Introduction
God, faith, and reason
In my journey to discover the meaning of life, I came to believe, through reason, in a unique, super-intelligent, timeless, unconditioned, unrestricted, good, merciful, and loving continuous Creator of all that exists. I call Him God.
If reason can conclude all of this, then why would we need revelation? Why would God have to reveal Himself in some special way to us? After all, it seems that all the pertinent characteristics of a transcendent being can be discovered through the evidence and methods of reason. Is there any need for faith? Any need for God to give us some enlightening revelation of Himself beyond what reason can reach? The inescapable answer is, “Yes.”
There are five major reasons why we need God’s special revelation to go beyond the remarkable power of reason:
- Our need to know and relate to Him.
- Our need to know who and where He is.
- Our need to know why He created us.
- Our need to know what we are required to do while we’re on this planet.
- Our need to know what will happen to us after death.
Knowing that we yearn to know Him, He, out of His infinite wisdom and loving heart, gave us answers to all these questions through revelations.
Revelation and reason, however, cannot be separated from the life of a believer. Since all reason comes from God, it follows that He has intended for us to use our reasoning ability to discover and contemplate truth, although many truths can only come via revelation.
This article explores the interplay between reason and faith, the theological implications of John 1:1, and the potential for interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between Christianity and Islam. By examining these themes, we aim to foster a deeper understanding and mutual respect among believers of these two great faiths.
Part of the tension between reason and faith can be resolved by viewing the issue from two different perspectives: epistemologically (what we know) and ontologically (how we know). There is a difference between the way we know reality and what we know about reality. If God is the source of all truth, then truth must come from the “top-down,” and thus be known by revelation; however, epistemologically we start from the “bottom-up” to determine whether or not God exists[1]. In the epistemological sense, then, reason is before revelation, since reason must be used to evaluate whether or not scripture is indeed revelation.
That reason is necessarily connected to revelation is evidenced by the fact that we are called upon to decide true revelation from false revelation (testing the spirits—I John 4:1-2). How can we do such discerning apart from reason, even if it is reasoning from the Scriptures? It is foolish to believe everything without applying reason to test its believability or truthfulness, but likewise, it is arrogant to assume that everything must be accepted by our reason before it can be accepted as God’s Word or truth[2].
There are several viewpoints explaining the relationship between revelation and reason. Some eliminate one or the other from their belief system; others tend to lean more heavily toward one over the other, while others treat both with equal emphasis. We could term the various positions as “Revelation Only,” “Reason Only,” “Revelation over Reason,” “Reason over Revelation,” or “Revelation and Reason.[3]”
However, there is another point of view that is not considered here. All believers agree that God is “The All-Knowing” Creator who created the human being and knows him best. This follows that He will not reveal to us that we cannot comprehend, especially since the human being, as we stated earlier, is able through reason to discover the existence of God but needs revelation from Him to learn more about purpose and destiny.
Here is the problem. There are many ways in which we filter and distort our understanding of the revelation we received from God. In our attempt to understand what He is revealing to us, we use our human logic that is intrinsically limited to our senses. This limitation should be very obvious to our All-Knowing Creator. It is because we have limited sources of knowledge that we need revelation to help us understand who He is and what He wants us to know. If His revelation to us about Himself is not clear or is considered a mystery, it is either because He doesn’t know our limitations, or He is unable to express Himself effectively. Both assumptions are wrong as we have clear and straightforward revelation from Him about who He is. This necessitates that either an ambiguous revelation is not a revelation, or our understanding of it is wrong. I consider John 1:1 to be one such revelation.
John 1:1 and the Logos
If you approach John 1:1, the very first verse in the Gospel of John, with preconceived theological notions, you will probably find plenty of writings to support your views, regardless of what they are. Preconceived notions and personal biases are the greatest obstacles to overcome if we are to truly understand a text. Instead, we must open our minds and allow ourselves to freely interact.
The most common way to find John 1:1 in most distributed translations is as follows: “In the beginning[4] was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[5]”
In the Gospel of John, the Word (Logos) appears in the very first verse without explanation, as if it is a term familiar to the readers. John then uses it at the end of the prologue (1:14) and does not mention it again in his Gospel[6].
“The Word,” a translation of the Greek ho logos, is widely interpreted by scholars as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other later verses[7]. This verse and others throughout Johannine[8] literature are thought to connect the Christian belief of who Jesus is to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature. They also set the stage for the later development of Trinitarian theology[9].
The doctrine of the Logos, God’s creative principle, introduced in John’s Gospel, was earlier presented by Philo (Greek: Φίλων, Philōn; c. 20 B.C.E. – 50 C.E.), a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, during the Roman Empire. Philo used philosophical allegory to attempt to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system[10].
The term Logos was used by Philo in place of the Hebrew concept of Wisdom (Sophia) as the intermediary (angel) between the transcendent Creator and the material world. It appears that by adopting this concept, John 1:1 intended to identify Jesus as the eternal Word ho Logos of God. At least, this is how John 1:1 was understood by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., which produced the Nicene Creed[11], the standard profession of faith that is most widely used in Christian liturgy, thus asserting Jesus’ innate superiority over all divine messengers, whether angels or prophets[12].
Philo never explained clearly what his Logos was, but it often took on the form of the essence or divine nature of God. Philo’s Logos successfully split God into multiple personifications that were later refined into the Trinitarian concepts developed by various Church Councils and later adopted by Christianity[13].
It doesn’t take a scripture scholar to recognize there are some acute differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the Gospel of John in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style. Originally, it was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups within the early Christian movement. But it was ultimately accepted into the official canon, over many objections[14].
The earlier Synoptic traditions emphatically present Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, a descendant of David, and an eschatological messenger of the end of the world, where God gathers His Chosen People. In John’s Gospel, Jewish genealogy and all references to Palestinian and Davidic descent are removed. This shift moves us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people’s messiah to a Wisdom, a Sophia, that pervades all things and all people. John 1:4 states: “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” This light transforms man’s evil nature, creating a fertile ground where the perfect God and flawed man can meet and establish fellowship. Like other Greek philosophical constructs—beauty, wisdom, and truth—Jesus, as the Logos, becomes God.
There are many theories about why John’s Gospel differs significantly from the Synoptics. One theory suggests that John was written for Greek Christians at the beginning of the second century. These recent converts were more educated, wealthy, and often despised the Diaspora Jews living in their cities, who enjoyed the respect of Rome. John may have removed the references to Jesus as a Jewish Messiah found in the earlier gospels to present the Logos in a more acceptable form. Consequently, John’s Gospel is more theologically developed for that culture, unlike the other three gospels, which primarily aim to provide a biography of Jesus’ life for a Jewish audience. Scholars continue to debate the extent to which this theory is true.
John presents a “higher” Christology than the Synoptics, meaning that he describes Jesus as the incarnation of the divine Logos through whom all things were made, as the object of veneration, and more explicitly as God incarnate. Only in John does Jesus talk at length about himself and his divine role, often shared only with the disciples. Unlike the Synoptics, John focuses largely on different miracles (including resurrecting Lazarus), given as signs meant to engender faith. Synoptic elements such as parables and exorcisms are not found in the Gospel of John. It presents a realized eschatology in which salvation is already present for the believer.
Of all the gospels, the Gospel of John’s authorship is the most disputed. In fact, Irenaeus[15] identifies John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel of John. Eusebius quotes two passages from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies to prove that John, the disciple of the Lord, resided in Ephesus after Paul’s death. Eusebius identifies the John to whom Irenaeus refers as John the apostle and evangelist, the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (H.E. 3. 23)[16]. The source for Irenaeus’s knowledge of the origins of the Gospel of John seems to be Polycarp[17] (69-155), whom Irenaeus knew in his youth and who knew the apostles, including John. Polycarp is a bridge between the generation of the apostles and that of Irenaeus.
The environment factors
According to historian Shaye J.D. Cohen[18], “The separation of Christianity from Judaism was a process, not an event. The essential part of this process was that the church was becoming more and more gentile, and less and less Jewish, but the separation manifested itself in different ways in each local community where Jews and Christians dwelt together. In some places, the Jews expelled the Christians; in others, the Christians left of their own accord[19].”
This process ended in 70 CE, after the great revolt that culminated with the destruction of the Temple and the disbursement of the Jews. “This is when various Jewish sects disappeared and Pharisaic Judaism evolved into Rabbinic Judaism, and Christianity emerged as a distinct religion[20].”
According to Cohen, early Christianity ceased to be a Jewish sect when it ceased to observe Jewish practices[21]. Among the Jewish practices abandoned by Proto-orthodox Christianity, circumcision was rejected as a requirement at the Council of Jerusalem, c. 50. The establishment of a Jewish tax known as Fiscus Judaicus helped widen the gap between Jewish Christians and Jews, as anyone who appeared to be Jewish was taxed heavily after 70 AD. Sabbath observance was modified, perhaps as early as Ignatius of Antioch (c.110)[22]. Quartodecimanism, which refers to the custom of some early Christians celebrating Passover beginning with the eve of the 14th day of Nisan (or Aviv in the Hebrew Bible calendar), which at dusk is biblically the “Lord’s Passover,” was disputed by Pope Victor I (189-199) and formally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
In addition, some historians have suggested that, before his death, Jesus forged among his believers’ such certainty that the Kingdom of God[23] and the resurrection of the dead was at hand, with few exceptions (John 20: 24-29) when they saw him shortly after his execution, they had no doubt that he had been resurrected, and that the restoration of the Kingdom and resurrection of the dead was at hand. These specific beliefs were compatible with Second Temple Judaism[24]. In the following years, the restoration of the Kingdom as expected, failed to occur. Instead, a new belief began to immerge among some Christians who wanted to make sense of the events that took place; Christ, “rather than being the Jewish messiah, was God made flesh, who died for the sins of humanity, and that faith in Jesus Christ offered everlasting life[25].” Jesus himself declared that he was God, according to a common interpretation of John 8:58.
In this environment of increasingly getting away from Judaism and a new theology of salvation evolving, the Gospel according to John documented a Christianity that’s moving further and further away from Jewish traditions and the emergence of Christianity as a separate religion.
Translation Difficulties
The text of John 1:1, wrote David A. Reed, “has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greeks alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, ‘and the Word was the God.’ The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, ‘and the word was a God[26].’”
There are two issues affecting the translation of the verse: theology and the proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the most popular one[27]. The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that “a god” or “…a divine” is the proper rendering. Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation “a god,” while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.
The proper rendering of John 1:1 into English from the original Koine Greek text continues to be a source of vigorous debate among Bible translators. Competing beliefs have caused controversy over whether Jesus was the one and only God, or was a god, lesser than and completely distinct from God.
In a recent paper by Brian James Wright titled “Jesus as Theos: A Textual Examination[28],” he says: “No author of a synoptic gospel explicitly ascribes the title Theos to Jesus. Jesus never uses the term Theos for himself[29]. No sermon in the Book of Acts attributes the title Theos to Jesus. No extant Christian confession(s) of Jesus as Theos exists earlier than the late 50s. Before the fourth-century Arian controversy, noticeably few Greek MSS[30] attest to such ‘Jesus-Theos’ passages. And possibly the biggest problem for NT Christology regarding this topic is that textual variants exist in every potential passage where Jesus is explicitly referred to as Theos.” This plethora of issues may provoke one to repeat, for different reasons, what a Gnostic document once confessed about Jesus: “Whether a god or an angel or what I should call him, I do not know.[31]”
In his book Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Murray J. Harris says: “[It] is clear that in the translation ‘the Word was God,’ the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage ‘God’ is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, ‘the Word was God’ suggests that ‘the Word’ and ‘God’ are convertible terms and that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.[32]” Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield, and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as “…and the Word was divine.”
An Orthodox Bible Commentary notes: “This second Theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates ‘a qualitative sense for Theos.’ The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the Theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: ‘God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion[33] with the Father[34].'”
Gordon Clark[35] translated Logos as “Logic” in the opening verses of the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God.” He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were contained in the Bible itself and were not therefore a secular principle imposed on the Christian worldview.
Following Jesuit translations of the 18th Century, today most Chinese Bible translations use the word “Tao[36]” in John 1:1 to translate “Logos,” following the use of “Idea” in Taoism.
David Reed[37] suggests that “word” in John 1:1 should be translated as “Torah”: “We suggest, then, that John’s prologue should be translated, ‘In the beginning was the Torah, and the Torah was toward God, and Godlike was the Torah,’ as opposed to the more traditional ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ which betrays the scholarly assumption that John is a Hellenistic gospel or a Gnostic text. If this proposal is not acceptable, he adds, at the very least we have to entertain the possibility that when John speaks of the word, he is not limited to a philosophical interpretation of the Logos. We argue this because texts before, contemporary with, and after John’s gospel testify to the multiple meanings of the logos, which are not limited to, but which do include wisdom and law as possible interpretations.”
In The New Testament, An American Translation, this verse is translated as follows: “In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine[38].”
In yet another Bible translation, we read: “The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.[39]”
Other variations[40] of rendering John 1:1 also exist; in fact, some 70 different variations were noted. Among them:
– 1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: “…and he was the same as God.”
– 1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: “…and what God was, the Word was.”
– 14th century – Wycliffe’s Bible (from the 4th century Latin Vulgate) reads: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.”
– 1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: “In the beginning, the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.”
– 1808 “and the Word was a god” – Thomas , The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
– 1864 “The LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God” A New Emphatic Version, (right-hand column).
– 1864 “and a god was the Word” (left-hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
– 1935 “And the Word was divine” – The New Testament in an Improved Version.
The Problem with Source Texts and Different Translations
John 1:1 and the other concepts presented in John’s Gospel are still debated among scholars. Is Jesus “a word” or is he “The Word”? Is he “a god” (Theos) or “The God” (ho Theos) or is it the proper Greek construct “ton Theon“[41]?
Translation from the Greek can be problematic or can even lead to pure and unadulterated heresy, as we’ve mentioned earlier, quoting David A. Reed.
If the Greek is problematic, John 1.1 Coptic[42] translation represents even more problems. “ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ”– John 1:1, Sahidic Coptic text. — “In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a god was the word.” — Literal English translation.
“Since the Sahidic Coptic version pre-dates the 4th century, being dated in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, it is not surprising that it does not labor under the doctrine of the Trinity. Not only does the Coptic version refrain from identifying Jesus as God Almighty at John 1:1c, but it also does not contain the Trinitarian addition at 1 John 5:7 (“these three are one”), nor speak of “the church of God which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28), nor does it say that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). Rather, it speaks of the “church of the Lord” and says merely “this one who” was manifested in the flesh at 1 Timothy 3:16, not “God.” Nor does it contain the added words in John 3:13, “[the Son of man] who is in heaven,” which incorrectly indicates that Jesus could be God in heaven and Man on earth at the same time. Instead, like the earliest extant Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John, the p66 [Papyrus Bodmer II], the Sahidic Coptic text omits that unauthorized addition[43]”.
Relative to Coptic John 1:1c, Memra, the author of an article on this subject, asks the question: What conclusions can be drawn from a multi-year study of the Sahidic Coptic language, including a detailed study of the entire Sahidic Coptic New Testament? His answer is:
- The translation of Coptic *neunoute pe pSaje* into Standard English as “the Word was a god” is literal, accurate, and unassailable. It is simple, but not simplistic. It is what the Coptic text actually says and literally conveys. Any other translation of it amounts to interpretation or paraphrase.
- Rendering a Sahidic Coptic common (“count”) noun, like *noute*, god, when bound to the Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, into English as “a” + noun is so prevalent, as for example in Coptic scholar George Horner’s 1911 English translation of the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, that this is beyond dispute.
Memra’s understanding is supported by Coptic scholar Ariel Shisha-Halevy, but this scholar also says that the indefinite article may be used qualitatively (“godlike/divine”). This point has also been made by J. Warren Wells of the Sahidica Project: “The idea in this context to me is that the Word was like God. The literal text simply doesn’t say the degree to which he was like God; be it partly or absolutely.”
Shisha-Halevy and Wells both have pointed out that it is impossible to avoid bringing theology into this discussion. The grammar alone cannot prove that the Word was “a god,” “a God,” or “had the quality of God” in the minds of the Coptic translators[44].
Finally, it is necessary when we examine a translation to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. The word-for-word translation can be correct, but when we have multiple and successive translations, the meaning as understood by people of the first century can be totally missed.
Most Christians today read the Gospel and understand it based on faith, whether in their denomination’s translation or their traditional belief. However, to most, it is seen as if it were revealed in English yesterday, when in fact it is a translation of a translation that was written two thousand years ago where words’ context is not necessarily the same. “A lot of things have changed in the last 2,000 years. We dress differently. We talk differently. We think differently. As a result, we can easily miss what we should be learning from the Bible. When Christ was called ‘the Word’ in John 1:1, that wasn’t to complicate things. The Jews during that time would have understood the term since God had always manifested himself through words[45].”
Another problem with the Gospel as it stands today is that it forces us to look at Judeo-Christian ancient scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who did not have access to Christianity as a developed theology. In addition, the language of the original Gospels is a question. “We do not know for certain whether any of the Gospels were written in Aramaic…Throughout Church history, the accepted opinion has been that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, but since the last century, the view has become common that he wrote in Greek instead. Recently there have been several scholars[46] returning to the earlier opinion that he wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic. Some have suggested that Mark and Luke were also written in Hebrew or Aramaic[47].”
There are cases when a translation into a different language can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something, they say “It warmed my heart.” In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: “It cools my heart.” If a Middle Easterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: “It cools my heart to see you,” then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur’an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the “elite”), and the text of the book remains in the original language of the Qur’an. For this reason, a translator must not and should not “translate” in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was common among the Jews to use the word “god” (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty[48].
The Word in the Last Testament: The Qur’an
For the last 1430 years, Muslims have read that Mary, the mother of Jesus and the only woman mentioned by name in the Qur’an, was visited by a delegation of angels, and “The angels said, ‘Mary, God gives you the good news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honor in this world and the next, and will be among those nearer to God. He will speak to people in his infancy and in his old age. He is of the righteous” (Qur’an 3:45-47).
This is how Muslims read about the “immaculate conception[49]” as told in the Qur’an. The term “Word from Him” used in this verse and other verses of the Qur’an seems to be the same used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Are the Qur’an and the Gospel of John talking about the same Word? No, they’re not. Probably, it is only in the English translation that the two terms look alike. When we go back to the original words; Logos (λόγος) in Greek and Kalima (كلمة) in Arabic, the meaning within the context of the original language is very different.
Following John 1, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c. 150) identified Jesus as the Logos. Like Philo, Justin also identified the Logos with the Angel of the LORD and used this as a way of arguing for Christianity to Jews.
Christian Theologians and John 1:1
Christian theologians often consider John 1:1 to be a central text in their belief that Jesus is God, in connection with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equals. Theologian N.T. Wright characterizes “Word” (logos) as being incomprehensible in human language. He claims that through belief, the Logos will transform people with its judgment and mercy[50].
Within Islam, such a concept of plurality within God is a denial of monotheism and foreign to the revelation found in the Qur’an[51]. The act of describing God as “three persons” is considered blasphemy in Islam[52]. The Qur’an repeatedly and firmly asserts God’s absolute oneness, thus ruling out the possibility of another being sharing His sovereignty or nature[53].
The “Word of God” as mentioned in the Qur’an is simply an expression of His will to create. We are told: “He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees something, He says only, ‘Be,’ and it is” (Qur’an 2:117).
Any questions in the mind of a Muslim about the relationship between God and His word are usually settled in Surat Al-Ikhlas (The Chapter of Sincerity). In this chapter, God describes Himself as follows: “Say: ‘He is God who is Uniquely Singular, God, the Absolute, Who has not given birth nor is He born, and there is no equivalent to Him.’” (Qur’an 112:1-4).
God, as He describes Himself in the Qur’an, does not need “an instrument for creation,” a “Creator Spiritus” (Creator Spirit), a “begotten son,” or a Logos from which proceeds everything that exists[54], for He is The Creator and more importantly The Originator of all creations. He is, we learn from the Qur’an and Hadith, very active in the universe that He created and very involved in every aspect of its existence. He is a relational God, very involved with each one of us on a very personal level. Because of His love and His mercy, He invites us to engage Him while seeking guidance. God responds to those in need or distress whenever they call. Islam emphasizes that God is strictly singular (tawḥīd), inherently One (wāḥid), and unique in His singularity (aḥad), All-Merciful, yet Almighty. According to the Qur’an, “No human vision perceives Him, whereas He perceives all they see. He is the All-Subtle, the All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103). God, as referenced in the Qur’an, is the only God, and He is, in fact, the same God described and worshipped by other Abrahamic faiths.
In the Qur’an, God revealed ninety-nine distinct attributes that help us better understand Him (al-asmāʼ al-ḥusná, lit. meaning: “The best names”), each evoking a distinct meaning or understanding of God[55]. Among the 99 distinct attributes of God, the most famous and most frequent are “the Merciful to all” (Al-Raḥmān) and “the Mercy Giver” (Al-Raḥīm). Creation of the universe is seen as an act of prime mercy for which all creatures sing God’s glories and bear witness to God’s unity and lordship.
Yet, the Qur’an asserts that this universal, uniquely singular God is independent and Self-Sufficient: “Your Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy” (Qur’an 6:133). The Qur’an asserts that God is free of needs. He does not need to have a son, and He does not take lightly such allegations: “They say, ‘God has taken a son. May He be exalted in His glory. He is self-sufficient beyond needs. Everything that is in the heavens and on Earth belongs to Him.’ You have no authority to say this. How dare you say about God what you do not know?” (Qur’an 10:68).
The Qur’an teaches that all Prophets, including Jesus, were sent by God to teach and inform human beings about Him. In the Qur’an, the line of prophecy starts with Adam, who was created by God as the first human being. God said “Be!” and there he was[56]. The rest of the Prophets were descendants of Adam, selected by God to deliver His message, except Jesus, who was different. The Qur’an teaches that Jesus was a miracle, a sign to all humans, “a word and a spirit from God” starting with his miraculous birth to his life, death, and resurrection.
Muslims believe that Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary as “a Word and a Spirit from God.” He did not need to learn to speak like other children, as he was born full of the Spirit. Hence, he spoke as he was born[57], and he knew from the first moment of birth The Book (The Torah and the Gospel). He was a sinless man. In the Qur’an, God tells us that He strengthened Jesus with the Holy Spirit[58] from birth. Therefore, every word Jesus uttered was Gospel. Some of his sayings, Muslims believe, are found in the four Gospels, and they’re confirmed by the Qur’an.
He is not the Logos, nor is he God or the “Son of God.” He is simply a sign of God, a miracle to all human beings. He is an example to follow if we want to honor God who sent him.
The Word in Interfaith Dialogues and Reconciliation
A major drama began in the Islamic world during the time of Al-Ma’mun[59] and ended at the time of Al-Wathiq[60]. The subject was the matter of the creation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the verbatim Word of God as revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This cause was championed by a group that became known as the Mu’tazilites[61]. The debate around this issue was so intense and dangerous it led Al-Mamun to use oppressive methods against the most notable scholars of that time, including Ahmed Bin Hanbal[62]. The adherents of the Mu’tazili school are best known for their assertion that, because of the perfect oneness and eternal nature of God, the Qur’an as His words must therefore have been created, as it could not be co-eternal with God. Many orthodox Muslims rejected this doctrine and condemned as heresy the very thought that the Qur’an was created. But the Mu’tazilites imposed their views through regime support.
The Mu’tazilites did not only have theological debates with Muslims but also with Christian theologians, which created a peculiar situation and made them look towards the matter. The Mu’tazilites believed that the idea of the Qur’an not being created would make them closer to canons of Christian belief. It would, in a way, make the Quran eternal, which ultimately means that there are numerous eternals rather than a single one. That seems close to the Christian dogma of the Trinity, which is a union of three eternals. This line of thinking was said to be reinforced by a peculiar methodology of dialogue suggested by John of Damascus[63], which he used to propose to Christian theologians in their debates with Muslims. The hypothetical dialogue can be summarized as follows:
Muslim: “What is your belief regarding Jesus Christ?”
Christian theologian: “He is the word of God. What does your Qur’an state about him?”
Muslim: [hesitates for a moment and after thinking a lot recites a part of this verse]… “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him…” (Qur’an 4:171).
Christian theologian: “What is the Word of God, and what is ‘Spirit’ and are these created or not created?”
The rest of the exchange is pretty obvious. If the Muslim replies that it is not created, he would himself give a weapon into the hands of the Christian of multiple eternal entities. If, on the other hand, he resorts to the choice of created word of God, the debate might continue and the Christian can always switch to circular arguments that all three cannot be created simultaneously[64].
In essence, the same debate is still raging among the many interfaith groups spread around the globe. While most of them mean well, these kinds of debates cannot usually lead to anything substantial and effective as scholars approach them with an agenda; they want to prove that they are right.
This interfaith approach is different from a reconciliation approach. Reconciliation aims at finding commonality and establishing peace among the followers of the two Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam) as we were assured by the hundreds of signatories of “the common word document[65].”
The Basis for Peace and Understanding
The basis for peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of God and love of neighbor. These principles are found repeatedly in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. Here are a few examples:
Of God’s unique singularity, God says: “Say: ‘He is God who is Uniquely Singular, God, the Absolute, Who has not given birth nor is He born, and there is no equivalent to Him!’” (Qur’an 112:1-4). Regarding loving God, the Qur’an says: “So invoke the Name of your Lord and devote yourself to Him with complete devotion” (Qur’an 73:8). On the necessity of loving one’s neighbor, the Prophet Muhammad said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself.”
In the New Testament, Jesus said: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments[66]” (Matthew 22:37-40).
The first commandment concerns itself with loving God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind. This commandment is about one’s relationship with the Creator. It essentially addresses a private relationship; one that is only known, fully understood, and appreciated between the individual and the Creator. While this relationship needs nurturing, it will always remain essentially private. Though both Muslims, Christians, and Jews worship the same God, it is not within the realm of reconciliation to discuss the nature of God as it is based on faith rather than logic. Hence, when discussing John 1:1 for reconciliation, the aim is not necessarily to accept the same interpretation of this verse but to consider that one’s relation to the Creator is personal. It has to do with one’s understanding of salvation. Hence, only God will judge the truthfulness of one’s understanding and the sincerity of one’s intentions. The Qur’an teaches: “that every one of them (human beings) will appear alone before Him on the Day of Resurrection” (Qur’an 19:95). It also teaches that on the Day of Judgement, the differences we have regarding faith issues will be settled by Him alone: “Say, ‘God! Creator of the heavens and earth! Knower of all that is hidden and all that we can witness, it is You alone that will judge between Your servants regarding their differences’” (Qur’an 39:46).
The Qur’an teaches that “God will judge between the believers… on the Day of Resurrection[67]” on issues related to faith and dogma, and “if your Lord had pleased, He would have made all people a single community, but they will continue to have their differences” (Qur’an 11:118). However, throughout the ages, most of us focused on theological differences relating to God’s nature and issues of salvation, which are beyond our ability to fully reconcile or even understand. What is fully in our control is the relationship we have with one another as “neighbors,” especially when God made obedience to Him conditional on our loving our neighbors.
I propose that we leave out of the reconciliation efforts all attempts to have conformity of belief and focus upon loving our neighbor. Let each one seeks their own salvation in the way they are most comfortable. Let each one defines the Creator according to their scripture. But let us please God and love Him through loving and serving each other. To want for my neighbor what I want for my self is not only a religious obligation, but a civic one and a humanitarian one, because we are all the same human beings.
Given the deep splits in the relations between Christians, Jews, and Muslims today, the task before us is daunting. The stakes are great. The future of the world depends on the ability of Christians, Muslims, and Jews to live together in peace. If we fail to strive for peace and come together in harmony, not only will our survival and future on earth be at stake, but our eternal souls will also be at risk.
We may never fully comprehend what John really meant by the prologue to his Gospel, but regardless, the common understanding of today’s Evangelical Christians makes John 1:1 the prelude to the deity of Jesus, the incarnation, and later on, the foundation of Trinitarian doctrine. For the sake of reconciliation, regardless of whether we share this near-universal Christian belief in what John 1:1 means, we should accept and respect others regardless of their view. Moving forward, we should set the example by loving our neighbors in the same way and with the same passion that we love, respect, and seek to understand ourselves.
[1] Geisler and Feinberg, 263.
[2] Ibid., 269
[3] Ibid.
[4] God has no beginning and no end. He exists outside time as we know it. However, if the beginning in this verse refers to the beginning of the creation and the Word was a part of that, then this creation and the Word will have a beginning and an end, which is a contradiction.
[5] John 1:1 (New International Version)
[6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm
[7] See verses 14-17: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
[8] Johannine literature is the collection of New Testament works that are attached by tradition to the person of John the Apostle or to the Johannine community.
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1#John_1:1_in_English_versions
[10] Moore, Edward (June 28, 2005). “Middle Platonism – Philo of Alexandria”. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved December 20, 2012.
[11] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
[12] Harris 1985.
[13] The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century… For the most part, the issue of the Trinity was settled at Nicea and, by the fifth century, never again became a focus of serious controversy. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm
[14] http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm
[15] Irenaeus, (130-c. 200) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire. He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology.
[16] http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/john.htm
[17] Polycarp was a 2nd century Christian bishop of Smyrna.
[18] Shaye J. D. Cohen (born October 21, 1948) is the Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University. He is also an ordained rabbi, and for many years was the Dean of the Graduate School and Shenkman Professor of Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.
[19] Shaye J.D. Cohen 1987 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah Library of Early Christianity, Wayne Meeks, editor. The Westminster Press. p. 228
[20] Cohen, Shaye J.D. (1988). From the Maccabees to the Mishnah ISBN 0-664-25017-3 pp. 224-225
[21] Shaye J.D. Cohen 1987 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah Library of Early Christianity, Wayne Meeks, editor. The Westminster Press. p.168
[22] Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians chapter 9 at ccel.org
[23] Matthew 16:28
[24] Paula Fredricksen, From Jesus to Christ Yale university Press. pp. 133-134
[25] Ibid pp. 136-142
[26] David A. Reed. “How Semitic Was John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1.” Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, p709
[27] William Arnold III, Colwell’s Rule and John 1:1 at apostolic.net: “You could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I believe John held to) then this passage would definitely support such a view.”
[28] http://bible.org/article/jesus-%CE%B8%CE%B5%E1%BD%B9%CF%82-scriptural-fact-or-scribal-fantasy
[29] In fact, Mark 10.18 records that He differentiates Himself from God (= the Father) [cf. Matt 19.17; Luke 18.19; Mk 15.34; Matt 27.46; John 20.17]. H. W. Montefiore, in his essay “Toward a Christology for Today,” notices this as he postulates that Jesus seems to have explicitly denied that he was God (published in Soundings [1962], 158). In addition, R. H. Fuller, similar to Bultmann, believes that Jesus understood himself as an eschatological prophet (Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965], 130). While none of these texts or interpretations portray a complete NT Christology (Jesus does identify himself with God [e.g., John 10.30; 14.9], he never explicitly rejects that he is God, and Jesus understood himself to be more than an eschatological prophet), it is true that Jesus never uses the term θεός for Himself.
[30] The shelfmark MSS. Gr. was adopted for miscellaneous Greek-language manuscripts acquired from 1887 onwards, as part of the classification-system introduced by Bodley’s Librarian, E. W. B. Nicholson (see R. W. Hunt in Summary Catalogue, vol. I pp. xlv–xlvi).
[31] Inf. Gos. Thom. 7.4. From the Greek text of Constantin von Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (Hildesheim: George Olms, 1987; original: Leipzig, 1867). For a more recent text-critical work on it, see T. Chartrand-Burke, “The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Apocrypha 14 (2003): 129-151.
[32] Harris, Murray J. ;Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992. <Murray J. Harris. Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69
[33] A Christian supporting the Council of Nicaea’s Trinitarian definition of Jesus the Son of God as consubstantial with God the Father. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homoousion.
[34] Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2009, p231.
[35] Gordon Haddon Clark (August 31, 1902 – April 9, 1985) was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a leading figure associated with presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years.
[36] The dictionary definition of 道 at Wiktionary
[37] David Reed is currently working on his Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Origins at Wycliffe College/University of Toronto. This paper is the winning essay of the 2002 Charles and Janet Harris Essay Competition of the Anglican Theological Review.
[38] 1935 The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
[39] The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
[40] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
[41] Sam Shamoun, http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.2.06s1.html
[42] There have been many Coptic versions of the Bible, including some of the earliest translations into any language. Several different versions were made in the ancient world, with different editions of the Old and New Testament in all four of the major dialects of Coptic: Bohairic (northern), Fayyumic, Sahidic (southern), Akhmimic, and Mesokemic. Biblical books were translated from the Alexandrian Greek version. The Sahidic was the leading dialect in the pre-Islamic period, after the 11th century Bohairic became dominant and only used dialect of the Coptic language.
[43] http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/ Posted by Memra at 8:10 AM, Thursday, July 30, 2009
[44] Robert Hommel at 9:45 AM Permanent link http://forananswer.blogspot.com/2006/10/john-11-in-sahidic-coptic-translation.html
[45] Jeremy Sarber. http://angierncchurch.com/3-things-to-avoid-and-4-bridges-to-gap-when-studying-the-bible.
[46] Two books by scholars advocating a non-Greek origin for some of the Gospels are The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac and The Hebrew Christ by Claude Tresmontant.
[47] http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/were-any-of-the-gospels-written-in-christs-own-language
[48] http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac/john1.htm
[49] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
[50] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_%28Christianity%29
[51] Qur’an 5:73
[52] Qur’an 4:171
[53] Qur’an 5:73
[54] Cardinal Ratzinger on Europe’s crisis of culture, retrieved from Catholiceducation.org
[55]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam
[56] Quran 3:47
[57] Qur’an 19:24
[58] Qur’an 2:253
[59] Abū Jaʿfar Abdullāh al-Maʾmūn ibn Harūn (also spelled Almamon, Al-Maymun and el-Mâmoûn, 13 September 786 – 9 August 833) was an Abbasid caliph who reigned from 813 until his death in 833. He succeeded his brother al-Amin.
[60] Abu Jaffar Harun Al-Wathiq ibn Mutasim (816 – 10 August 847), was an Abbasid caliph who reigned from 842 until 847 AD (227–232 AH in the Islamic calendar).
[61] Mu’tazila was a Greek influenced school of speculative theology called kalam, which refers to dialectic.
[62] Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal Abu `Abd Allah al-Shaybani (780 — 855 CE / 164 — 241 AH) was an important Muslim scholar and theologian. He is considered the founder of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence. Ibn Hanbal is one of the most celebrated Sunni theologians, often referred to as “Sheikh ul-Islam,” honorifics given to the most esteemed doctrinal authorities in the Sunni tradition. Ibn Hanbal personified the theological views of the early orthodox scholars, including the founders of the other extant schools of Sunni fiqh.
[63] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/theologians/johndamascus.html
[64] http://hangingodes.wordpress.com/2005/10/13/creation-of-quran-a-mutazilite-perspective/
[65] http://www.acommonword.com/the-acw-document/
[66] These two commandments come originally from the Old Testament Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 coughed by Jesus possibly to show that God message to men was always the same.
[67] (Qur’an 22:17)