and birth of Jesus [PBUH] what “son” and “father” are to the conception and birth of Joseph from his father Heli [Luk. 3:23].   The Holy Qur’an points out:  “Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam [Mary]. Say [O Muhammad SAW]: “Who then has the least power against Allah, if He were to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam [Mary], his mother, and all those who are on the earth together?” And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. He creates what He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things” [5:17].  Disbelief, in this aya, is defined in terms of ascribing the Holy Name of Allah to Jesus the Messiah [PBUH], the son of Maryam.  This means calling Jesus [PBUH] “God”.   

In essence, then, the scriptural problem to which I refer is the fact that the context of literal conception and literal birth in the nativity narratives only allows an interpretation of the father-son language that is equally literal.  In other contexts [such as creation and adoption] the father-son language may be sensible and, indeed, this is its application elsewhere in the Bible.  But, at the conception and birth of Jesus [PBUH] neither a creative act of God nor a spiritual adoption is intended or sensible.  This leaves us with only one other possible interpretation – the father-son language is intended to express nothing more and nothing less than a divine insertion into the genealogy of Jesus [PBUH].  And this, in turn, implies that God literally fathered a son with Mary.  The relevance of a contemporary discussion such as this one is self-evident. 

THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE BIBLE AND THE QUR’AN

The Bible teaches that Jesus [PBUH] is the “Son of God”, and it is alleged in the Bible that Jesus [PBUH] acknowledged this faith in his divine sonship.  During the trial of Jesus [PBUH], “the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law” [Luk. 22:66] directly asked Jesus:  “Are you the Son of God?” [Luk. 22:70].  Jesus [PBUH] replied:  “You are right in saying I am” [ibid.].  In this same passage, Jesus [PBUH] also claims to be the “Son of Man” [Luk. 22:69] and he unambiguously distinguishes himself from “the mighty God” at Whose “right hand” he will be seated [ibid.].  This essential profession of faith in Jesus [PBUH] as the “Son of God” is reiterated, amongst others, by those who are demon-possessed [Matt. 8:29], Jesus’ [PBUH] own disciples [Matt. 14:33], evil spirits [Mark 3:11], and a Roman centurion at the site of the alleged crucifixion [Mark 15:39].  What is clear is that the alleged sonship of Jesus [PBUH] is fundamental to a Christian christology.   

On the other hand, the Holy Qur’an acknowledges Jesus [PBUH] only as “the Son of Maryam” and unambiguously rejects any suggestion that he PBUH] is the “son” of the Almighty. Thus the Holy Qur’an records: “[Remember] when the angels said: “O Maryam [Mary]! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. Iesa [Jesus] the son of Maryam [Mary]] from Him, his name will be the Messiah Iesa [Jesus], the son of Maryam [Mary], held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah” [3:45].  In addition, the Holy Qur’an makes it clear:  “For Allah is [the only] One Ilah [God], glory be to Him [Far Exalted is He] above having a son…All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a son [nor an offspring], and Who has no partner in [His] Dominion” [4:171; 17:111 – underlining mine].   So, on the one hand, there is the Biblical proclamation of faith that Jesus [PBUH] is indeed the “Son of God”, and on the other hand, there is the Qur’anic proclamation of faith that God does not beget or father a son, and that He is singularly unique, incomparable and unlike anything or anyone known to humans.  Let us examine the biblical case closer.  

THE BIBLICAL CASE

It seems that the most sensible place to start is in the narratives of the Gospels.  Although these writings post-date the earlier writings of Paul, for example, their very genre and intention made them the foundation for the later theologies of the apostles and the church fathers.  Only Matthew and Luke are helpful.  Mark and John have a different agenda.  Mark simply assumes that Jesus [PBUH] is “the Son of God” [Mark 1:1] right from the start, but gives no insight into his birth.  John simply states:  “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” [John 1:14].  John acknowledges that Jesus [PBUH] was born as a literal, corporeal person, but he also suggests that Jesus [PBUH] is “God” [John 1:1] and “God the Only Begotten” [John 1:18].   

The Gospel of Matthew

 Matthew’s Gospel records the salient aspects of the birth of Jesus [PBUH]:  “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about:  his mother Mary…was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 1:18].  The angel of God is said to have also appeared to Joseph.  He told Joseph:  “…do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.  She will give birth to a son” [Matt. 1:20-21].  Jesus [PBUH] is merely called “a son” in the text of Matthew [Matt. 1:21; 23; 25]. 

The Gospel of Luke

Luke’s Gospel essentially echoes that of Matthew but it adds an important aspect that is crucial to this discussion.  The angel of God said to Mary:  “…you have found favour with God.  You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High…The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.  So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” [Luk. 1:29-37].  The important addition to the nativity narrative in Luke’s Gospel is the fact that Jesus is alternatively called “the Son of the Most High” as well as “the Son of God”.   

Son of God or son of Mary?

The most fundamental aspect of this discussion is what it means, from a Biblical perspective, to call Jesus the “son of God”.  Is Jesus [PBUH] the “Son of God” as Christians claim, or is he the “son of Mary” as Muslims claim.  In the New International Version of the Bible, the phrase “son of God” is used 41 times in the New Testament, and in the Mohsin Khan English translation of the Holy Qur’an the phrase “son of Mary” is used 36 times in 33 verses.  The Qur’anic position is more resonant with the Biblical phrase “son of man” that is used for Jesus [PBUH] in 83 verses in the New International Version of the Bible. 

It is statistically significant to note that the Bible has a decided preference for calling Jesus [PBUH] “son of man” instead of “son of God”, since the former phrase is used twice as often as the latter.  The Qur’an is clear about the matter in no ambiguous terms:  “He [God] begets not, nor was He begotten…It befits not [the majesty of] Allah that He should beget a son…But it is not suitable for [the majesty of] the Most Beneficent that He should beget a son…No son [or offspring of children] did Allah beget…He [God] begets not, nor was He begotten” [17:43; 19:35; 19:92; 23:91; 112:3 – underlining mine].   

Matthew and Luke – Did God beget a son?

 Returning to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, we need to first be clear about what these narratives say.  Matthew’s Gospel mentions that Jesus [PBUH] was “conceived in” Mary.  The word “conceived” is the Greek verb gennao which simply means “to become the father of; to bear; to give birth to; to be conceived or born”.  The meaning of this word is illustrated in a figurative passage from the Epistle of James in the New Testament:  “…after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin” [Jas. 1:15].  Conception precedes birth.  In a literal sense, gennao refers to the act of procreation and bearing children.  Of utmost importance in this discussion is the sequence of events in the introductory chapters of Matthew.  

In the genealogy of Jesus [PBUH] in Matthew, the word gennao is used of the literal fathers who begot literal sons:  “Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob…” [Matt. 1:2].  In each instance of father-son relationship that follows it is the word gennao that is used!  This genealogy concludes as follows:  “and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” [Matt. 1:16].  This genealogy leads directly into the nativity narrative and sets the background for the story of Jesus’ [PBUH] birth.  All the literal sons mentioned in this genealogy had literal fathers.  And thus the Gospel of Matthew glaringly omits naming the father of Jesus [PBUH] in his genealogy!  That is, until the nativity narrative identifies who Jesus’ [PBUH] “father” is.   

Matthew [in the New International Version] identifies Jesus [PBUH] eight times as “the Son of God” [Matt. 4:3; 4:6; 8:29; 14:33; 26:63; 27:40; 27:43; 27:54].  Luke’s Gospel suggests a different genealogy [a good example of the unreliability of the Biblical text!] and points out with reference to the birth of Jesus [PBUH]:  “Jesus…was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph” [Luk. 1:23].  The Apostle John twice records the phrase “Jesus…the son of Joseph” in reference to Jesus [PBUH] [John 1:45; 6:42].  In a sense, the Bible suggests that Joseph was the father of Jesus [PBUH] in a way similar to Jesus’ [PBUH] being “the son of David” [Matt. 1:1].  And yet the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews remarks that Jesus [PBUH] was also “without genealogy” [Herb. 7:3], which implies that Jesus’ [PBUH] true origin was not only earthly but divine too. 

This anomaly of orthodox christology presents an irreconcilable conflict between God-becoming-man without resolving the inherent contradiction between “God” and “man” that is inseparably parallel in this doctrinal framework.  Whereas Matthew painstakingly [albeit historically inaccurately] presents the human genealogy of Jesus [PBUH] [Matt. 1:1], the writer to the Hebrews suggests that Jesus [PBUH] has no genealogy [Hebr. 7:3].  And in the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, Paul suggests that the “human ancestry” of Jesus [PBUH] does not exclude his [PBUH] being “God over all, forever praised!” [Rom. 9:5].   But, this is a matter for another discussion.  Let us return to the use of gennao in the New Testament. 

There are many instances in the New Testament that illustrate both the figurative and literal meaning of gennao, and the question we need to ask in this discussion is this:  What is the relevance of using gennao in terms of the birth of Jesus [PBUH] in the New Testament?  If the intention is merely figurative, then Muslims will not have any problem calling Jesus [PBUH] the “son of God” in a manner that all created beings have their source of being in God.  If, however, the intention is literal, then Muslims will reject with contempt the implications of God having literally fathered a son with a human woman.  The implications would include adultery and ascribing to God an act of human procreation that is essentially reprehensible and unqualifiably blasphemous.   

What too easily escapes attention is the fact that the word gennao in the nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke is used in the context of the birth of a literal son, from a literal woman.  When the texts of Matthew and Luke that are discussed above are interwoven, this is what emerges:  “…what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit…[Mary]…will be with child and give birth to a son…she gave birth to a son…[Jesus]…will be called the Son of the Most High…the Son of God”.  Here the literal conception and birth of Jesus [PBUH] is narrated.  Mary conceived Jesus [PBUH] “from the Holy Spirit”.  The son she conceived and gave birth to is called “the Son of the Most High” [Luk. 1:32] and “the Son of God” [Luk. 1:35].   

It truly does not require much effort to conclude, then, that Jesus [PBUH] is presented in the Bible as the literal son of God.  As the literal mother of the literal Jesus [PBUH], Mary conceived him and gave birth to him, and since he [PBUH] is to be called the son of the literal Most High God, the Bible proposes that God is the literal father of Jesus [PBUH] just as Mary is the literal mother of Jesus [PBUH].  There is nothing figurative about this!   

The Letter to the Hebrews

The anonymous Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament helps us to further understand the Biblical perspective.  It reflects on the birth of Jesus [PBUH] as follows:  “So he [Jesus – PBUH] became as much superior to the angels as the names he has inherited is superior to theirs.  For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son; today I have become your Father’?  Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son’” [Hebr. 1:5].  In this text, the Bible supposedly presents the birth of Jesus [PBUH] from the perspective of God.  Here, as in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Greek word gennao is used in reference to the relationship between Jesus [PBUH] and God.  The sense in which God is supposedly the “father” of Jesus [PBUH] is the sense of literally begetting and fathering a child:  “…today I have become your Father” [Hebr. 1:5] can also read:  “Today I have begotten you”.  Notice specifically the word “today” – it was at a very specific moment in time that Jesus [PBUH] was supposedly fathered by God.  It is in this context that Jesus [PBUH] is “son” and that God is “father”.  But, what is the Qur’anic perspective? 

THE QUR’ANIC CASE

Muslims believe that the Gospel that was entrusted to Jesus [PBUH] is different from the one that has been recorded and preserved in the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an points out:  “And in their footsteps, We sent Iesa [Jesus], son of Maryam [Mary], confirming the Taurat [Torah] that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel [Gospel], in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat [Torah] that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqoon [the pious - see V.2:2]” [5:46]. 

It has been illustrated from the Bible itself that the context for Jesus’ [PBUH] being “son” and God being his “father” is the context of his physical birth.  It is because of Jesus’ [PBUH] birth from Mary that he [PBUH] is the “son of God” in the New Testament.  This implies the very reason why Muslims vehemently oppose Christian christology, since it suggests that God had sexual intercourse with Mary in order to “father” his “son”.   

Everything about the context of the nativity narrative in Matthew and Luke suggests this.  Mary became pregnant and she gave birth to a son.  The Bible identifies the father of this son to be God Almighty.  This is especially reprehensible because “Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph” [Matt. 1:18] and also because the angel instructed Joseph to “take Mary home as your wife” [Matt. 1:20].  There simply is no avoiding the implication in the Bible that the birth of Jesus [PBUH] was the result of adultery.  

The Holy Qur’an asks a simple question:  “He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything” [6:101 – underlining mine].  If God had a son, then God must have had a wife.  The Bible suggests that God fathered a son with Mary, a woman who was betrothed to another man.  The Bible also suggests that God Himself had said:  “You shall not commit adultery…” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death” [Exod. 20:14; Lev. 20:10].  The implications of this divine command for a Christian christology are self-obvious. 

JESUS [PBUH] IS A PROPHET AND MESSENGER OF GOD

The Holy Qur’an is unambiguous about the mission of Jesus [PBUH] to humankind.  Jesus [PBUH] is “a Messenger to the Children of Israel” [3:49].  The Holy Qur’an also teaches that Jesus [PBUH] was a Prophet like the Prophets who preceded him [PBUH]:  “Say [O Muslims], “We believe in Allah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibrahim [Abraham], Ismail [Ishmael], Ishaque [Isaac], Yaqoob [Jacob], and to Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Yaqoob [Jacob]], and that which has been given to Moosa [Moses] and Iesa [Jesus], and that which has been given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted [in Islam]” [2:136].  In fact, Jesus [PBUH] was “a Messenger of Allah and [he was also] His Word” [4:171 – brackets mine], and the very nature of Jesus [PBUH] before God “is the likeness of Adam.  He created him from dust, then [He] said to him: ‘Be!’ – and he was” [3:59].  Jesus [PBUH], like Adam, was created from the dust of the earth, without human father.  In this sense, Jesus [PBUH] is rightfully called “the last Adam” [1 Cor. 15:45] in the Bible and, in a metaphoric and symbolic sense, Adam can then be called “the son of God” [Luk. 3:38] since God was his origin and his creator as “father”.  But, this meaning of “son of God” cannot be applied to Jesus [PBUH] in orthodox Christian christology since it would result in a human Jesus [PBUH] as opposed to a divine Jesus [PBUH].   

The Apostle Paul believed that Jesus [PBUH] would be “the man” [Acts 17:31] by whom God would “judge the world with justice” [ibid.].  What is more, this same Apostle made a fundamental distinction between “God” and “Christ Jesus” when he wrote to his protégé, Timothy:  “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” [1 Tim. 2:5 – underlining mine].  On the one hand, Paul taught, there is God, and on the other hand, there are “men”, in between, as the mediator between God and men is “the man Christ Jesus”.   

The New Testament also acknowledges that Jesus [PBUH] was a Prophet [Matt. 21:11; Mark 6:4; Luk. 24:20; John 6:14].  In this sense, Jesus [PBUH] is “the Apostle and high priest” that Christians profess [Hebr. 3:1].  The Roman Catholic website, New Advent, explains the Greek verb apostello from which is derived the word apostle:  “The word “Apostle”, from the Greek apostello “to send forth”, “to dispatch”, has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos [Apostle] means one who is sent forth, dispatched–in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6 [cf. 1 Kings 12:24]. In the New Testament, on the contrary, it occurs, according to Bruder’s Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was “Apostle”. It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted “those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service” [Lightfoot, "Galatians", London, 1896, p. 93]. The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello… In the Epistle to the Hebrews [iii, 1] the name is applied even to Christ, in the original meaning of a delegate sent from God to preach revealed truth to the world” [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm].  Thus, the New Testament acknowledges that Jesus is a Messenger who is sent from God, someone is distinct from the One who sent him.   

Jesus [PBUH] knew without any doubt that he was sent by God Whom he calls “the One who sent me” on numerous occasions [Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luk. 9:48; John 7:33, 8:29, 12:44-45, 13:20, 15:21].  In his own words, Jesus [PBUH] told his closest followers:  “I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” [John 13:16].  The One who sent Jesus [PBUH] is greater than him [PBUH].  Jesus [PBUH] is indeed greater than John the Baptist [Matt. 11:11], the Jewish Temple [Matt. 12:6], the Prophet Jonah [Matt. 12:41], and King Solomon [Matt. 12:42], but he [PBUH] is not greater than God who is “greater than all” [John 10:29].  Jesus [PBUH] emphatically said:  “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” [John 14:28].   

But, exactly why did Jesus [PBUH] say this?  The answer is simple – he was a mere human being, Prophet and Messenger of God.  On the cross, Jesus [PBUH] cried in agony:  “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” [Matt. 27:46].  Jesus [PBUH] cried out to God, his God.  When addressing his special emissaries, the Gospel of John records the words of Jesus [PBUH] once more:  “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God‘” [John 20:17].  Jesus’ [PBUH] God was the same God as the disciples’ God!  He was merely the Messenger, as the Holy Qur’an [4:171] points out.  This statement of Jesus [PBUH] is reiterated in the Holy Qur’an:  “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimoon [polytheists and wrongdoers] there are no helpers” [5:72]. 

Jesus’ [PBUH] teaching was the worship of God Almighty, and Him alone.  Similarly, when the Apostle Paul speaks of “my God”, he distinguishes Him from “Jesus Christ” who is not his God [Rom.1:8; Philp. 4:19].  On four more occasions in the New Testament does Jesus [PBUH] acknowledge God as his own God [Rev. 3:2, 12].  What is clear from this discussion is that the Bible presents Jesus [PBUH] as Messenger, Servant, and Worshipper of the Almighty. 

CONCLUSION

 HERE ARE SOME YOUTUBE RESOURCES THAT MAY BE HELPFUL

Here are some YouTube resources that will help you to understand the points that are made in this study: