In a previous article: Catching Shabir Ally Red Handed!.

I exposed Shabir Ally for lying about what a noted New Testament scholar named Robert H. Gundry stated in regards to the Trinitarian implications of our risen Lord’s baptismal instructions found at the conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel.  

I noted how Ally has become infamous for his continual habit of either lying about the sources he cites, or for misapplying and misrepresenting the scholarly literature.

In this post I will provide a further example of Ally shamelessly misquoting another scholar in a debate he had with William Albrecht titled Jesus and the Son of Man: A Muslim-Christian Debate, which took place on January 19, 2022.  

Around the 32-minute mark of his opening statements, Ally cites the book, King and Messiah as Son of God, coauthored by liberal biblical scholars Adela Yarbro and John J. Collins, asserting that Adela .

When asked about Jesus being the Son of Man of Revelation 1:9-18 around the one hour 54-minute mark of the Q&A portion of the debate, Ally again cited Mrs. Collins’ interpretation that the one like a son of man spoken of in Revelation, particular in 14:14-16, is a subordinate angelic being, specifically the principal angel.   

In light of Ally’s deceit, I have decided to quote the entirety of Mrs. Collins discussion of Revelation 1:12-16 and 14:14-16 in order to allow the readers to see for themselves that, contrary to Ally’s misleading claims and false impression, the professor explicitly acknowledges that John is describes Jesus as that very Son of Man spoken of in the book of Daniel.

One cautionary note and qualification. I do not quote Collins because I agree with her exegesis, since there is much in what she writes that is simply flat out wrong and contradicted by the context. Rather, I cite here for the express purpose of exposing Shabir Ally’s willingness to lie and deceive his audience concerning the facts of the matter.

Christ as an Angel, as Angelomorphic, or Angelic

The letter to the Hebrews strongly and clearly rejects the idea that Christ is an angel (Hebrews 1).⁶⁵ Revelation, however, seems to portray the risen Jesus as an angel or at least in angelomorphic terms.⁶⁶ The first passage that may present Jesus as an angel is the opening of the book. The prologue or preface (1:1-3) speaks of John the prophet in the third person: “[The] revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen soon, and he made it known by sending [it] through his angel [or messenger] to his servant John” (1:1). In the phrase “which God gave him,” the pronoun “him” is clearly Jesus. Jesus possesses the revelation because God gave it to him. In the phrase “he made it known,” it is not so clear whether God or Jesus is meant. In favor of taking the unexpressed subject of the verb as God is the fact that the only nominative noun expressed so far is theos (God). In that case, it would be God who sent his angel to John. Since God gave the revelation to Jesus, that angel could be Jesus. Further, the risen Jesus is the first heavenly being to appear to John in his account (1:13-20).⁶⁷ In addition, in 22:6 someone, probably the angel who showed John the new Jerusalem (21:9-10), states that God sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon. Against taking the angel of 1:1 as Jesus, however, is the fact that Jesus is quoted in 22:16 as saying that he has sent his angel to declare these things to you (plural) about the (seven) congregations. The “you” here could refer to the servants mentioned in 1:1. It seems, then, that whatever angel is referred to in 1:1 is sent both by God and Jesus.⁶⁸ The ambiguity in the use of the pronouns in 1:1 may be deliberate. In any case, it is not a problem if “God” is understood instead of “Jesus” or vice verse.

In the description of the appearance of the risen Christ to John in 1:12-16, it is not said that he is an angel or messenger (angelos).⁶⁹ Yet a number of features of that description are attributed elsewhere to angels. The first thing to notice is that the author of Revelation does not use “the Son of Man” as a title for Jesus. Rather, in 1:12-13 he wrote that he saw “[one] like a son of man” (eidon … hyion anthropou). The accusative hyion here is a violation of the rules of Greek grammar; it should be dative or genitive.⁷⁰ The phrase homoion hyion anthropou (“one like a son of man”) is probably a translation of the Aramaic kebar enash in Dan 7:13 or of the Hebrew kidemut bene adam in Dan 10:16.⁷¹ In Dan 7:13 the phrase, in its original historical context, referred to an angel, probably Michael.⁷² later, the phrase came to be understood as the messiah.⁷³

Since the figure of 1:12-20 is identified with the risen Jesus (v. 18) and he is called messiah elsewhere in the book,⁷⁴ it is likely that John shared the view of his contemporaries that the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13 is the messiah. Yet a number of scholars have pointed out that the imaginary of Rev 1:13-16 is adapted from Dan 10:5-9.⁷⁵ The figure in Daniel is best understood as an angel.⁷⁶ Some of the imagery comes from Ezekiel 9-10 (an angel with priestly and scribal characteristics), some from Ezek 28:13 (the primal man), and some from Ezekiel 1 (of the four living creatures, the chariot, and the one seated on the throne).⁷⁷

Carrell concludes that Jesus is divine in the book of Revelation and not an angel. He infers the divinity of Christ from his position in the midst of God’s throne (5:6) and his relation with God as father and son (3:21). Christ’s close association with the throne of God makes him similar to the four living creatures, whom Carrell calls “the most exalted of all heavenly beings apart from God”; nevertheless they worship him.⁷⁸ A problem with this conclusion is that the sonship of God is highly ambiguous. It may, but need not, imply divinity. The risen Jesus being seated on the throne certainly implies his exaltation and his sharing in important activities of God, such as ruling and judgment. Yet divinity admits of different degrees. Carrell also concludes that the “christology of Apocalypse 1.13-16 is appropriately described as an ‘angelomorphic christology,'” that is, Jesus has the form of an angel, but is not an angel. 

Gieschen argues that “the theophany in Ezekiel 1″ has influenced the angelophany of Daniel 10; the connection between the two texts leads him to conclude, “The Christ in Revelation 1 was not only understood as Gabriel (from Daniel), but also the Glory (from Ezekiel 1 and 8), the very man-like form of God.”⁷⁹ He also concludes “that ‘the angel’ of Rev 20.1 is Christ.”⁸⁰ The elements adapted in Rev 1:13-16 from Ezekiel 1, however, are not all taken from the description of the one seated on the throne-chariot. For this reason it seems unwarranted to conclude that the risen Christ in Revelation 1 is identified with the manlike form of God in Ezekiel 1. The argument that the angel of 20:1 is Christ is based on texts from the Gospels and non-Pauline epistles; the relevance of these texts for the interpretation of Revelation is dubious. Ultimately, the hypothesis seems to be dependent, directly or indirectly, on Augustine’s interpretation of Rev 20:1, namely, that it was Jesus who bound Satan.⁸¹

Hannah concludes that, with the exception of Jude 5-6,⁸² Christ is never called or portrayed as an angel in the New Testament. Motifs related to principal angels, however, “are used to elucidate Christ or his work,” so “angelology did have some effect on NT Christology” and “we are justified in speaking of NT angelic Christology.”⁸³ It is noteworthy in this context that the Greek version of Isaiah 9 refers to the ideal king as an angel.⁸⁴

Hannah’s conclusions, on the whole, are more judicious than those of Carrel and Gieschen. As argued above, the risen Jesus is clearly identified as the messiah in Revelation. The author of the work used some traditions about angels in order to portray Christ as a messiah of the heavenly type. The idea of a heavenly messiah, however, is compatible with the notion that he is also the principal angel. The strongest evidence for the conclusion that the author considered the risen Jesus to be angel are the ways he uses the phrase “one like a son of man” in 1:13 and 14:14. These ways will be discussed in the next subsection.

As we have seen, the notion of a heavenly messiah was combined with the portrayal of preexistent, personified wisdom in 1 Enoch 48:2-3, 6, and probably in the letters of Paul.⁸⁵ The same two ideas appear in Revelation, so it seems that the author considered them compatible. Christ is portrayed in terms of personified wisdom in the message to Laodicea: “Thus says the amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3:14).⁸⁶

The tradition about personified wisdom is probably also the best context which to understand the sayings of Rev 1:17 and 22:13. In the former, Christ affirms that he is “the first and the last” (ho protos kai ho eschatos); in the latter that he is “the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (to alpha kai to o, ho protos kai to eschatos, he arche kai to telos). God also affirms “I am the alpha and the omega,” in 1:8, and the same in 21:6 along with being “the beginning and the end.”

It is not necessarily the case that the same attributes have exactly the same significance for Christ as they have for God. For example, in light of 3:14, the affirmation that Christ is the beginning and the end in 22:13 may be understood as signifying that he is both the beginning and the fulfillment of the creation of God. Thus his being “the first and the last” (an affirmation not made about God in Revelation) could also mean the first creature of God and the agent of God at the end. All of the affirmations are more like poetry than like philosophy, so it is difficult to determine whether the author considered Jesus to be an aspect or emanation of God or the first creature of God, or whether he thought about this issue at all. The notion that Christ was the first creature of God is compatible with his being the principal angel.

One like a Son of Man

The previous subsection focused on the angelic motifs in the vision of the risen Christ as “one like a son of man” in Rev 1:12-16. As noted above, the author of Revelation does not use the phrase as a title for Jesus, “the Son of Man,” as the Synoptic Gospels (and Acts 7:56) do. In 1:13, the author seems to be alluding to Dan 7:13. This conclusion is supported by 1:14, which reads, “and his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow” (he de kephale autou kai ai triches leukai hos erion leukon hos chion). This statement seems to reflect a Jewish apocalyptic tradition, based on Dan 7:9 ultimately, but varying in wording. The Aramaic original of that text says that an ancient of days took his throne, that his garment was white as snow, and that the hair of his head was like pure wool.⁸⁷ It is striking that in Rev 1:13-14 the risen Christ is associated with both the manlike figure of Dan 7:13 and the ancient of days, usually understood as God, in 7:9. 

In his edition of the Old Greek version of Daniel, Rahlfs followed the cursive manuscript 88 and the literal Syriac translation of the fifth column⁸⁸ of Origen’s Hexapla made by the monophysite bishop Paul of Tella in the early seventh century (Syh, the Syro-Hexapla)⁸⁹ in reading hos palaios hemeron in Dan 7:13. This reading has the one like a son of man coming as the ancient of days, rather than to the ancient of days.⁹⁰ If the author of Revelation was familiar with the reading as the ancient of days, this could explain why he combined attributes of the two figures in his portrayal of the risen Christ.

James A. Montgomery, however, had already suggested that this reading was an ancient error for heos palaiou hemeron, but an error that was made before the time that Revelation was written. He rejected Wilhelm Bosset’s suggestion that the change was made deliberately in order to express the idea of a preexistent messiah, suggesting that the change was accidental.⁹¹ He reasoned that heos was misread as hos and that this error resulted in the “correction” of palaiou to palaios.⁹² Since Rev 1:14 seems to identify the two figures, Montgomery inferred that the author of Revelation read hos palaios in his text of Daniel. Sharon Pace Jeansonne followed Montogmery and Joseph Ziegler in arguing that the reading hos palaios hemeron (“as an ancient of days”) is a corruption of the original reading.⁹³

The arguments of Montgomery and Pace Jeansonne are convincing. It is better to explain variants as mechanical errors when such an explanation is credible. As Montgomery suggested, this error may be very ancient. Papyrus 967 provides evidence that the error was made in the second century or earlier.⁹⁴ As an inadvertent error, it could have been made as easily by a Jewish scribe as by a Christian one. 

The prototypes of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (in this case Aramaic) and of Theodotion and the earliest recoverable reading of Old Greek as reconstructed by Ziegler⁹⁵ may be read as revealing that alongside God (the ancient of days) there is a primary angel or there will be an exalted messiah (one like a son of man). This point of view was apparently opposed by certain rabbis in the second century CE, who argued exegetically that the ancient of days and the one like a son of man were two different manifestations of the one and only God. Greek-speaking Jews of this persuasion would have welcomed the reading of Pap. 967 and MS 88-Syh as support for their point of view. They could have argued that Dan 7:9-12 and 7:13-14 are two parallel accounts of the same event. Supporters of the notion of two powers in heaven could have replied that neither the ancient of days nor the one like a son of man was the one and only transcendent God; the two figures are variant manifestations of the principal angel.96

If the form of Dan 7:13 known to the author of Revelation was hos palaios hemeron (“as an ancient of days”), he apparently interpreted both the ancient of days and the one like a son of man as manifestations of the principal angel whom he identified with the exalted messiah.⁹⁷

The other important passage related to John’s depiction of the risen Jesus as son of man is Rev 14:14-20. This vision is the sixth in a series that begins with the vision of the woman clothed with the sun.⁹⁸ It depicts a symbolic harvest and vintage inspired by Joel 4:13 (3:13 Eng.), which uses the images of harvest and vintage for divine judgment on the nations on the day of the lord. This application is made clear by 4:12 and 14. That the symbolic vision in Revelation concerns judgment is made clear by the way in which the description of vintage shifts into battle imagery in 14:20.⁹⁹

The vision opens with a white cloud, and upon the cloud “one like a son of man” (homoios hyios anthropou)¹⁰⁰ was seated. Louis Vos has argued that the motif of the seated son of man comes from Mark 14:62 or its parallel in Matt 26:64, since the one like a son of man is not portrayed as seated in Daniel 7.¹⁰¹ Although the son of man is not seated in Daniel 7 or 4 Ezra 13, he is so described in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-41). In 69:27 “that son of man” is depicted as sitting on the throne of his glory for the purpose of judgment. Although, the Similitudes were probably composed prior to the writing of Revelation,¹⁰² it could be that the respective authors either independently adapted Daniel 7 or were familiar with a common tradition based ultimately on Daniel.

Another difference between this vision and Daniel 7 is that Dan 7:13 says that the one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven, whereas Rev 14:14 portrays him as seated on a single cloud. The fact that Luke 21:27 also speaks of one cloud does not prove a connection between the two texts. The author of Revelation may have chosen to refer to a single cloud to create a more vivid image.¹⁰³

The crown on the head of the one like a son of man in Rev 14:14 can be explained as a visual representation of the remark in Dan 7:14 that he was given dominion and glory and kingship. The sickle derives from Joel 4:13 (3:13 Eng). George B. Caird and Louis Vos interpreted the image of the harvest in Rev 14:14-16 as the ingathering of the elect. It is better understood, however, as an image for judgment, since the ripeness of the harvest in Joel is in synonymous parallelism with the fullness of the winepress, which is associated with the wickedness of the nations in Joel 4:13. Furthermore, the motif of salvation in this series comes at its end in Rev 15:2-4.¹⁰⁴

Vos also argued that the depiction of an angle coming out of the temple to inform the one like a son of man that it is time to reap is dependent on Mark 13:32 or its parallel in Matt 24:36, the saying in which Jesus declares that only the father knows the day and the hour of the end. He is right that the angel of Rev 14:15 should be taken as an agent of God announcing the arrival of the time for judging the nations. There is no need, however, to connect this verse with the saying of Mark 13:32 and parallels. The alleged “subordination” of the one like a son of man to God through his angelic agents is perfectly compatible with an early christology in which the conception of the risen Christ is that he is the principal angel and a messianic figure like the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch.¹⁰⁵

It is striking that the risen Jesus performs a task, the harvest of grain (14:16), parallel to that of an angel, the harvest of grapes (14:17-19). Hannah seeks to overcome this difficulty by inferring from 19:11 that Christ is the unexpressed subject of 14:20, the one who treads the winepress.¹⁰⁶ This argument makes sense because Revelation often presents an event in veiled form at first and in more detailed or direct form later on.¹⁰⁷ Thus the angel who carries out the vintage prefigures, and 14:20 more explicitly alludes to, the battle of 19:11-12.¹⁰⁸ The portrayal of the risen Jesus in that passage will be discussed in the next subsection. This link between the two passages, however, does not eliminate the impression made upon the audience by 14:14-20 that the risen Jesus is a kind of angel. (Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature [William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., First Edition, First Printing, 2008], 8. Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man in the Gospel and Revelation of John, pp. 189-198; bold and capital emphasis mine)

67. Carrell takes it for granted that Jesus and the angel of 1:1 are distinct beings, but notes a functional equivalence between them (Jesus and the Angels, 15, 119-27). Gieschen argues that the first figure mentioned in the opening Christophany is the Spirit, citing 1:10-11 (Angelomorphic Christology, 266). This argument is problematic, however, because “being in [the] spirit” (1:10) is more likely to mean being possessed by the spirit, as a power of God effecting an altered state of consciousness, than experiencing a vision of the Spirit as a heavenly being. He goes on, however, to argue that the voice of 1:12 and 4:1 belongs to or is the Spirit (ibid., 265-66).

68. Gieschen (Angelomorphic Christology, 261) points out that this joint sending would explain why John refers to what he received from this angel as both the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (1:2).

69. Hannah argues that Christ is neither identified with nor described as an angel in this passage (Michael and Christ, 151-55). (P. 190)

71. Both the Old Geek and Theodotion read hos hyios anthropou. Gieschen argues that the allusion is to Ezek 1:26 LXX (homoioma hos eidos anthropou); Angelomorphic Christology, 249. (P. 191)

79. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 248; emphasis his. He accepts the view that the angel of Daniel 10 is Gabriel and my suggestion that the author of Revelation considered Gabriel to be the principal angel and the risen Christ to be identified with Gabriel (ibid.); Yarbro Collins, “‘The Son of Man’ Tradition,” 558; Cosmology and Eschatology, 185. (P. 192)

82. Hannah argues that it was the preexistent Christ, “as the Exodus angel” who saved a people out of Egypt according to Jude 5 (Michael and Christ, 139-40); cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 657. (P. 193)

105. Carrell concludes that Rev 14:14 involves the risen Jesus temporarily taking on angelic form and function (Jesus and the Angels, 175-95, especially 194). Similarly, Gieschen interprets the scene as an “appearance of the angelomorphic Christ” (Angelomorphic Christology, 252). Hannah concludes that “it seems unlikely in the extreme that Christ here [14:15-16] is being depicted as dependent upon an angel for communication with God. The purpose of the angel issuing from the temple and relaying the command to Christ is probably only intended to emphasize the divine origin of the edict” (Michael and Christ, 155). (P. 198)

I now cite snippets from Yarbro’s section on the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as the Danielic Son of Man. All bold and/or capital will be mine.

In the Gospel according to Mark, the Son of Man sayings are closely bound up with the theme of the identity of Jesus and the secrecy about it. The author of Mark takes Dan 7:13-14 as a prophecy and seems to see its fulfillment IN JESUS in two stages… The messianic use of the title “Son of Man” seems to presuppose a messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14. When Dan 7:13-14 is evoked in association with the passion predictions, a shocking a paradox emerges… Yet Mark portrays this Son of Man, identified with the earthly Jesus, as undergoing great suffering, rejection, and death…

The final the Son of Man saying in Mark occurs in the trial before the Sanhedrin, or, more accurately, the Judean council. When the high priest asks Jesus, “Are you the messiah, the son of the Blessed?” he responds, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (14:62). In one way, this saying is a turning point in the theme of Jesus’ identity in Mark. He reveals openly that he is the messiah AND WILL BE THE HEAVENLY, COMING SON OF MAN. In another way, this trial and the rest of the account of Jesus’ rejection, suffering, and death still portray him as the hidden Son of Man. This is so because the high priest and all the others in authority do not recognize him as messiah and Son of Man. For the audience, however, the saying makes clear that Jesus will exercise his messianic office WHEN HE COMES AS SON OF MAN.

The saying of Jesus before the high priest conflates allusions to Ps 110:1 and to Dan 7:13. Psalm 110 is used to depict the exaltation of Jesus after death, and Daniel 7 to portray HIS COMING IN GLORY. The introduction to the saying, “you will see,” makes clear that the emphasis in relation to the narrative context is on the public vindication of Jesus AS SON OF MAN. (Ibid., 7. Jesus as Son of Man, pp. 150-152)

… The portrayal of the Son of Man as judge is clearest in the response of Jesus to Peter’s question, “Look, we have left all things and have followed you. What then will be for us [in return]?” Jesus replies:

“Truly I say to you, that you have who have followed me, in the renewal of the world, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt 19:27-29)

The phrase “the throne of his glory” also occurs in the Similitudes of Enoch with reference to the throne of “the Son of Man, that is, the figure of Daniel 7 whom the Similitudes portray as a preexistent, heavenly messiah.⁵ (Ibid.)

Another important feature of the Son of Man theme in Matthew is that the title “Son of Man” is so strongly associated with Jesus that it is equivalent to the first-person pronoun and is interchangeable with it… (P. 154)

In another context, the Lukan Jesus says that, as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so the Son of Man will be “to this generation”:

“The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and will condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and look, something greater than Solomon is here.” (Luke 11:31)

The point is that the general resurrection and final judgment will reveal THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF MAN and thus confound those of “this generation” who rejected him. Not only will the wicked see that Jesus has been vindicated by God, but they will also discover that he has an exalted role as the agent of God in the process of the eschatological judgment. Although it is not explicit, it is likely that the implied role is that of judge. The queen of the South and the Ninevites will play the role of witnesses at the judgment.¹⁰ (P. 155)

The foregoing quotations demonstrate that Collins explicitly affirms that both Revelation and the Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus as identifying himself as that very apocalyptic, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14. Therefore, this is simply another instance of Shabir Ally deceiving his audience by grossly misrepresenting the scholars that he selectively references in debates with Christians since his aim is not at being honest.

Rather, Ally’s agenda is to cause Christians to lose faith and/or prevent unbelievers from embracing the truth. Ally has shown over years that he will do anything he can in his jihad to blaspheme the historical Jesus of the New Testament, even if that means he must outright lie and misquote sources to do so.

The Muslims sources unashamedly acknowledge that it wasn’t the unbelievers that antagonized the Muslim community at Mecca. Rather, it was Muhammad who bullied and insulted them, even though the disbelievers went out of their way to appease him and avoid any conflict that would leave to civil war and bloodshed:

(Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance…) [5[sic]:108]. Said ibn ‘Abbas, according to the report of al-Walibi: “They [the idolaters] said: ‘O Muhammad, either you stop reviling our idols or we will revile your Lord’. And so Allah, exalted is He, warned against reviling their idols lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance”. Qatadah said: “The Muslims USED TO REVILE THE IDOLS OF THE UNBELIEVERS and the latter USED TO REACT against them. Allah, exalted is He, therefore, warned the Muslims against BEING THE CAUSE WHICH DRIVES ignorant unbelievers, who have no knowledge of Allah, to revile Allah AS A RESULT OF REVILING THEIR IDOLS”. Said al-Suddi: “When Abu Talib was dying, [some chiefs of] the Quraysh said: ‘let us go to this man and ask him to forbid his nephew from reviling our idols, for we feel shame to kill him after he passes away and drive the Arabs to say: ‘He used to defend him but once he passed away, they killed him’. And so Abu Sufyan, Abu Jahl, al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Umayyah and Ubayy the sons of Khalaf, ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayt, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, al-Aswad ibn al-Bukhturi went to see Abu Talib. They said to him: ‘You are our master and chief, but Muhammad HAS HARMED US and harmed our idols. We would like you to call him and warn him against speaking ill of our idols. And from our part, we will leave him alone to his Allah’. The Prophet went when he was summoned. Abu Talib said to him: ‘These are your people and cousins!’ The Messenger of Allah asked them: ‘What do you want?’ They said: ‘We want you to leave us alone with our idols and we will leave you alone with your Allah’. Abu Talib said: ‘YOUR PEOPLE ARE BEING FAIR WITH YOU, so give your consent’. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘If I agree to this would you agree to give me one sentence, if you were to utter it, you would rule over the Arabs and non-Arabs alike?’ Abu Jahl said: ‘Yes, by your father, we will give it to you and also give you ten other things like it; but what is it? He said: ‘Say: there is no god but Allah!’ They refused and expressed their aversion at this proposal, upon which Abu Talib said; ‘Son of my brother, ask for something else, for your people are wary of this’. (‘Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul, Q. 6:108 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=108&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold and capital emphasis mine)

He said: ‘O uncle, I am not one who would ask for other than that. If they were to place the sun in my hand, I would not ask for anything other than that’. The chiefs of Quraysh said: ‘You would better stop reviling our idols or we will revile you and revile He Who commands you’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. (Ibid. https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=108&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

Pay attention to the fact that the disbelievers had no problem with Muhammad as long as he focused on preaching about Allah. It wasn’t until Muhammad started to ridicule their religious traditions did they start taking issue with him and returned tit for tat. And despite their repeated efforts to avoid turmoil and bloodshed, their pleas for a peaceful resolution fell on deaf ears.

Also keep in mind that even Muhammad’s paternal uncle agreed that the disbelievers were being very fair with his nephew, despite his repeated tirade and insults against them.

In light of the repeated ridicule, insults, turmoil and distress Muhammad caused, it isn’t surprising that the unbelievers started demanding that he show them a supernatural miracle so that they could know for certain that he was truly God’s messenger, which would make it easier for them to abandon their idols and their ancestral traditions.

Here’s Muhammad’s response to this very reasonable request:

(And they say: We will not put faith in thee till thou cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us) [17:90]. ‘Ikrimah reported that Ibn ‘Abbas related that ‘Utbah, Shaybah, Abu Sufyan, al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Abu’l-Bukhturi, al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl, ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Umayyah, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, and the chiefs of Quraysh gathered in front of the Ka’bah and said to each other: “Send for Muhammad, speak to him, and argue with him so that others do not blame you about him”. They sent to him with a message that the nobles of your people have gathered and want to speak with you. He came promptly, thinking that they had changed their mind about him, for he was keen to see them guided and was pained for their stubbornness. When he sat with them, they said: ‘O Muhammad, by Allah we do not know of any man among the Arabs who has introduced to his people what you have introduced. You have INSULTED OUR FOREFATHERS, censored our religion, ACCUSED US OF IGNORANCE, slandered our idols, divided the community AND YOU HAVE NOT LEFT ANYTHING REVOLTING EXCEPT THAT YOU HAVE PLACED IT BETWEEN US AND YOU. Now, if you have brought all this to seek wealth, we will collect from our wealth so that you become the richest among us; if you seek status, we will make you our chief; if you seek kingship, we will make you our king; and if the jinn that appears to you has completely overwhelmed you, we will spend our money to get you the right medicine to cure you or discharge our duty toward you‘. The Messenger of Allah said to them: ‘I do not have what you accuse me of. I did not bring you what I brought to seek wealth, status or kingship. Rather, it is Allah, glorious and majestic is He, Who has sent me to you as a Messenger. He has revealed to me a Scripture and commanded me to be a carrier of good tiding as well as a warner. I have conveyed to you the message of my Lord and advised you well. If you accept that which I have brought you, it is your share in this world and in the next. (Ibid., Q. 17:90-93 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=90&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold and capital emphasis mine)

And if you reject it, I will be patient with the judgment of Allah until He judges between me and you’. They said: ‘O Muhammad, if you do not accept our offer, then you know that, compared to other people, we have a more restricted land, a tougher life and much less wealth. So ask your Lord, Who has sent you with that which He has sent you, to remove from us these mountains which have restricted our land and expand our country and run through it rivers like the rivers of Syria and Iraq. And let Him resurrect our dead forefathers, and among those resurrected, let Him resurrect Qusayy ibn Kilab, for he was a truthful old man, so that we ask them about whether what you say is true or false. If you do what we ask for, we will believe you and, by the same token, know your status with Allah, and that He has sent you as a Messenger, as you claim‘. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘I WAS NOT SENT TO BRING WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR. Rather, I came to you from Allah, glorious is He, with that which He has sent me, and I have conveyed to you what I have been sent with to you. If you accept it, it is your share in this world and in the next; but if you reject it, I will be patient with Allah’s judgement’. They said: ‘If you do not do what we have asked for, then ask your Lord to send an angel to confirm your message, and ask Him to provide you with gardens, treasures and palaces of gold and silver which will suffice you from your needs, for you stand in the market place as we do, and strive to earn a living as we do, in order that we appreciate your merit and position with your Lord, if you are truly a messenger, as you claim to be’. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘I will not do it, nor am I someone to ask his Lord for such things, nor was I sent to you with this; He has rather sent me as a bringer of good tidings and as a warner’. They said: ‘In that case, cause the heaven to fall piecemeal down on us, since you claim that your Lord can do so if He wills’. (Ibid., https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=90&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=2; bold and emphasis mine)

The Messenger of Allah said: ‘That is up to Allah, He will do it if He wills’. One of them said: ‘We will not believe in you until you bring Allah and the angels as warrants. ‘Abd Allah ibn Abi Umayyah al-Makhzumi – the son of ‘Atikah bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the maternal aunt of the Prophet – said: ‘I will never believe in you until you get a ladder and climb up to heaven while I am watching you, and bring an unfolded Scripture with you and a group of angels to testify about what you say’. The Messenger of Allah left to his family very sad for failing to get his people to follow him as well as for the antagonism they displayed toward him. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed (And they say: We will not put faith in thee till thou cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us…). Sa’id ibn Ahmad ibn Ja’far informed us> Abu ‘Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Faqih> Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Junayd> Ziyad ibn Ayyub> Hushaym> ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umayr> Sa’id ibn Jubayr who said: “I said to him [to ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umayr]: ‘The words of Allah (And they say: We will not put faith in thee till thou cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us) was it revealed about ‘Abd Allah ibn Abi Umayyah?’ He said: ‘This is what they claim’”. (Ibid. https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=90&tDisplay=yes&Page=3&Size=1&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

This next citation is quite interesting:

Ibn Jarir recorded from Muhammad bin Ishaq, “An old man from among the people of Egypt who came to us forty-odd years ago told me, from `Ikrimah, from Ibn `Abbas, that `Utbah and Shaybah — the two sons of Rabi’ah, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, a man from Bani `Abd Ad-Dar, Abu Al-Bakhtari — the brother of Bani Asad, Al-Aswad bin Al-Muttalib bin Asad, Zam`ah bin Al-Aswad, Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl bin Hisham, `Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah, Umayyah bin Khalaf, Al-`As bin Wa’il, and Nabih and Munabbih – the two sons of Al-Hajjaj As-Sahmin, gathered all of them or some of them behind the Ka`bah after sunset. Some of them said to others, `Send for Muhammad and talk with him and argue with him, so that nobody will think we are to blame.’ So they sent for him saying, `The nobles of your people have gathered for you to speak to them.’ So the Messenger of Allah came quickly, thinking that maybe they were going to change their minds, for he was very keen that they should be guided, and it upset him to see their stubbornness. So he came and sat with them, and they said, `O Muhammad, we have sent for you so that nobody will think we are to blame. By Allah we do not know any man among the Arabs who has brought to his people what you have brought to your people. YOU HAVE SLANDERED OUR FOREFATHERS, criticized our religion, INSULTED OUR REASON, SLANDERED OUR GODS AND CAUSED DIVISION. There is no objectionable thing THAT YOU HAVE NOT BROUGHT BETWEEN US. If you are preaching these things because you want wealth, we will collect some of our wealth together for you and make you the wealthiest man among us.

“‘If you are looking for position, we will make you our leader. If you are looking for kingship, we will make you our king. If what has come to you is a type of Jinn that has possessed you, then we can spend our money looking for the medicine that will rid you of it so that no one will think we are to blame.’…

“They said, `O Muhammad, if you do not accept what we have offered you, then you know that there is no other people whose country is smaller, whose wealth is less and whose life is harder than ours, so ask your Lord Who has sent you with what He has sent you, to move away these mountains for us that are constricting us, to make our land wider and cause rivers to gush forth in it like the rivers of Syria and Iraq, and to resurrect for us those of our forefathers who have passed away.

“Let there be among those whom He resurrects Qusayy bin Kilab, for he was a truthful old man, and we will ask them whether what you are saying is true or false. If you do what we are asking, and they (the people who are resurrected) say that you are telling the truth, then we will believe you and acknowledge your status with Allah and believe that He has sent you as a Messenger as you say.’ The Messenger of Allah said to them…

(I was not sent for this purpose. I have brought to you from Allah that with which He has sent me, and I have conveyed to you the Message with which I was sent to you. If you accept what I have brought to you, then this is your good fortune in this world and the Hereafter, but if you reject it, I shall wait patiently for the command of Allah until Allah judges between me and you.) They said, `If you will not do this for us, then at least do something for yourself. Ask your Lord to send an angel to confirm that what you are saying is the truth and to speak up on your behalf. Ask Him to give you gardens and treasures and palaces of gold and silver, and to make you independent so that you will not have to do what we see you doing, for you stand in the marketplaces seeking provision just as we do. Then we will know the virtue of your position with your Lord and whether you are a Messenger as you claim.’ The Messenger of Allah said to them…

(I will not do that, and I will not ask my Lord for this. I was not sent to you for this reason. But Allah has sent me to you to bring you good news and a warning. If you accept what I have brought to you, then this is your good fortune in this world and the Hereafter, but if you reject it, I shall wait patiently for the command of Allah until Allah judges between me and you.) They said, `Then cause the sky to fall upon us, as you claim that if your Lord wills, He can do that. We will not believe in you until you do this.’ The Messenger of Allah said to them…

(That is for Allah to decide. If He wills, He will do that to you.) They said, `O Muhammad, did your Lord not know that we would sit with you and ask you what we have asked and make the requests that we have made? He should have told you beforehand and taught you how to reply to us, and informed you what He would do to us if we do not accept what you have brought to us. We have heard that the one who is teaching you this, is a man in Al-Yamamah called Ar-Rahman. By Allah, we will never believe in Ar-Rahman. We are warning you, O Muhammad, that we will not let you do what you want to do until you or we are destroyed.’ One of them said, `We worship the angels who are the daughters of Allah.’ Another said, `We will never believe in you until you bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face.’ When they said this, the Messenger of Allah got up and left them. `Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah bin Al-Mughirah bin `Abdullah bin `Umar bin Makhzum, the son of his paternal aunt `Atikah, the daughter of `Abdul-Muttalib, also got up and followed him. He said to him, `O Muhammad, your people have offered you what they have offered you, and you did not accept it. Then they asked for things for themselves so that they would know your position with Allah, and you did not do that for them. Then they asked you to hasten on the punishments with which you are scaring them. By Allah, I will never believe in you unless you take a ladder to heaven and ascend it while I am watching, then you bring with you an open book and four angels to testify that you are as you say. By Allah, even if you did that, I think that I would not believe you.’ Then he turned away from the Messenger of Allah, and the Messenger of Allah went home to his family, grieving over having missed out on what he had hoped for when his people had called him, because he saw that they were resisting him even more.”…

In the case of this gathering where the Quraysh came together to speak with the Messenger of Allah, if Allah knew that they were making these requests in order to be guided, they would have been granted, but He knew that they were making these demands out of disbelief and stubbornness. It was said to the Messenger of Allah, “If you wish, We will give them what they are asking, but if they then disbelieve, I will punish them with a punishment that I have never imposed upon anyone else in the universe; or if you wish, I will open for them the gate of repentance and mercy.”…

(And nothing stops Us from sending the Ayat but that the people of old denied them. And We sent the she-camel to Thamud as a clear sign, but they did her wrong. And We sent not the signs except to warn, and to make them afraid (of destruction). (17:59) …

(Or you have a house of Zukhruf.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and Qatadah said, “This is gold.” This was also what was said in the recitation of Ibn Mas`ud, “Or you have a house of gold.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:90-93 https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/17/90; bold and capital emphasis mine)

The unbelievers were right in their retort and objections. Since Allah is supposed to be the true God who knows all things then he would surely have known beforehand what their requests and demands would be in order to enable his prophet to meet their challenge and provide persuasive evidence to convince them to abandon their religion. Why, then, was Muhammad so ill-equipped and failed to convincingly refutetheir arguments and/or meet their demands to perform a miraculous sign proving that he spoke for the true God?

Even Muhammad’s own cousin, the son of his paternal aunt, agreed with them that their demands were quite reasonable in light of how Muhammad was treating them, and in the rather harsh and disrespectful criticisms of their beliefs.

The claim by Ibn Kathir and others that the disbelievers weren’t asking sincerely which is why Allah did not honor their requests for a miraculous sign doesn’t hold any weight and is simply a lame excuse, since the Islamic sources testify that Jesus was asked something similar. And instead of refusing to do so on the grounds that the disbelievers would refuse to believe anyway, Jesus went ahead and performed the very miracles which they had asked for:  

When God said, ‘Jesus Son of Mary, remember My blessing upon thee and upon thy mother, when I confirmed thee with the Holy Spirit, to speak to men in the cradle, and of age; and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird, by My leave; and thou healest the blind and the leper by My leave, and thou bringest the dead forth by My leave; and when restrained from thee the Children of Israel when thou camest unto them with the clear signs, and the unbelievers among them said, “This is nothing but sorcery manifest.” And when I inspired the Apostles: “Believe in Me and My Messenger”; they said, “We believe; witness Thou our submission.”‘ And when the Apostles said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down on us a Table out of heaven?‘ He said, ‘Fear you God, if you are believers. They said, ‘We desire that we should eat of it and our hearts be at rest; AND WE MAY KNOW THAT THOU HAST SPOKEN TRUE TO US, and that we may be among its witnesses.’ Said Jesus son of Mary, ‘O God, our Lord, send down upon us a Table out of heaven, that shall be for us a festival, the first and last of us, and a sign from Thee. And provide for us; Thou art the best of providers.’ God said, ‘Verily I do send it down on you; whoso of you hereafter disbelieves, verily I shall chastise him with a chastisement wherewith I chastise no other being.’ S. 5:110-115 Arberry

Despite the unbelievers arguing that Jesus’ signs were nothing more than sorcery or magic he, nevertheless, went ahead and performed them anyway, thereby leaving them no excuse whatsoever for denying his commission from God.

Moreover, the miracles of Christ served to strengthen the faith of his disciples who wanted divine assurance that Jesus was indeed speaking the truth from God. And because of that, Jesus gave them the very exact sign that they had requested of him.

And here is what the Muslim expositors state in respect to Jesus’ being asked to perform miracles to validate his divine mission:

And He will make him to be a messenger to the Children of Israel during his tender years or after puberty. Gabriel breathed into the opening of her garment and she became pregnant. What happened to her after this is mentioned later in sūrat Maryam Q. 1921ff. Thus when God sent him to the Children of Israel he said to them ‘I am God’s Messenger to you’ and ‘I have come to you with a sign an indication of my truthfulness from your Lord and it is that I will create a variant reading for the particle introducing the relative clause annī ‘that I’ has innī ‘truly I’ indicating a new independent sentence that I will fashion for you out of clay like the shape of a bird ka-hay’at ‘something like the shape of’ the kāf is the subject of a passive participle then I will breathe into it fīhi the suffixed pronoun -hi refers to the preceding kāf and it will be a bird tayran is also read tā’iran by the leave the will of God. So he created for them a bat being the most perfectly-created of birds and they would watch it flying but when it went out of sight it would fall dead — so that the work of a creature sc. Jesus may be distinguished from the work of the Creator namely God exalted be He and that he might know that perfection belongs to God alone. I will also heal the blind akmah is one that is blind from birth and the leper; these two are singled out for mention because with both afflictions the person is completely helpless. He Jesus was sent in an age of [sic] characterised by medicinal science and he cured through supplication fifty thousand in one day on the condition that each person would become a believer; and I bring to life the dead by the leave of God — He repeats this to preclude any false attributions of divinity to him — he brought back to life his friend ‘Āzar the son of an old woman and the daughter of the tithe-collector all of whom lived on and produced offspring and he also brought back to life Shem son of Noah but he died again immediately. I will inform you too of what things you eat and what you treasure up store in your houses and what I have never seen and he would inform people what they had eaten and what they would eat. Surely in that mentioned is a sign for you if you are believers. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 3:49 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=49&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

And:

According to al-Qasim (b. al-Hasan)–al-Husayn (b. Dawud) Hajjaj-Mufaddal b. Fada1ah–

‘Ali b. Zayd b. Jud’an–Yusuf b. Mihran–Ibn ‘Abbas: The Apostles said to Jesus, the son of Mary: Would that you send us a man who saw the ark and could tell us about it. He went with them and came to an earthen hillock. There, he took a handful of the earth in his palm and asked: Do you know what this is? They replied: God and His prophet know best! Jesus said: This is the grave1083of Noah’s son Ham. He continued. He struck the hill with his staff and said: Rise with God’s permission! And behold there was Ham, with grey hair, shaking the earth from his head. Jesus asked him whether he had perished in that state (with grey hair). Ham replied: No, when I died, I was a young man, but I thought the Hour had come, and my hair turned grey. (Jesus) said: Tell us about Noah’s ark! He said: It was 1,200 cubits long and 6oo cubits wide. It had three stories, one for domestic and wild animals, another for human beings, and a third for birds. When the dung of the animals became excessive, God inspired Noah to tickle the elephant’s tail. He did, and a male and a female hog fell down and attacked the dung. When the rat fell down into the seams (of the planks) of the ark and gnawed at them, God inspired Noah to strike the lion between its eyes, and a male and a female cat came out from its nose and attacked the rat. Jesus asked Ham: How did Noah learn that (all) the places had been under water (but were no longer)? He replied: He sent the raven to bring him information, but it found a corpse and pounced upon it, whereupon (Noah) cursed the raven that it should be fearful; therefore, the raven does not like houses. He continued. He then sent the dove. It came with an olive leaf in its beak and clay on its feet. Noah thus knew that (all) places had been under water (but were no longer). He continued. Therefore, the dove’s necklace is the greyish-greenness on its neck. Noah blessed the dove that it should be tame and safe; therefore, the dove likes houses. He continued. The Apostles said: O Messenger of God, why do you not bring him to our people, so that he can sit down and talk with us? Jesus replied: How could one who has no sustenance follow you? He continued. Then Jesus said to Ham: Go back with God’s permission! And Ham turned to dust again. (The History of al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1989], Volume 1, pp. 357-358; bold emphasis mine)

These next reports are most interesting since they directly relate to the disbelievers’ challenge to Muhammad to raise one of their ancient ancestors to life:

“Jesus continued his mission, aided by divine miracles. Some Qur’anic commentators said that Jesus brought four people back from the dead: a friend of his named Al-‘Azam, an old woman’s son, and a woman’s only daughter. These three had died during his lifetime. When the Jews saw this they said: ‘You only resurrect those who have died recently; perhaps they only fainted.’ They asked him to bring back to life Sam the [sic] Ibn Noah.

“When he asked them to show him his grave, the people accompanied him there. Jesus invoked Allah the Exalted to bring him back to life and behold, Sam the [sic] Ibn Noah came out from the grave gray-haired. Jesus asked: ‘How did you get gray hair, when there was no aging in your time?’ He answered: ‘O, Spirit of Allah, I thought that the Day of Resurrection had come; from the fear of that day my hair turned gray.’” (Stories of the Prophets by Ibn Kathir, translated by Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa Geme’ah, Office of the Grand Imam, Sheikh Al-Ahzar, edited by Aelfwine Acelas Mischler [El-Nour For Publishing and Distribution and Translation Est.; 38 Al-Madina Al-Monawara St., Toryl Al-Gadida], pp. 347-348; bold emphasis mine)

And:

He brought four individuals back to life: a friend of his, the son of the old woman, the daughter of a tax-collector, and Sām ibn Nūḥ. Allah knows best. The friend had died some days before and he prayed to Allah and he rose by Allah’s permission, lived and had a child. The son of the old woman had passed by him being carried on a bed and he prayed to Allah and he got up, wrapped in his shroud, and carried the bed on his shoulder and returned to his family. He went to the daughter of the tax-collector in the night and prayed to Allah for her. She lived and had children.

When they saw that, they said, ‘He has brought back to life those who have recently died. Perhaps they were not dead but in a stupor.’ So he brought to life Sām ibn Nūḥ. He said, ‘Show me his grave.’ He went out with the people to his grave and he prayed to Allah and he came out of his grave, white-haired. ‘Īsā asked him, ‘Why is your hair white when there was no white hair in your time?’ He answered, ‘Spirit of Allah, you summoned me and I heard a voice saying, “Respond to the Spirit of Allah!” I thought that the Day of Rising had come and terror of that turned my hair white.’ He asked him about the wresting of the soul at death. He said, ‘Spirit of Allah, the bitterness of the wresting has not left my throat.’ He had died more than four thousand years earlier. He told the people, ‘Affirm him. He is a Prophet.’ Some people believed him and said that he was a Prophet and some said that it was sorcery.

It is related from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh from Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥah from a man that when ‘Īsā wanted to bring the dead to life, he would pray two rak‘ahs and recite Surat al-Mulk (67) in the first and Surat as-Sajdah (32) in the second. When he finished, he praised Allah and then inHoked his seHen names: ‘O Ancient! O Hidden! O Constantly Abiding! O Unique! O Odd! O One! O Everlasting Sustainer!’ Al-Bayhaqī mentioned it and said that its isnād is not strong. (Aisha Bewley, Tafsir al-Qurtubi: Juz’ 3: Sūrat al-Baqarah 254–286 & Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān 1–95 [Diwan Press Ltd., 2019], Volume 3, pp. 316-317; bold emphasis mine)

Pay attention that, similar to what the pagans had asked from Muhammad, the disbelieving Jews challenged Christ to resurrect Shem the son of Noah who had been dead for thousands of years in order to prove that he wasn’t merely resuscitating individuals who were mistakenly thought to be dead. And yet unlike Muhammad, Jesus didn’t refuse to do so on the grounds that the disbelievers would still reject him anyway. Rather, Christ went ahead and raised Shem to life in order to leave the Jews with no grounds whatsoever for denying his divine commission.

Seeing that Allah acquiesced to the demands of both believers and unbelievers that Christ perform specific miracles to validate his prophetic commission, and didn’t use the lame excuse that doing so would prove futile since they still wouldn’t believe in Jesus anyway, why then didn’t he do the same thing in the case of Muhammad?

Why didn’t Allah enable his so-called prophet to carry out the specific signs which the disbelievers asked him for, such as raising Qusayy bin Kilab from the dead, which would then have provided the miraculous confirmation that Muhammad was thoroughly justified in humiliating them, belittling their religious beliefs, and insulting their dead ancestors?

In fact, wouldn’t it have been better for Muhammad to have done the signs requested of him since this would have vindicated the subjugation and humiliation that the Meccans endured when Muhammad and his jihadis conquered them?

After all, Muhammad could have used the disbelievers’ outright rejection of his prophetic claims even after showing them so many signs as his justification for the degradation, humiliation, and slaughter he and his Muhammadan warmongers brought upon them, and the rest of the unsuspecting world.    

The fact is Muhammad was not a true prophet of God, but rather was an antichrist, a false prophet sent into the world to mislead people from the true God revealed in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-10; Jeremiah 23:9-22; Matthew 24:23-25; Galatians 1:8-9; Acts 13:6-12; 16:16-18; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 13-15; 1 John 2:22-23; 4:1-6; 2 Peter 2:1-22; Jude 1:3-4; 2 John 1:7-11; Revelation 13:1-8).

Muhammad was nothing more than a demonized bully, a tyrant, a satanically inspired narcissist who believed he was better than everyone else, and therefore felt he had every right to humiliate and disgrace whomever he wished. Muhammad expected the unbelievers to tolerate whatever abuse he hurled against them, but would not allow even for a second for them to respond in kind, which is a typical trait and pattern of narcissists.

FURTHER READING

Muhammad’s False Prophecies

Muhammad and Miracles

Muhammad and Poison

MUHAMMAD: THE ANTAGONIZING WAR-MONGER

The Byzantine Christians: Antagonists or Antagonized? Pt. 1

The Byzantine Christians: Antagonists or Antagonized? Pt. 2

Muhammad and the Meccans: Who Antagonized Whom?

Muhammad the Antagonist Still!

The Quran states that the knowledge of magic was passed on by demons and two angels with Armenian names, Harut and Marut, for the express purpose of misleading mankind:  

They followed what the Shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulaiman (Solomon). Sulaiman did not disbelieve, but the Shayatin (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels, Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, “We are only for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).” And from these (angels) people learn that by which they cause separation between man and his wife, but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s Leave. And they learn that which harms them and profits them not. And indeed they knew that the buyers of it (magic) would have no share in the Hereafter. And how bad indeed was that for which they sold their ownselves, if they but knew. S. 2:102 Hilali-Khan

What makes this ironic is that the allegedly sound narrations admit that Muhammad came under the power of black magic, which a Jew placed on him. As a result of this bewitchment, Muhammad started hallucinating that he was doing things:

Narrated Aisha:
Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=53&translator=1&start=0&number=400)

We are even told that Muhammad started hallucinating having sex with his nine wives, inncluding his child bride Aisha:

Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect). Then one day he said, “O ‘Aisha do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other, ‘What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied he is under the effect of magic. The first one asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?’ The other replied, ‘Labid bin Al-A’sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.’ The first one asked, ‘What material did he use?’ The other replied, ‘A comb and the hair stuck to it.’ The first one asked, ‘Where (is that)?’ The other replied, ‘In a skin of pollen of a male date palm tree kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan.’” So the Prophet went to that well and took out those things and said, “That was the well which was shown to me (in a dream). Its water looked like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palm trees looked like the heads of devils.” The Prophet added, “Then that thing was taken out.” I said (to the Prophet) “Why do you not treat yourself with Nashra?” He said, “Allah has cured me; I dislike to let evil spread among my people.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=71&translator=1&start=0&number=659)

Here’s another version of the hadith:

XLVIII. Should the source of magic be extracted from where it is?

Qatada said, “I asked Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, ‘If a man is bewitched or unable to come to his wife, can he seek to undo it or use nushra*?’ ‘Yes,’ he answered, ‘There is no harm in that. By it they desire to put things right. That which is beneficial for people is not forbidden.’”

[Nushra is reciting verses over water which is then used by the person afflicted.]

5432. ‘Urwa related that ‘A’isha said, “The Messenger of Allah was bewitched so that he would imagine that he had had intercourse with his wives when he had not”. (Sufyan said, “This is the worst type of magic when it does that.”) He said, “A’isha, do you know that Allah has given me a decision in what I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat at my head and the other and at my feet, and the one at my head said to the other, ‘What ails the man?’ ‘Bewitched,’ he answered. He said, ‘And who has bewitched him?’ He replied, ‘Labid ibn al-A’sam, a man of the Banu Zurayq, the allies of the Jews, who is a hypocrite.’ He said, ‘Using what?” He replied, ‘A comb and flax fibres.’ He asked, ‘Where is it?’ He said, ‘Inside a male palm spadex under a stone in the well of Dharwan.’” The Prophet went to the well to remove it. He said, “This is the well that I was shown.” Its water was the colour of henna infusion and the date palms looks like the heads of devils. He said, “It was taken out.” I asked, “Why do not use nushra?’ He replied, “By Allah, Allah has cured me. I dislike to provoke evil against anyone.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 79. The Book of Medicine: source; bold italicized emphasis mine)

Other sources confirm Muhammad’s sexual hallucinations:

882– The scholars said that a Jewish lad was serving the Prophet when the Jews came to him, took the Prophet’s comb, and cast a spell on him. The one who executed the witchcraft was the Jew, Labeed Ibn A’sam. He put it in the well called Thorwan of the tribe of Zureik. Consequently, the Prophet fell ill. His hair began to fall out, and he imagined that he had HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIS WOMEN EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NOT. He would taste something and not recognize it.

One day while he was sleeping, two angels came to him and one sat by his feet and the other by his head. One asked the other, “What is the matter with this man?” The other angel said, “HE IS BEWITCHED.” One asked, “Who has done it to him?” and the other replied, “Labeed Ibn A’sam, the Jewish man.” The first angel asked, “How did he do it?” The second replied, “With his comb and it is in the well in a leaf of palm tree wrapped around a stone in the bottom of a well.” (Imam Al-Wahidi An-Naisaburi, Reasons and Occasions of Revelation of the Holy Quran: English-Arabic Text, translated by Haythem Kreidly [Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, Beirut, 2nd edition 2012], p. 606; bold and capital emphasis mine)

To make matters worse the Islamic references state that Muhammad’s condition lasted from six months to a year!

(Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind…) [114:1-6]. The commentators of the Qur’an said: “The Messenger of Allah had a Jewish servant boy. The Jews approached him and kept after him until he gave them some fallen hair from the Prophet as well as a few teeth from his comb. The Jews used these to cast a spell of black magic on him. The person who was behind this was the Jew Labid ibn al-A‘sam. He then put the hair in a well belonging to Banu Zurayq called Dharwan. The Messenger of Allah fell ill for a period of six months, during which the hair of his head fell off; he imagined that he slept with his wives when he did not, and was withering away without knowing the reason. As he was one day sleeping, he saw two angels coming to him. One of them sat at his head and the other at his feet. The angel who sat at his head asked: ‘What is wrong with the man?’ The second angel responded: ‘A spell of black magic was cast on him’. The first one asked: ‘And who is responsible for this sorcery?’ The second angel answered: ‘It is Labid ibn al-A‘sam, the Jew’. The first angel asked again: ‘What did he use to cast black magic on him?’ The second angel said: ‘He used a comb and fallen hair’. The first angel asked: ‘Where is it now?’ The second angel said: ‘It is inside the spadix of a palm tree beneath the stepping stone which is inside the well of Dharwan’, at which point the Messenger of Allah woke up. He said: ‘O ‘A’ishah, do you not think that this is from Allah to inform me of the cause of my illness?’ He then sent ‘Ali [ibn Abi Talib], al-Zubayr [ibn al-‘Awwam] and ‘Ammar [ibn Yasir] who drained the water of that well as one would drain the dust of henna. They lifted the stone and got the spadix out and found therein some of the hair of the Messenger of Allah as well a few teeth from his comb. (‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul, Q. 113-114 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=113&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold and capital emphasis mine)

They also found with it a string with eleven knots knitted with needles. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed Surah al-Falaq and Surah al-Nas (al-Mu’awwidhatayn). With each verse that the Messenger of Allah read one knot was untied and the Prophet felt some lightness. When the last knot was untied, the Prophet got up as if he was released from a cord to which he was tied up. Gabriel, peace be upon him, kept saying: ‘In the name of Allah I cast this incantation on you to protect you from anything that might harm you and that Allah heals you from the resentful envier and the evil eye’. Those around him said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, should we not head toward that evil person and kill him?’ He said: ‘As for me, Allah has cured me, and I dislike causing evil to other people’. This is of the forbearance of the Messenger of Allah”. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Ja’far informed us> Abu ‘Amr Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Hiri> Ahmad ibn ‘Ali al-Mawsili> Mujahid ibn Musa> Abu Usamah> Hisham ibn ‘Urwa> his father> ‘A’ishah who said: “A spell of black magic was cast on the Prophet such that he used to imagine that he did things when he did not. He was at my place, one day, and he began imploring Allah in earnest. Then he said: ‘Did you not feel, O ‘A’ishah, that Allah has answered me about that which I have enquired?’ I said: ‘And what is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said: ‘Two angels came to me…’, and he mentioned the whole story”. The whole story is narrated by Bukhari from ‘Ubayd ibn Isma’il from Abu Usamah. The same narration has different channels of transmission in both the authentic collections of Bukhari and Muslim. The book Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an concludes here… (Ibid. https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=113&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

There were/are certain Muslim groups deemed heretical by sunni Islam that have been troubled by Muhammad’s bewitchment since the Quran claims that Allah would protect him and that Satan has no authority over Allah’s servants:

From B. Zurayq: Labid b. A’sam who bewitched the apostle of God so that he could not come at his wives.¹ (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Karachi Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), p. 240; bold emphasis mine)

¹ In commenting on this Suhayli asserts that the tradition is sound and is accepted by the traditionists. He found in the Jami’ of Mu‘ammar b. Rashad (a work which I cannot find mentioned by Brockelmann) the statement THAT THE SPELL LASTED FOR A YEAR. He adds that the Mu‘tazila and Modernists rejected the tradition ON THE GROUND THAT PROPHETS COULD NOT BE BEWITCHED OTHERWISE THEY WOULD COMMIT SIN and that would be contrary to the word of God ‘And God will protect thee from men’ (5.71). He finds the tradition unassailable. It is properly attested and intellectually acceptable. The prophets were not preserved from bodily afflictions in which category sorcery falls. (Ibid.; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Note what the Muslim scripture itself says about this matter:

[Iblis (Satan)] said: “O my Lord! Because YOU MISLEAD ME, I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I shall mislead them all. Except Your chosen, (guided) slaves among them.” (Allah) said: “This is the Way which will lead straight to Me. Certainly, you shall have no authority over My slaves, except those who follow you of the Ghawin (Mushrikun and those who go astray, criminals, polytheists, and evil-doers, etc.). And surely, Hell is the promised place for them all.” S. 15:39-43 Hilali-Khan

[Iblis (Satan)] said: “My Lord! Give me then respite till the Day the (dead) are resurrected.” (Allah) said: “Verily! You are of those allowed respite Till the Day of the time appointed.” [Iblis (Satan)] said: “By Your Might, then I will surely mislead them all, Except Your chosen slaves amongst them (faithful, obedient, true believers of Islamic Monotheism).” (Allah) said: “The Truth is, and the Truth I say, That I will fill Hell with you [Iblis (Satan)] and those of them (mankind) that follow you, together.” S. 38:71-84 Hilali-Khan

God’s true Word, the Holy Bible, also confirms that God’s righteous servants who resist Satan and submit to God’s will can never come under the control of witchcraft, sorcery, etc. Instead, true believers are given power over the kingdom of darkness by the authority and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ:

“For there is no sorcery against Jacob, Nor any divination against Israel. It now must be said of Jacob And of Israel, ‘Oh, what God has done!” Numbers 23:23 New King James Version (NKJV)

“Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.’ And He said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.’” Luke 10:17-20 NKJV

“Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” James 4:7-8 NKJV

“So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, ‘Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.’” Revelation 12:9-11 NKJV

Now this raises some uncomfortable questions for Muslims to contend with.

How could a disbelieving Jew control Muhammad by using black magic on him?

Does this mean that Satan and the Jew were more powerful than Allah who failed to protect Muhammad from the influence and authority of the Devil?

Or should we assume that Muhammad wasn’t one of Allah’s truly righteous servants, since Allah would have surely protected him if he truly were?

If so, then doesn’t this prove that Muhammad actually belonged to Satan even according to the teachings of the Quran?

Moreover, why is it that even while he is hallucinating and imagining things, all Muhammad can think of is sex? Isn’t this more proof that Muhammad was from righteous, but was rather an immoral, sexual deviant that belonged to Satan?

Even more embarrassing is that, for Muhammad to have been imagining that he was sleeping with his wives he must have been simulating sexual maneuvers and doing things with/to his body during this entire period.

Again, why would Muhammad’s god allow his prophet to undergo such a shameful, humiliating process if Muhammad were truly righteous?

Is this how Allah treats his supposed messenger who is believed to be the most beloved to him, permitting him to physically stimulate himself as he imagined having sex with his wives?

Finally, since Muhammad could be deceived and controlled by Satan to imagine things, then how can any Muslim be assured that Muhammad’s entire prophetic experience was nothing more than a satanic delusion?

What convincing evidence can Muslims present to disprove that the Devil didn’t cause Muhammad to simply hallucinate having encounters with Gabriel in order to be duped into reciting scriptures from Satan so as to mislead mankind away from the only true God revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ?     

FURTHER READING

Muhammad’s Bewitchment 

Reexamining Satan’s Influence and Control over Muhammad: [Part 1], [Part 2]

Evidence for Muhammad Being Deceived

Muhammad and Contemporary Arab Criteria of Demon Possession, Round 2

In this post I will cite snippets from St. Augustine’s commentary on John in respect to his understanding of the eternal begetting of the Son. All emphasis shall be mine.

ON JOHN 1:13

13. But John adds: As many as received Him. What did He afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God, and was unwilling to remain alone. Many men, when they have not sons, in advanced age adopt a son, and thus obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them: this men do. But if any one have an only son, he rejoices the more in him; because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have any one to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. Not so God: that same only Son whom He had begotten, and by whom He created all things, He sent into this world that He might not be alone, but might have adopted brethren. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only-begotten was born of Him, but were adopted by His grace. For He, the Only-begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled, and whose burden hindered our adoption: those whom He wished to make brethren to Himself, He Himself loosed, and made joint-heirs. For so says the apostle, But if a son, then an heir through God. And again, Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. He did not fear to have joint-heirs, because His heritage does not become narrow if many are possessors. Those very persons, He being possessor, become His inheritance, and He in turn becomes their inheritance. Hear in what manner they become His inheritance: The Lord has said to me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance. Hear in what manner He becomes their inheritance. He says in the Psalms: The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup. Let us possess Him, and let Him possess us: let Him possess us as Lord; let us possess Him as salvation, let us possess Him as light. What then did He give to them who received Him? To them He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe in His name; that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea. (Tractate 2. John 1:6-14)

ON JOHN 5:26

13. Not, then, in like manner as the soul is one thing before it is enlightened, and becomes a better thing when it is enlightened, by participation of a better; not so, I say, was the Word of God, the Son of God, something else before He received life, that He should have life by participation; but He has life in Himself, and is consequently Himself the very life. What is it, then, that He says, has given to the Son to have life in Himself? I would say it briefly, He begot the Son. For IT IS NOT THAT EXISTED WITHOUT LIFE, AND RECEIVED LIFE, but He is life BY BEING BEGOTTEN. The Father is life not by being begotten; the Son is life by being begotten. The Father is of no father; the Son is of God the Father. The Father in His being is of none, but in that He is Father, ’tis because of the Son. But the Son also, in that He is Son, ’tis because of the Father: in His being, He is of the Father. This He said, therefore: has given life to the Son, that He might have it in Himself. Just as if He were to say, The Father, who is life in Himself, begot the Son, who should be life in Himself. Indeed, He would have this dedit (has given) to be understood for the same thing as genuit (has begotten). It is like as if we said to a person, God has given you being. To whom? If to some one already existing, then He gave him not being, because he who could receive existed before it was given him. When, therefore, you hear it said, He gave you being, you were not in being to receive, but you received, that you should be by coming into existence. The builder gave to this house that it should be. But what did he give to it? He gave it to be a house. To what did he give? To this house. Gave it what? To be a house. How could he give to a house that it should be a house? For if the house was, to what did he give to be a house, when the house existed already? What, then, does that mean, gave it to be a house? It means, he brought to pass that it should be a house. Well, then, what gave He to the Son? Gave Him to be the Son, begot Him to be life — that is, gave Him to have life in Himself that He should be the life not needing life, that He may not be understood as having life by participation. For if He had life by participation, He might, by losing, be without life. Do not take, nor think, nor believe this to be possible respecting the Son. Wherefore the Father continues the life, the Son continues the life: the Father, life in Himself, not from the Son; the Son, life in Himself, but from the Father. Begotten of the Father, that He might live in Himself; but the Father, not begotten, life in Himself. Nor did He beget the Son less than Himself to become equal by growth. For surely He BY WHOM, being perfect, THE TIMES WERE CREATED, was not assisted by time towards His own perfection. BEFORE ALL TIME, HE IS CO-ETERNAL WITH THE FATHER. For the Father has never been without the Son; but the Father is eternal, therefore also the Son co-eternal. Soul, what of you? You were dead, lost life; hear then the Father through the Son. Arise, take to you life, that in Him who has life in Himself you may receive the life which is not in you. He that gives you life, then, is the Father and the Son; and the first resurrection is accomplished when you rise to partake of the life which you are not yourself, and by partaking art made living. Rise from your death to your life, which is your God, and pass from death to eternal life. For the Father has eternal life in Himself; and unless He had begotten such a Son as had life in Himself, it could not be that as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them, so also the Son should quicken whom He will. (Tractate 19. John 5:19-30)

ON JOHN 8:56-58

16. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw, and was glad. Abraham’s seed, Abraham’s Creator, bears a great testimony to Abraham. Abraham rejoiced, He says, to see my day. He did not fear, but rejoiced to see it. For in him there was the love that casts out fear. 1 John 4:18 He says not, rejoiced because he saw; but rejoiced that he might see. Believing, at all events, he rejoiced in hope to see with the understanding. And he saw. And what more could the Lord Jesus Christ say, or what more ought He to have said? And he saw, He says, and was glad. Who can unfold this joy, my brethren? If those rejoiced whose bodily eyes were opened by the Lord, what joy was his who saw with the eyes of his soul the light ineffable, the abiding Word, the brilliance that dazzles the minds of the pious, the unfailing Wisdom, God abiding with the Father, and at some time come in the flesh and yet not to withdraw from the bosom of the Father? All this did Abraham see. For in saying my day, it may be uncertain of what He spoke; whether the day of the Lord in time, when He should come the flesh, or that day of the Lord which knows not a dawn, and knows no decline. But for my part I doubt not that father Abraham knew it all. And where shall I find it out? Ought the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ to satisfy us? Let us suppose that we cannot find it out, for perhaps it is difficult to say in what sense it is clear that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ, and saw it, and was glad. And though we find it not, can the Truth have lied? Let us believe the Truth, and cherish no doubt of Abraham’s merited rewards. Yet listen to one passage that occurs to me meanwhile. When father Abraham sent his servant to seek a wife for his son Isaac, he bound him by this oath, to fulfill faithfully what he was commanded, and know also for himself what to do. For it was a great matter that was in hand when marriage was sought for Abraham’s seed. But that the servant might apprehend what Abraham knew, that it was not offspring after the flesh he desired, nor anything of a carnal kind concerning his race that was referred to, he said to the servant whom he sent, Put your hand under my thigh, and swear by the God of heaven. Genesis 24:2-4 What connection has the God of heaven with Abraham’s thigh? Already you understand the mystery: by thigh is meant race. And what was that swearing, but the signifying that of Abraham’s race would the God of heaven come in the flesh? Fools find fault with Abraham because he said, Put your hand under my thigh. Those who find fault with Christ’s flesh find fault with Abraham’s conduct. But let us, brethren, if we acknowledge the flesh of Christ as worthy of veneration, despise not that thigh, but receive it as spoken of prophetically. For a prophet also was Abraham. Whose prophet? Of his own seed, and of his Lord. To his own seed he pointed in saying, Put your hand under my thigh. To his Lord he pointed in adding, and swear by the God of heaven.

17. The angry Jews replied, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? And the Lord: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was made, I am. Weigh the words, and get a knowledge of the mystery. Before Abraham was made. Understand, that was made refers to human formation; but am to the Divine essence. He was made, because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before Abraham was, I was; but, Before Abraham was made, who was not made save by me, I am. Nor did He say this, Before Abraham was made I was made; for In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1 and in the beginning was the Word. Before Abraham was made, I am. Recognize the Creator — distinguish the creature. He who spoke was made the seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be made, He Himself was before Abraham. (Tractate 43. John 8:48-59)

ON JOHN 14:27-28

1. We have just heard, brethren, these words of the Lord, which He addressed to His disciples: Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come unto you: if you loved me, you would surely rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I. Their hearts might have become filled with trouble and fear, simply because of His going away from them, even though intending to return; lest, possibly, in the very interval of the shepherd’s absence, the wolf should make an onset on the flock. But as God, He abandoned not those from whom He departed as man: and Christ Himself is at once both man and God. And so He both went away in respect of His visible humanity, and remained as regards His Godhead: He went away as regards the nature which is subject to local limitations, and remained in respect of that which is ubiquitous. Why, then, should their heart be troubled and afraid, when His quitting their eyesight was of such a kind as to leave unaltered His presence in their heart? Although even God, who has no local bounds to His presence, may depart from the hearts of those who turn away from Him, not with their feet, but their moral character; just as He comes to such as turn to Him, not with their faces, but in faith, and approach Him in the spirit, and not in the flesh. But that they might understand that it was only in respect of His human nature that He said, I go and come to you, He went on to say, If you loved me, you would surely rejoice, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And so, then, in that very respect wherein the Son is not equal to the Father, in that was He to go to the Father, just as from Him is He hereafter to come to judge the quick and the dead: while in so far as the Only-begotten is equal to Him that begot, He never withdraws from the Father; but with Him is everywhere perfectly equal in that Godhead which knows of no local limitations. For being as He was in the form of God, as the apostle says, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. For how could that nature be robbery, which was His, not by usurpation, but by birth? But He emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant; Philippians 2:6-7 and so, not losing the former, but assuming the latter, and emptying Himself in that very respect wherein He stood forth before us here in a humbler state than that wherein He still remained with the Father. For there was the accession of a servant-form, with no recession of the divine: in the assumption of the one there was no consumption of the other. In reference to the one He says, The Father is greater than I; but because of the other, I and my Father are one. (Tractate 78. John 14:27-28)

ON JOHN 17:3

3. And this, He adds, is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. The proper order of the words is, That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, as the only true God. Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only true God. And yet the Father is not the same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; for the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three [persons], yet the Trinity itself is one God. If, then, the Son glorifies You in the same manner as You have given Him power over all flesh, and hast so given, that He should give eternal life to all that You have given Him, and this is life eternal, that they may know You; in this way, therefore, the Son glorifies You, that He makes You known to all whom You have given Him. Accordingly, if the knowledge of God is eternal life, we are making the greater advances to life, in proportion as we are enlarging our growth in such a knowledge. And we shall not die in the life eternal; for then, when there shall be no death, the knowledge of God shall be perfected. Then will be effected the full effulgence of God, because then the completed glory, as expressed in Greek by δόξα. For from it we have the word δόξασον, that is used here, and which some Latins have interpreted by clarifica (make effulgent), and some by glorifica (glorify). But by the ancients, glory, from which men are styled glorious, is thus defined: Glory is the widely-spread fame of any one accompanied with praise. But if a man is praised when the fame regarding him is believed, how will God be praised when He Himself shall be seen? Hence it is said in Scripture, Blessed are they that dwell in Your house; they will be praising You for ever and ever. There will God’s praise continue without end, where there shall be the full knowledge of God; and because the full knowledge, therefore also the complete effulgence or glorification. (Tractate 105. John 17:1-5)

FURTHER READING

JOHN OF DAMASCUS ON THE HOLY TRINITY AND HYPOSTATIC UNION