by Dr. Ali Shehata
Why Don't Muslims believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
Similar to the reasoning presented above, Muslims adhere to the belief in God as One without partner, without associate. As above, I will try to make the bulk of this presentation a discussion of the logic presented in the Quran. Yet, as before, let me share a few Biblical verses that are often cited to show that Jesus pbuh is most certainly not the Son of God, in the sense that the Lord of the Universe actually sired him.
Some of the Sons of God found in the Bible
Israel is my son even my first born. [NIV, Exodus 4:22]
Adam, which was the son of God. [NIV, Luke 3:38]
Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called sons of God. [NIV, Matthew 5:9]
Seeing such verses often confuses a number of readers. How can so many people be called His “sons”? The answer comes in understanding what this term actually means. A “son of God,” in the Bible, is traditionally understood to mean someone close to God or one of his servants.
Was Jesus pbuh different than these other “sons”? Some Christians state that he is different because he was begotten by God. The word “begotten” implies originating from or being produced by someone else; to procreate or sire. We will discuss the implications of this statement momentarily, but first let us examine the validity of the idea that Jesus was begotten of God by taking a closer look at John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Reading this verse, it appears that this premise might have some validity since the verse does say, "only begotten son". Yet it must be remembered that the English Bible that many people read today is actually the translation of various Greek and Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Thus, the central question must be— do these manuscripts also state that Jesus was begotten. The answer to that question is no, they do not.
The Reality behind the term “Begotten Son”
Deacon Bob Williams and Professor Paul Duff, both prominent day Christian teachers and Bible scholars, have commented on this whole issue in a very lengthy and scholarly treatise that I recommend those who are interested in this matter to review. I will reproduce herein their conclusions so that the reader may understand from their research that the word “begotten” is a clear addition to the text of the Bible as it stands today. The following quote concerns the origin of the word “begotten” and why it is found in so many versions of the English Bible (many emphasis is mine).
First, the term came about because of translation errors. Most modern translators have correctly identified the original language and its intent, and thus have something similar to "one and only Son" (the NASB (New American Standard Bible) retains "only begotten" in the text, but some NASB publishers include a footnote which states the literal translation is "unique, only one of His kind"). But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao, instead of genos. Remember genos means, "of the same kind," but gennao does indeed mean "to beget," from which comes "begotten."
However, if gennao was indeed the true root, an additional "n" would apparently have to be added to read monogenNes. Hugo McCord used to advocate the "only begotten" translation, but then he wrote, "I, too, was in the same error. I did not realize I had to add to the Greek to get 'only begotten' into the New Testament. One added letter in a word lowers Jesus from being the only Son of God to being only a son of God." (Gospel Advocate, 3/30/86). Instead of being begotten, being truly unique relegates Him to merely being a created being like everyone else!
Second, it appears that the term came about because of doctrinal reasons. Somewhere in the 3rd century, Origen promoted the doctrine of eternal generation (that Christ eternally came from the Father; not sure what all was meant by such, but the phrase and doctrine evidently caught on). This idea was furthered in the 4th century by Jerome and others to battle against the growing Arian heresy. Arius taught that Jesus pbuh was indeed begotten ( Arius taught that there is an essential difference between God the Father and Christ the son, which makes the son secondary, or lesser, than the Father. Arius believed that since Christ was begotten, he must have had a beginning, and thus could not be co-eternal with the Father.)
Later in the same article they also state:
Notice that these translators were not consistent in the way they translated monogenes. Look at Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. In all these verses, the [King James Version] translators left out "begotten" and just put "only." In all these places, they were faithful to translating the original language as it really ought to be done. So why here and not the other passages? Because none of these are referring to Christ. It is obvious that the KJV translators inserted their theology into their work. Pagan beliefs or the Truth from the One God? (Williams, B. (1995) Jesus: Born, but Not Begotten. Retrieved from http://www.biblelessons.com/begotten.html)
Now we have to address the entire question of God begetting children in of itself. In Islamic thought, such a statement is deemed to be very insulting to God because it implies that he would take to himself a woman from Earth and have a child with her—outside of marriage moreover! Such an idea is reminiscent of the pagan stories of Greek mythology where Zeus becomes infatuated with an earthly woman and decides to have a child with her, as was the case with the Greek hero Hercules. So to ascribe to the Lord of the Universe such behavior is likened to the beliefs of the pagans, and thus, is a grave blasphemy in Islamic theology.
With this understanding, one can then see the meaning in the following hadith of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh wherein he reports the words of the All-Mighty in saying:
The son of Adam has insulted Me, and he has no right to do so … As for his insulting Me, he says, “God has begotten a son,” while I Am the One and Only, the Sustainer of All. [Bukhari & Muslim]
Thus it is deemed a great insult to God in His Majesty to say that He would take for Himself a son, for this means He must also have taken a woman to have this son. Furthermore, there comes another pertinent question of why does God need a son?
Of course in Christian theology, God's taking of a son is for the purpose of saving humanity by sacrificing him. So, the answer from that perspective is that God needed to have a son to forgive mankind their sins and to admit them to Heaven; his blood washing away their sins.
Yet, the Quran comes with a most beautiful reply to this critical question:
And they say, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
Indeed you have put forth a terrible lie!
At it, the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder,
And the mountains to crumble in utter ruin,
That they should claim a son for the Most Gracious.
For it is not consistent with the majesty of
The Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth,
Except that they must come to the Most Gracious as a servant.
He does take an account of them (all), and has numbered them (all) exactly.
And every one of them will come to Him singly on the Day of Judgment.
So as for those who believe and work deeds of righteousness,
Upon them will the Most Gracious bestow love. {19:88-96}
Now in this passage I have highlighted in bold one of the names of God, the Most Gracious, because there is a reason why God continues to call Himself by this title throughout this section of the Quran. Why? Through this attribute, He responds to the above statements by saying that He does not need a son in order to forgive His creation. Why? Simply, because He is already the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Most Forgiving! He is capable, and ready, to forgive His servants simply when they ask Him for forgiveness!
Christian readers should ask themselves if they would presume to be able to do something that God is incapable of doing. Of course no Christian, or Muslim for that matter, would dare say that they could do something that God could not do – yet we forgive people everyday with no strings attached. Sometimes our spouses say things that they don't mean, or our kids misbehave, or our friends forget to keep their promises—but in all these cases, and many more, we forgive them. We don't require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive others. We just want people to sincerely say they are sorry for their actions, and for them to regret any harm that was done—the very essence of repentance. Consider that and remember then how God is more perfect than all of us combined. How perfect and all-encompassing then is His Forgiveness and Mercy?
