JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AND THE QUR’AN:

COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES

A Thesis Submitted to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
CICM Maryhill School of Theology
Quezon City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement

for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Theology
Major in Religious Studies

Jefrey B. Cercado

March 2013

1
 DEDICATION

To

My dearest wife, Malou

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my ever patient and supportive adviser

Whose critical reading and corrections

Have helped transformed this paper

Into a dynamic contribution to Christian-Muslim dialogue

My gratitude, Fr, Andre De Bleeker, CICM.

To my confreres who have journeyed with me

Through the years of intellectual nourishment

And spiritual formation which has prepared me

To become the person I am of this moment

I am indebted to my friends Ricky, Holly Renlord, and Regino

And my MST and CICM Communities.

To my family whose love is unconditional

Inspiring me to give my best and my all

Writing and finishing this material

Was never easy, sometimes unbearable,

Mama, Papa, Malou, MM, and Sky

You made this masterpiece possible.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ..........................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1

A. Background of the Study...................................................................................1

B. Statement of the Problem...................................................................................8

C. Methodology....................................................................................................10

D. Scope and Limitation.......................................................................................12

E. Significance of the Study.................................................................................13

F. Review of Related Literature...........................................................................14

CHAPTER II: JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ...............................22

A. Introduction: The Word of God has Become Flesh.........................................22

B. The Story of the Matthean Jesus.....................................................................33

B.1. Genealogy of Jesus.............................................................................34

B.2. Ministry of Jesus ...............................................................................39

B.3. Passion Narrative: Suffering, Death, and Resurrection......................44

C. Jesus’ Crucifixion and Resurrection................................................................48

D. Matthean Christology: Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God............................52

E. Conclusion.......................................................................................................60

4
CHAPTER III: JESUS IN THE QUR’AN .............................................................63

A. Introduction: God’s Word has Become a Book..............................................63

B. The Story of the Qur’anic Jesus.......................................................................69

B.1. The Annunciation...............................................................................71

B.2. The Pangs of Birth and the Miracle in the Cradle..............................72

B.3. Teachings and Miracles of Jesus........................................................74

B.4. Jesus’ Death and Ascension...............................................................75

B.5. Jesus’ Nature......................................................................................77

B.6. Eschatology........................................................................................78

C. The Qur’anic Position Regarding Jesus’ Crucifixion,

Ascension, and Divinity...................................................................................79

D. Qur’anic Christology: Jesus, Son of Mary, Prophet/

Messenger of God............................................................................................86

E. Conclusion.......................................................................................................90

CHAPTER IV: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES .......................... 92

A. Introduction.....................................................................................................92

B. Commonalities.................................................................................................95

B.1. Jesus’ Virginal Birth...........................................................................95

B.2. Jesus the Miracle-Worker...................................................................97

B.3. Jesus as Prophet..................................................................................99

B.4. Jesus’ Teaching of God....................................................................100

5
 C. Differences.....................................................................................................101

C.1. Jesus’ Death, Crucifixion, and Resurrection ...................................101

C.2. Jesus’ Ascension..............................................................................103

C.3. Jesus the Son of God.......................................................................104

D. Jesus the Messiah/Christ.....................................................................107

E. Conclusion......................................................................................................109

CHAPTER V: GENERAL CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................111

A. Introduction....................................................................................................111

B. Conclusion.....................................................................................................113

C. Recommendations..........................................................................................118

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................122

CURRICULUM VITAE

6
 ABSTRACT

This research works on the central problem: Is the Matthean Jesus similar to the

Qur’anic Jesus? In this regard, the research compares the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew

and with the Jesus of the Qur’an. In order to materialize this research, I made use of

literary analysis to find out who Jesus is in these particular scriptures. The research also

highlights if “Jesus” promotes or hinders interreligious dialogue between Muslims and

Christians.

The evangelist Matthew introduces Jesus as a “son of David, son of Abraham.”

He uses a number of titles to bring out the distinctive character of Jesus such as Lord, Son

of God, Messiah/Christ, Son of Man, teacher, king, and prophet. Of all these titles, the

Son of God title holds a significant position because God claims Jesus as his “son.” Jesus

is portrayed as a prophet who teaches, preaches, and heals people. His ministry is thought

of as the culmination of the Kingdom of Heaven where there is peace, justice, and

equality. The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as an obedient son to his Father, and a

figure who has a deep and intimate relationship with God.

The Qur’an presents Jesus as a prophet of God. He is always addressed as the Son

of Mary implying that he is only a human person. He is also known as the Christ, a

Servant/Slave of God, a Sign, and a Word and Spirit proceeding from God. Though born

miraculously, he has no divine status. The Qur’an has a high regard for Jesus. His

humanity is a model, his obedience or submission to God is unquestionable, and his

ministry is about the oneness of God. Though referred to as a Christ, this title does not

have any theological implication as it is simply understood as a name. The Qur’an firmly

7
denies the divinity of Jesus, and rebukes the Christians, for there is but one God. The

Qur’an portrays Jesus as a humble and faithful servant who does the will of God.

The Matthean gospel and the Qur’anic account have commonalities with regard to

Jesus. Both scriptures acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet of God who was sent to make

known to people God’s will and love. Though there would be differences in

understanding Jesus’ prophethood and teaching, the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an

affirm that Jesus’ ministry is a ministry coming from God. As a prophet of God, Jesus

ministry revolves around teaching the oneness and the love of God. There are also themes

in the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an that may forever be factors that divide Muslims

and Christians. The understanding that Jesus is the Son of God is rejected in the Qur’an.

For Christians, christology is central to theology. Jesus Christ means God is at work in

Jesus. For Muslims, christology does not have any theological bearing. The name Jesus

Christ is just a name of a prophet.

This comparative analysis tells us that the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew is not

similar to the Qur’anic Jesus. Though there are affirmations from both scriptures, the

common areas the two scriptures agree on are Jesus’ humanity and his prophetic ministry.

Our scriptures can only be meaningful and comprehensible if we also take into account

the various presuppositions and the different layers of interpretation. Only in this way can

interreligious dialogue be done with mutual respect and understanding. On the other

hand, the commonalities, Jesus’ humanity and his prophetic ministry, warrant dialogue. It

is in these areas that interreligious dialogue grounded in the Gospel of Matthew and the

Qur’an can flourish.

8
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

“No survival without a world ethic, no world peace without peace between the

religions. No peace between the religions without dialogue between the religions. No

dialogue between religions without investigation of the foundation of religions.”1

In my budding teaching career, I was given the opportunity to teach Introduction

to World Religions. Though my field of study is Catholic theology and philosophy, I did

not hesitate to accept to teach a subject beyond my specialization. I thought of it as a

challenge, explored the various concepts of God and how other believers understand

revelation.

The school environment offers a wide array of students, both local and

international, coming from different cultural and religious backgrounds. Teaching this

course entails respect for the other religions, openness to other ideas, and sensitivity not

to offend religious feelings. This set-up of study involves a presentation of the so-called

five major religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. In one of

my lectures, surprisingly, one of my students asked: “Sir, but why did the Jews not

believe in Jesus?” My answer to my student’s query was that probably the Jews of that

time were expecting an “anointed one” who is like a military figure who could liberate

1
Hans Küng, Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic (New York:
Crossroad Publishing Company, 1991), xv.

9
them from Roman oppression. Hence, many of them did not see in Jesus that character,

besides he ended up crucified.

But the discussion about Jesus did not stop with that question because a few

weeks later, when discussing Islam, my Muslim student raised the very same question.

This time he referred to the Christians: “But Sir, why do you Christians not believe in

Muhammad?” Taken aback and being aware of the complexity of the issue, I answered

that we Christians believe in the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus, and so we believe

that he alone can guarantee our salvation. This answer might be too simplistic for a

profound question but answering something without laying down certain presuppositions

tends to be dangerous and can be easily misappropriated.

Muslim-Christian relations were not always smooth. To some extent, they have

reached a very promising future grounded in mutuality, respect, and deeper

understanding. On the other hand, resentments for what has happened in the past still

linger. This attitude pushed people to withdrawal embracing fundamentalism and radical

extremism as impetus for change. God and religion are used by people to advance their

personal interests and ideologies creating fear and despair among people.

The researcher subscribes to Hans Küng’s idea (quoted above) because he

believes that only through an intelligent and careful investigation of our religions can we

really move forward and engage in dialogue. Careful rereading and analysis give us better

and perhaps new insights in our faith anchored in our Sacred Scriptures. Contemporary

human experience requires that we appropriate God’s message in our contemporary

10
human condition.2 Hans Küng’s idea is loaded with many insights and historical

reference presuming, at a first glance, that many wars in the world have a religious

component, that is, wars waged with religious conviction.

Christians and Muslims have been reaching out to the “other” to establish rapport

and try to better understand the “other” in the hope that ignorance and arrogance may be

gradually dispelled. The Roman Catholic Church formally initiated the Christian-Muslim

dialogue, and came up with a very positive evaluation of Islam and the Muslims during

the Second Vatican Council. Proofs of this are the documents Nostra Aetate (Declaration

on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions), Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral

Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), Lumen Gentium (Constitution on the

Church), and Pope John Paul’s II encyclicals Redemptoris Missio and Redemptor

Hominis.3 All these documents are clear marks of religious sincerity on the part of the

Roman Catholic Church to work for peace and understanding. Interreligious dialogue is

now considered an integral subject in Catholic theologizing. This has been validated by

the creation of the Secretariat for Non-Christians on May 19, 1964 by Pope Paul VI, and

was renamed Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue on June 28, 1988 by Pope

John Paul II which published guidelines for Interreligious dialogue.

The document Nostra Aetate is a milestone achievement of the Roman Catholic

Church in reaching out to other religions. It is considered the “Magna Carta of

2
See Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Theology: Basic Realities and Processes
(Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990), 71-87.
3
See Andre De Bleeker, Introduction to the Islamic Religious Experience (2009
photocopy), 1-4.

11
Interreligious Dialogue for our times.”4 It does not only set a standard by which we must

relate to people of other faiths, it also affirms the universality of God’s love and the

distinct character of other religions by which God has made Himself present and known

to these people. The third paragraph of Nostra Aetate summarizes the Roman Catholic

Church’s appreciation of the Muslim faith:

The Church has […] a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is
one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and
earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without
reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to
God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not
acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as prophet, his virgin mother
they also honor, and even times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of
judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this
reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of
prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.5

Non-Catholic Christians through the World Council of Churches (hereafter WCC)

suggested various topics for dialogue contained in the Kandy Consultation of 1967.6 This

convention was followed by many other dialogues. One exemplar document which came

out is Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations which defines dialogue as follows: “Dialogue

is not only conversation [dialogue of ideas] but is also an encounter between people

[dialogue of life]. It depends on mutual trust, demand respect for the identity and integrity

4
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, ed. Francesco Gioia, Interreligious
Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Second Vatican Council to John
Paul II (1963-2005) (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2006), 142.
5
Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate (www.vatican.va, July 23, 2012), no. 3.
6
See Mahmut Aydin, “Towards a Theological Dialogue Between Christians and
Muslims,” Islamochristiana 26 (2000): 5-10.

12
of the other, and requires a willingness to question one’s own self-understanding as well

as openness to understand the others on their own terms.”7

For the Muslims the Permanent Committee of Al-Azhar for Dialogue between

Monotheistic Religions based in Cairo, Egypt, was established to deal with Christian-

Muslim relations. Sura8 5:82 of the Qur’an,9 the Sacred Scriptures of the Muslims, boldly

states: “And nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say,

‘We are Christians’: Because amongst these are men devoted to learning. And men who

have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” Sura 3:64 says: “Say: O People of

the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but

Allah.” These two passages state that Christians and Muslims are related with one

another in faith and are urged to come together and be united for the common good.

Hence, many Muslims are also interested in Interreligious dialogue especially with

Christians.

This particular study, therefore, is being undertaken in the context of Muslim-

Christian dialogue. The researcher intends to be a participant and to make a point in the

ongoing attempt of people of goodwill to bring these two great religious traditions closer

together. What interests the researcher is the fact that, while some people emphasize the

commonalities or major differences, others emphasize minor differences that are not

really that important. The researcher however believes that a very difficult issue in

7
This quotation, taken from Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1992): 5, is found in Mahmut Aydin, 7.
8
Sura refers to a chapter or division of the Qur’an. It is a special term used only to refer to
the 114 divisions of the Qur’an.
9
The researcher will make use of this translation/version: The Holy Qur’an: English
Translation of the Meaning and Commentary, rev. and ed. The Presidency of Islamic Researches,
IFTA (Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah: King Fahd Holy Qur’an Printing Complex 1410H/1990).

13
Muslim-Christian dialogue is the person of Jesus. Therefore, this paper seeks to

investigate both the affirmations and rejections of the personality and nature of this

person named “Jesus,” who is a great prophet for Muslims and the saviour for Christians.

Jesus is not only mentioned in the New Testament but also in the Qur’an. The researcher

intends to study whether “Jesus” hampers Muslim-Christian dialogue or could be a

common point of departure for both Muslims and Christians towards a better mutual

appreciation.

Since this research is a comparative study, the researcher would like to make use

of the Gospel according to Matthew. The choice of the Matthean account does not

presuppose superiority or greater authenticity and clarity of the account over other Gospel

accounts. The researcher’s initial study of the Matthean account reveals some points

which make it a good material for a comparative study with the Qur’an. Initial findings

may be naïve but they remain helpful in our assessment of Jesus. First, the Gospel

according to Matthew begins by categorically identifying Jesus as “the son of David, the

son of Abraham” (Mt 1:1). This claim simply asserts that Jesus comes directly from

Abraham, the father of faith, who initiated the teaching of God’s monotheism. Muslims

too see Abraham as their father in the faith. The term “son of David” implies royalty and

is in consonance with the Jewish Scripture that the Messiah would come from the line of

David. Second, the Matthean Gospel stresses that Jesus is a great Prophet and Teacher,

like a new Moses or even greater than him. This claim asserts that Jesus is a Prophet of

God, sent by God, and who teaches people God’s will. This depiction is in consonance

with the Qur’anic portrayal of Jesus. Third, scholars agree that the evangelist Matthew

wrote the gospel for a particular group of people, the Jewish Christians, as the intended

14
audience. In the final chapter of the gospel, Jesus categorically instructs his disciples to

spread the Good News to the whole world (Mt 28:16-20). Matthew emphasizes the fact

that, since the Jews did not believe in Jesus, those who are not Jews but who would

believe in him will have God’s salvation. The great commission and the universal

proclamation of the Gospel are also in consonance with the Muslim faith. Muslims will

always stress the universal character of Islam irrespective of socio-economic, political,

and cultural backgrounds. Lastly, since this is a comparative study of two accounts, the

choice of material matters very much. Biblical exegetes would suggest that ninety-seven

percent (97%) of the Markan account can be found in Matthew.10 Although contemporary

biblical studies suggest that it is the earliest gospel account, most of Markan accounts

were incorporated into the Matthean account. The gospel according to Luke is a very

large body of material to use because the Acts of the Apostles are part of it. To study the

Lukan gospel account is to include also the Acts of the Apostles because these two

accounts form one body of text. The Lukan account is better understood as an “historical

account” of Christianity starting with Jesus of Nazareth up to the early beginnings of the

Jesus movement. Since the gospel according to John is not one of the so-called synoptic

gospels, the researcher sets it aside though it contains very rich materials about Jesus and

offers a different Christology.

Given the considerations mentioned, the researcher finds the Gospel according to

Matthew good material for comparative study. The researcher is also convinced that

10
See Robert Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Books, 1987), 48.

15
some themes in the Matthean account, as pointed out above, are closer to the Qur’anic

understanding of Jesus compared to other gospel accounts.

B. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Historical accounts tell us that the dialogue between Muslims and Christians has

gone a long way. In fact, Islamic accounts say that Muhammad himself has sent

invitations to various Christian leaders to convert to Islam. Christians of goodwill

engaged in missionary activities among Muslims. A notable Christian figure is Francis of

Assisi who went to Egypt to seek an audience with the Sultan. All these efforts were

undertaken to present to the “other” the spirit and the fundamental tenets of one’s faith

always having in mind to convert or persuade the other to recognize the truths of one’s

religion.

We also recognize the fact that faith is nurtured and developed within a particular

context. As we discern and reflect on the revelation handed down to us we realize that

God has spoken to us in our very “historical and existential human condition, and to

attempt to hear his voice in isolation from human history is to miss the essential message

of his word.”11 The faith which was handed down to us therefore has been moulded

already by tradition, and it guides contemporary human experience. At the same time,

contemporary human experience challenges tradition creating a tension so creative that

the revelation handed down to us becomes meaningful in our contemporary human

experiences.

11
Mahmoud Ayoub, A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue, ed. Irfan Omar
(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2007), 118.

16
 Jesus is undoubtedly an important but thorny topic for Muslim-Christian dialogue

since he is a figure in both religions, though appropriated differently. Some scholars have

suggested that the Jesus issue creates more tensions than understanding. However, most

scholars see the need to focus the dialogue on Jesus because he is no ordinary figure in

Christian belief. This Jesus is the Christ and everything in the Christian faith revolves

around Christology. While Christology is central for Christians, it is not included in

Muslim theology.12 Muslim and Christian scholars would agree that discussions about

Jesus can be reduced to two major points: Jesus’ crucifixion and his divine sonship.

Muslims accuse Christians of blasphemy because they claim that a prophet of God was

crucified. Christians accuse Muslims of rejecting historical events. Therefore, to reorient

us, we need to evaluate again what our sacred texts really tell us about Jesus, hoping that

it can contribute to our dialogue. Thus, the researcher would like to work on this central

problem:

Is the Matthean Jesus similar to the Qur’anic Jesus?

Since this study subscribes to mutuality, respect, and deeper understanding of the

‘other’ religion, we must highlight similarities and commonalities and major differences

rather than stress minor differences. The central question is broken down into the

following sub-questions:

1) How does Matthew present Jesus?

2) How does the Qur’an depict Jesus?

12
Warren Larson, “Jesus in Islam and Christianity: Discussing the Similarities and the
Differences,” Missiology Review 36, 3 (July 2008): 328.

17
 3) To what extent is the Matthean Jesus similar to the Qur’anic Jesus?

4) What are the implications of the commonalities and differences for

Muslim-Christian dialogue?

C. METHODOLOGY

The researcher will not venture into a semantical or syntactical analysis of the

Arabic and Greek texts since it is not the focus and the immediate interest of this study.

However, the researcher will not do away with it if the need arises. The researcher

intends to do library research that includes comparative study of the two religions,

analyses of both Christian and Muslim apologetics, and exegetical interpretations of Jesus

in both Scriptures. The researcher also will take into account the guidelines for

Interreligious Dialogue of the Church.

However, we have always to be mindful not to fall into the trap of exclusivistic

and relativistic interpretations of the Word of God. This entails that meaningful reading

and understanding of the Word of God implies the use of appropriate tools and

methodologies to bring out the will of God latent in the Sacred Scriptures.

Since the researcher will compare two accounts about Jesus, narrative

analysis/criticism is best suited as the primarily tool to be used in the study because it

offers a new way of understanding a text. Narrative analysis/criticism serves as a mirror

which projects an image that influences the reader’s perception. 13 Narrative analysis, as a

method, would “rehabilitate in new historical contexts the modes of communicating and

13
See Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,”
Origins: CNS Documentary Service 23, 29 (January 1994): 503.

18
conveying meaning proper to biblical account in order to […] facilitate the transition,

often so difficult, from the meaning of the text in its historical context (the proper object

of the historical-critical method) to its significance for the reader of today.”14 Therefore

questions such as who is the character in the story? What role does he play? What is the

plot sequence? What narrative time is covered? What is the author’s and/or narrator’s

point of view? will be asked and be taken into consideration as we progress in our study.

This method therefore will help us understand the relevance and the meaning of the

sacred scripture into our contemporary human existence. In effect, we will be able to

discern, biblically and theologically, the importance of dialogue in our sitz-im-leben.

For chapter II, the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew, the researcher will present

Jesus the way the writer presents him. This entails the need to study the Matthean

Christology. For chapter III, Jesus in the Qur’an, I will be presenting first the biography

of the Qur’anic Jesus before proceeding to his role or ministry in the whole drama of

God’s revelation. Unlike in the Christian Gospel accounts, the account of Jesus in the

Qur’an is scattered all over the 114 suras of the Qur’an. Thus, the researcher will

reconstruct first this Jesus from his birth to his final days on earth. For chapter IV, the

researcher intends to compare and contrast the Matthean and the Qur’anic Jesus. This

chapter will serve as the synthesis of our comparative study. Finally, Chapter V will

present the implications of our discoveries and newly found meanings, if any, that could

be of great help to Muslim-Christian dialogue.

However, the researcher is aware that other methods could contribute to this

research. It is therefore the prerogative of the researcher to incorporate elements of these

14
Ibid., 503-4.

19
methods, especially the reduction critical method, if it can shed light on the study. This

position recognizes the limitation of the various methods available, and since there is no

absolute method, we must not ignore the findings or conclusions of other methods other

than the primary tool we will use in this research.

D. SCOPE AND LIMITATION

This particular study is limited to the analysis of the Qur’anic and the Matthean

Jesus. One of the issues that confound Christians in Muslim-Christian dialogue is the fact

that Muslims are wondering why the Christians have four canonical accounts of Jesus

instead of one. And, the four vary significantly in presentation, focus, and theology about

Jesus. The Christians are puzzled about how Muslims got stories and accounts about

Jesus. Many of these accounts are not found in the Qur’an and appeared in the later

development of the Islamic faith contained in the hadith.15

The researcher intends to dwell only on what the Qur’an says about Jesus and

how Matthew presents Jesus, knowing that there are a lot of Christologies that can be

found in the Islamic tradition and the New Testament.

The researcher also acknowledges his limitation when it comes to languages. The

Qur’an is written in Arabic while the Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek, and a good

number of meaningful and insightful materials on Muslim-Christian dialogue appeared in

other languages. The researcher regrets that he cannot directly tap and use those materials

written in foreign languages. He however acknowledges the abundance of materials on

15
Hadith is a report or tradition of sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. It is the
second source of authority for Muslims after the Qur’an.

20
Muslim-Christian dialogue written in English, which will enable the researcher to present

a meaningful study.

E. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

What prompted the researcher to compare the Matthean Jesus with the Qur’anic

Jesus is the multi-religious environment of his workplace which provides him with a

concrete framework to formulate, and eventually actualize, this study/research. The

potential positive contribution of this intended study to religious studies is that, the

researcher, as an educator, can make use of this study to promote interfaith

dialogue/worship through a knowledge-building framework to stimulate students’ interest

in learning about the other religions. A manual or a module can also be made out of this

study by religion instructors to help them and their students appreciate better the richness

of Christian and Islamic beliefs and the person of Jesus. Therefore the intended audience

of the researcher to which this study may be of great help is the youth, students, and those

newcomers, like the researcher, who want to learn and develop an attitude of openness to

other religions while being deeply rooted in their Christian faith.

The researcher believes that proper levelling off of our belief in Jesus will guide

us, Christians and Muslims, to relieve ourselves from religious animosity. But seeing the

reality, some Christians and Muslims have become religious terrorists trying to hijack

and mislabel the other.

21
 Therefore, the researcher aims to come up with a type of Christian-Muslim

dialogue that starts off with Jesus as the point of departure and hopefully, a new method

of discernment to guide us.

F. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

In his article, Jesus in Islam and Christianity: Discussing the Similarities and

Differences, Warren Larson, compares both the Qur’an and the Gospel accounts about

Jesus. He notes significant differences that contributed to a scriptural or dogmatic

deadlock between Islam and Christianity. Beliefs, such as Jesus the Son of God, accounts

of the death and the resurrection of Jesus, and the possibility of corruption of Scripture,

are thorny issues. However, he also notes that shared beliefs in the prophethood of Jesus,

the veneration of Mary, and the belief that Jesus was born from the creative word of God,

can be a common ground for dialogue. He stresses that both religions must start a

dialogue with one another as there are a lot of Scriptural passages which support this

idea, “but in the end, dialogue must center on Jesus.”16

In his book, The Muslim Jesus, Tarif Khalidi surveys the cultural and historical

contexts and the factors which contributed to the formation of the “Muslim Gospel” or

the Jesus of Islam. The book is divided into two parts: the Introduction, which lays down

the background of the study, and the second part, which is a collection of Jesus sayings

and stories in Islam. The author notes certain facts and factors which contributed to the

formation of the Muslim Gospel. Among these are: (1) the figure of Jesus was widely

known in the Near East because diverse Christian communities had spread stories about
16
Larson, 336.

22
Jesus; (2) it is likely that Muhammad and his followers have made use of Gnostic or

heretical accounts about Jesus, and they came to know Jesus through the apocryphal

works circulating among Eastern Christians; (3) Christian converts to primitive Islam had

an enormous impact on the building of Jesus’ image in the Qur’an, but more especially in

the Hadith traditions; (4) Muslim scholars were familiar with the Gospel accounts and

“this Gospel core was then Islamized in various ways.”17 The author offers a certain

perspective on the formation of the Muslim Jesus, and notes the validity of the

traditioning process and how “a unique record of how one world religion chose to adopt a

central figure of another, coming to recognize him as constitutive of its own identity.” 18

In his book, A Muslim View of Christianity, Mahmoud Ayoub discusses in the

third part, Christological Issues: Muslim Perspective, three themes. He states that the

miracles of Jesus are miracles of life and healing and they “speak to the situation of the

people […] and show that God has power over nature as well as over human folly and

arrogance.”19 They emphasize the affirmation of Jesus’ humanity as a sign of the will of

God for people of Faith. When he speaks of Jesus, the Son of God, the author stresses

“the need to take our scripture seriously in what they say and not to use one as a criterion

to judge the truth and authenticity of the other […] and to reflect on the situation to which

the Qur’an seems to have addressed its critique of the Christian doctrine of the divine

Sonship of Jesus.”20 The author also mentions the nuances of the words “ibn” (son) and

“walad” (child) used in the Qur’an to refer to Jesus. Is Jesus the Son metaphorically or

17
Tarif Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus: Saying and Stories in Islamic Literature (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 33.
18
Ibid., 6.
19
Ayoub, 112.
20
Ibid., 118.

23
biologically? The author states that the crux of the affair is not really the divine sonship

of Jesus but really his divinity. While the former (ibn) can be a possibility, the latter

(walad) is already shirk, an association, and constitutes the greatest of all sins. He

concludes the chapter by pointing out that both the Qur’an and the Gospel are one in

affirming that “God is God, the Lord of all His creation.”21 He also points out the

ambiguity of Sura 19: 34-36 by questioning whether it is Muhammad or Jesus Christ who

counsels us to worship God our Lord.

In his book, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim

Thought, Todd Lawson focuses on Sura 4: 157-159, which speaks of the crucifixion of

Jesus. His study deals with the ambiguity of the verse of the crucifixion. He takes into

account the fact that most Muslims reject that Jesus was crucified, but he does not rule

out the possibility that such assumption is the result of the interpretation of scholars and

exegetes contained in most hadiths. He also notes that the term “it appears to them so”

has a docetic ring. After all, most Muslims interpret the verse in two ways: (1) Jesus was

substituted; (2) it appears to the Jews that he was crucified but he was not. To make a

point, the author argues that in the actual reading of the Qur’an, the verse simply suggests

that the Jews were not able to crucify Jesus. The text does not say Jesus was not

crucified. In addition, he also asks his readers to take into account the paradox of the

crucifixion: the reality of the death of a prophet and the Islamic understanding of

prophecy. The verse is ambiguous because it can mean outright denial of Jesus’ death

because most interpretations and exegeses deny it. The author then evaluates the

development of the understanding of the verse according to three major developments of

21
Ibid., 130.

24
exegetical traditions. After a careful evaluation of the verse, “much tafsir,22 not the

Qur’an, deny crucifixion […] The first phase [of the verse] is Qur’anic; the latter is found

nowhere in the Book.”23

In his book, The Mission and Death of Jesus in Islam and Christianity, A.H.

Mathias Zahniser studies the similarities and differences of Jesus’ life and death found in

both traditions. It is a balanced study of the Qur’anic account of Jesus’ life and death

taking into account the various commentaries of Islamic scholars which shaped the

Islamic understanding of Jesus. He compares it with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life

and death. He also mentions how the three synoptic Gospels vary in their record of events

including textual differences. The author also expands his study to include non-canonical

or non-scriptural sources which shed light on the prevailing differences between Islamic

and Christian records and interpretations. The Gospel of Barnabas, and commentaries on

it by both Islamic and Christian scholars, present another perspective on Jesus’

crucifixion and death. But the author points out the historical defects of The Gospel of

Barnabas as he notes the analytical works of Luigi Cirillo and Michel Fremaux, and

Cyril Glassé who theorize that the text was composed during the medieval period,24 while

Lonsdale Ragg and Laura Ragg suggest that the original manuscript is written in Italian

22
Tafsir is an Arabic term used by Muslim scholars for Qur’anic exegesis.
23
Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim
Thought (Oxford: One World, 2009), 19.
24
See Jan Slomp, “The ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ in Recent Research,” Islamochristiana 23
(1997): 88; Andre De Bleeker, “The Gospel of Barnabas: Obstacle to Christian-Muslim
Relations?” MST Review 12 (2010): 89-109.

25
around 1300-1350 A.D. and someone might have copied it and invented the Gospel of

Barnabas during the late 16th century.25

Oddbjorn Leirvik’s Images of Jesus Christ in Islam is another scholarly

contribution to the ever expanding analysis of the “Jesus event” in Muslim-Christian

relations. The book covers the status of Christology in the Qur’an, the hadith and Shi’ite

tradition, the various polemics and apologetics employed by both Christians and Muslims

trying to outclass each other, and the different issues of dialogue. After a careful

evaluation of both Christian and Muslim writers, the author calls us “to be sensitive to the

‘incomparable lesson’ emerging from Christ’s life.”26 After a thorough evaluation of the

polemical and apologetical ideas and exegesis, the author ventures into the main issue of

dialogue: Christology. Rebutting the various suggestions of shifting the focus of Muslim-

Christian dialogue from Christology to common discourses that guarantee cooperation,

the author contests the impossibility of total shift because (1) Christology is the heart of

Christian theology; (2) it is already an issue for the Muslims; (3) it touches other

concerns and issues in various fields like anthropology and ethics.27 The author contends

that only a conscience with an irenic disposition can learn to respect and accept the other

without prejudice.

Mark Beaumont’s Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of

Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries is

an excellent study of the Christian apologetics in the ninth and twentieth centuries. He

25
See A.H. Mathias Zahniser, The Mission and Death of Jesus in Islam and Christianity
(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2008), 81-2.
26
Oddbjørn Leirvik, Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: Introduction, Survey of Research,
Issues of Dialogue (Uppsala: Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia LXXVI, 1999), 20.
27
See ibid., 209.

26
argues that these two centuries are very crucial in understanding Christian efforts to

present Christ to the Muslims in categories acceptable to them. The first part of the study

discusses three excellent but largely unknown Christian scholars, namely, Theodore Abu

Qurra, Habib ibn Khidma Abu Ra’ita, and ‘Ammar al-Basri, whose material remains

untapped for Muslim Christian dialogue. The major characteristic of the three ninth

century scholars is the presentation of Christ to Muslims using the Islamic conceptual

framework. The first part also tackles the fundamental teachings of the Qur’an and the

Muslim belief in Jesus. The second part is an analysis of the works of three twentieth

century scholars, namely, Kenneth Cragg, John Hick, and Hans Küng. They engage in

dialogue with their Muslim counterparts after establishing their right of being

“philosophical theologians.” The author compares the method used by these apologists of

these two periods in their defense and exposition of Christian Christology to the Muslims.

He notes certain conditions that make these two periods different. The ninth century

Christian scholars were more concerned with apologetics, and thus, catechetical, in order

to avert conversion of nominal Christians. They write and explain ideas acceptable to

Muslims using an Islamic framework, and are basically in survival mode always mindful

not to offend Muslim sensitivities. The twentieth century scholars, on the other hand are

not living in a Muslim environment, and thus take the liberty to present Christology not

in Western terms but in a global perspective even criticizing the Islamic denial of

Christian truth if needed. The ninth century period offered a context of dialogue, the

twentieth century period lays down the future prospects for dialogue.

The book, A Muslim and A Christian in Dialogue, by Badru Kateregga and David

Shenk, is a good resource material for newcomers to Muslim-Christian relations.

27
Basically, it covers twelve major topics such as sacred text, the nature of God, the church

or community, the role of the prophets, the centrality of Jesus Christ in Christianity and

Muhammad in Islam, worship, and ethics. The book is written by a faithful Muslim and

Christian respectively. It is not merely a rehash of old issues in Muslim-Christian

dialogue or an attempt to discredit the other religion. It presents briefly the fundamental

beliefs of both religions. After the presentation of each topic, the dialogue partner gives a

response to affirm the value and meaning of the idea, not to criticise it. The book offers

nothing new to the ever widening Muslim-Christian dialogue. What it offers however is

not merely an academic contribution. It also provides a ground for irenic dialogue.

Ultimately, dialogue is the process and the goal of all endeavours aiming at mutuality

because “dialogue in witness between Muslims and Christians is serious […] The issues

are profound. They are about the basic question of the human situation. This means that

in the hearing and the giving of the witness in dialogue there is pain. Perhaps we

mutually fear the pain. Perhaps that is one reason Muslims and Christians seldom speak

with one another concerning faith.”28 Indeed, dialogue is about meaningful and insightful

sharing of faith with the other.

In his book, Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future, Ovey

Mohammed briefly outlines the history, theology, and the future of Christian-Muslim

dialogue. In the second part of his book, the author evaluates the validity of Christianity

and Islam according to their respective sacred texts. He begins his inquiry starting with

Abraham and the role Abraham played regarding the understanding of Abrahamic

28
Badru Kateregga and David Shenk, A Muslim and A Christian in Dialogue (Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 1997), 18.

28
Religions. Glaring misappropriation and Christian polemics against Islam and Muslims

dominant during the medieval period made a negative impact on Christian consciousness

especially in Europe. During the 20th and 21st centuries Christians as a whole have

become more appreciative of Islam as they began to acknowledge the truths of the Qur’an

and the prophethood of Muhammad.

29
 CHAPTER II

JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

A. INTRODUCTION: THE WORD OF GOD HAS BECOME FLESH

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God […] And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his

glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:1, 14). This

passage is a bold proclamation used to support the theology of the Incarnation. The Word

of God comes from the Father, becomes flesh and is the only Father’s Son. The text just

quoted is nowhere to be found as the ipsissima verba in the Gospel of Matthew, but it is

worth noting because it gives us already a glimpse of what the Christian faith says about

Jesus. The scriptures which give us a view and understanding about Jesus are always

considered of primary importance. “It is common knowledge that among all the

Scriptures […] the Gospels have a special pre-eminence, and rightly so, for they are the

principal witness for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour.”29 The four

Gospel accounts therefore are the core and heart of the scriptures. They provide us with a

multi-dimensional view of Jesus’ life which can nurture our faith and personal

relationship with Him.30 It is imperative that in understanding Jesus’ life and ministry,

and in trying to bring out the truths of our faith, we must always start with the Gospel

accounts. As pointed out by the researcher in the introduction, the author wants to make a

29
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (Pasay City: Paulines Publishing House, 1998),
no. 18.
30
Ian Knox, Theology for Teachers (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2003), 130.

30
comparative study of the Matthean Jesus and the Qur’anic Jesus. This does not mean that

the researcher intentionally ignores the three other Gospel accounts.

Dei Verbum states the wonderful event when God made it happen that his

revelation be understood in human language:

In Sacred Scripture […] the marvellous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is

clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words
cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with
thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” For the words, expressed in
human language, have been made like a human discourse, just as the Word of
eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in
every way made like men.31

The Sacred Scripture is not just a single work or a book divided in chapters and verses. It

is a collection of forty-five Old Testament books and twenty-seven New Testament

writings.32 The dawn of the twentieth century signalled a new development in biblical

interpretation. The church started to make use of scientific methods, which for a long

time were rejected, in order to present a fuller meaning of the Sacred Scripture. The

encyclicals Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII (1893) and Divino Afflante Spiritu

of Pope Pius XII (1943) are landmarks in the shift of biblical interpretation before the

Second Vatican Council. A recent Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Benedict

XVI, Verbum Domini (2009), reiterates the teachings of Dei Verbum and the findings of

the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1994).

The Roman Catholic Church has come up with two notable and authoritative

documents to be considered in interpreting the Bible. The Second Vatican Council issued

a Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. It lays down what revelation is and how

God handed it down. The official document stresses the divine inspiration of the Sacred
31
Dei Verbum, no. 13.
32
This is the Roman Catholic canon.

31
Scripture. The twenty-six-paragraph document summarizes the history of salvation

starting with creation and how God fulfilled his promise of salvation through the

prophets. “Christ himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips.”33 But “since

God speaks in Sacred Scriptures through men in human fashion, the interpreter of the

Sacred Scripture […] should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really

intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.”34 The dogmatic

constitution urges the faithful “to search out the intention of the sacred writers […] For

truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical,

prophetic, poetic, as of other forms of discourse.”35 Hence, the necessity for biblical

exegesis in order to properly interpret the Word of God made manifest in human words.

It is to this challenge that the Pontifical Biblical Commission responded by

issuing a document entitled Interpretation of the Bible of the Church. Heavily indebted to

the fundamentals of Dei Verbum, the document stresses the necessity of the historical-

critical method, and the use of other methods for biblical exegesis, in bringing out the

meaning of the words we read in the scripture. The document briefly outlines four

important points: a brief examination of various methods and approaches, an examination

of certain questions of a hermeneutical nature, characteristic of a Catholic interpretation

of the Bible, the relationship of the Bible with other theological disciplines, and the place

of interpretation of the Bible in the life of the Church.

We can see how the church wants to appreciate the Sacred Scripture as outlined

by these two documents. The Sacred Scripture is not merely a material to be studied and

33
Dei Verbum, no. 7.
34
Ibid., no. 12.
35
Ibid.

32
dissected. It is the word of God that is the spiritual nourishment of the community. The

documents stress the need to study the Bible using contemporary methods so that its true

meaning may be known and made relevant to the Christian community. It is worth

stressing that the Bible

does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written
testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human
history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions, the message of the
Bible is solidly grounded in history. It follows that the biblical writings cannot be
correctly understood without an examination of the historical circumstances that
shaped them.36

The church firmly believes in the unity of the Scriptures. It recognizes the innate and

strong bond that exists between the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament does

not abolish the Old one. Rather, it fulfils what God has promised in the Old. “God, the

inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be

hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.”37 It becomes clearer now

how God made Himself present and active in the history, and how the wisdom of God

can be understood in the continuity of the Old and the New Testaments. This continuity,

however, does not mean that everything is in place or in accordance with what has been

expected in the Old. It does not mean likewise that the Old and the New Testaments talk

of the same themes and theologies. The Old and the New in fact vary significantly in

terms of legal provisions as the New rendered some of the provisions in the Old

irrelevant in true worship and spiritual growth. The New has perfected the Law of the

Old. This discontinuity does not mean a setback in the unity of the Scriptures. The New

Testament does not only make known the mysteries of God in the Old, it also makes a
36
Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,”
Origins: CNS Documentary Service 23, 29 (January 1994): 524.
37
Dei Verbum, no. 16.

33
progression – a shift of understanding in the whole process of God’s revelation.38 The

New Testament records the most tangible self-communication of God to people in Jesus.

The letter to the Hebrews 1:1-2 asserts: “In times past, God spoke in partial and various

ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a

son.” The New Testament cannot be read intelligibly outside or without the Old. It serves

as a context wherein the New can be understood properly. Since the role of the Old

Testament in the New Testament is immense, it can be said that the Old strengthens the

Messianic prophesy of the New Testament. It is therefore a necessity to treat and read the

Old and the New as one corpus of material, as one history of God’s salvific act, and as

one record of God’s revelation. The name of the two Testaments is a misnomer because

what they really talk about are covenants. The New presupposes that there has been a

prior covenant, and the New fulfils, renews, and perfects the Old. In this sense, we should

not see the Christian Bible as two separate corpuses of materials because both the Old

and the New simply talk of one, continuous self-communication of God starting from

creation, through the prophets of Old, fulfilled in Jesus, and continuously discerned by

Jesus’ disciples, and the church thereafter, led by the Spirit.

In its fervent appreciation and endearment of the Sacred Scriptures, the church

has critically investigated the formation and composition of the various writings of the

Bible. The intent is not just to dissect it, but to understand properly its latent meaning.

The canon of the Old Testament is based on the Septuagint, known as the first Greek

translation of the Hebrew Bible. In reading the New Testament, we often find scriptural

38
Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the
Christian Bible (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 2002), nos. 64-5.

34
references by Jesus39 or by the writers. It must be pointed out that the scriptures of Jesus

and of the early Christian communities, is the Hebrew Bible. Since more and more

Gentiles were converted to Christianity before the end of the first century, the Greek

translation became prominent as the Greek-speaking Christians surpassed the number of

the Jewish Christians. The Old Testament was the product of hundreds of years of

reduction and collective memory of the Jewish people as it was passed down from

generation to generation. The Old Testament writings were read in the worship

gatherings of early Christian communities, and it is safe to say that “there were no

authoritative Christian texts in the early second century, and the only texts reckoned to be

binding on the Christian community were the OT Scriptures.”40 How then were the early

Christians able to preserve the Jesus-event when they were using the Hebrew Bible

Scriptures? Oral tradition played an important role in the transmission of the Jesus-event.

The delay of the Parousia too added to the necessity to write down what had been

transmitted orally in order to lay down the truths about Jesus, his words and deeds, and to

dispute and pre-empt occurrences of heresy and corruption, and to set forth the standard

for Christian living.41

But how did the New Testament canon come to be, and what were the criteria

used for including particular texts? Obviously, Jesus did not write any book, and it is

most probable also that he did not urge his disciples to write his biography. What we

know today, aside from Christian materials, is what other writers wrote about Jesus. To

39
Jesus cites passages from 23 books of the Hebrew Bible. See Lee M. McDonald, The
Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 2007), 193.
40
Ibid., 248.
41
Ibid., 246-53.

35
be mentioned are Flavius Josephus, a Jew, and Tacitus, a Roman. It is therefore worth

asking what criteria did the Christian communities use to establish the canon, considering

that enormous materials, Christian and non-Christian alike, started to appear written

under the name of an authoritative figure. Particular churches must have had their own

criteria with regard to the use of written materials about Jesus. But some criteria were

considered important.42 First, apostolicity of the written material must be established as it

gives an immediate sense that it records the faith received by Jesus’ disciples and that it

was passed down untarnished. Secondly, orthodoxy plays a major role in the

development of the New Testament canon. It simply evaluates if the context of the

materials is also in line with what has been transmitted orally. Another criterion is

antiquity. The church excluded those writings it believed were written after the time of

the apostolic ministry. They therefore put weight on those documents believed to be old

as they appear to be more reliable, acceptable, and credible. Another one is the usage of

the material and its catholicity. Communities have their respective preferences for

documents to be used in their churches, and those documents widely used by different

churches must have made it to the canon by virtue of their wider acceptance. The fifth

criterion is about adaptability. Writings which tell a story of hope during a desperate

situation were also preferred as they could give meaning and hope to Christians living in

difficult situations. Another important criterion used by ancient Christian churches is

inspiration. There was no doubt in the mind of Christians that the Scripture was written

under the inspiration of God. God willed that His words be captured by these writers and

written down in their own terms.

42
Ibid., 401-20.

36
 These criteria were not absolute as some particular churches had their own

criteria. Only the historical circumstances of the time can explain the gradual formation

of the New Testament canon during the third and forth centuries. What we can clearly

discern however is the different stages of the New Testament canon formation. First,

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God – a kingdom of justice, love, peace, equality, and

fulfilment. Second, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the disciples preached Jesus. They

believed that, indeed, he is the Messiah prophesied by the prophets of old and the full

realization of God’s kingdom will happen at the Parousia. Third, as apostolic witness

started to pass away, the words of the preacher who preached God’s kingdom were

written down to safeguard the truth about Jesus.43

What we have tried to do in this section so far is to lay down some important

considerations in biblical interpretation. Not all details were covered but our intention

here is simply to establish relationships of testaments, a magisterial note on hermeneutics,

and a brief historical account of the New Testament. To end this section I would like to

quote McDonald: “The Bible is not a collection of writings that simply deposits the

revelation of God into loosely connected texts, but rather it sets forth a story in which the

revelation of God unfolds historically and is proclaimed and explained.”44

The Gospel of Matthew has been treated with special status by early Christians.

The fact that it is the first in the New Testament canon already shows its importance in

the life of Christians. It bears the name of an apostle which added prestige and

apostolicity in its acceptance. The fact that it contains accounts that cannot be found in

43
Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the
Gospels,” Theological Studies 25, 3 (December 1964): 404-5.
44
McDonald, 253.

37
other Gospels put a stamp of authority on it.45 With the advent of modern exegesis,

scholars are more convinced now that the Gospel of Matthew, though independent in its

own right, depends a lot on other sources in its construction. Its authorship has been

doubted but not that is the work of an eyewitness of the Jesus event. The author of the

Gospel has basically copied most of the Markan account and combines some sayings of

Jesus. This is what scholars would call the “Q” source, and is common with Luke. But it

has accounts which can be found only in Matthew and not in other Gospel accounts, the

so-called “M” material.46 With regard to who is the real author, the debate still continues.

Is it the apostle Matthew mentioned in the gospel, the tax collector? Is it possible that

someone else wrote it and made use of Matthew’s name? Is it a product of collaborative

effort? A positive answer to the first question has been ruled out already because an

eyewitness need not copy another gospel account for that matter. The second possibility

is most probable, and a yes answer to the third question is not supported by the majority

of scholars. Since the gospel of Matthew is thought to have been written after the Gospel

of Mark, the most probable date of its composition is between 80-90 A.D.47 as scholars

would put the composition of Mark’s Gospel after Peter’s death ca. 64-7 A.D.48 The

place of composition is not well established but many scholars would favour the idea that

it was written outside Palestine, probably in Syria, near Jamnia, though Matthew’s
45
Benedict Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary Student Edition, ed. Raymund Brown, et. al., (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1993), 630.
46
Ibid.
47
Benedict Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary Student Edition, ed. Raymund Brown, et. al(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993), 630.
48
Daniel Harrington, “The Gospel According to Mark,” in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary Student Edition,ed. Raymund Brown, et. al (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993), 596.

38
community cannot be determined with accuracy.49 What can be deduced from the Gospel

however is its Jewish-Christian outlook and reaction to the Judaism formed in Jamnia

after the destruction of the Temple. It can be said therefore that Matthew wrote his gospel

version having in mind Jewish-Christian believers as his intended recipients. The tension

between Jesus and the Scribes and the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew refers to the

tension between the Jewish Christians and the newly founded Rabbinic Judaism during

that time. Harrington suggests that Matthew’s community had to distance itself from the

Jewish insurgency, and blame Jewish leaders and crowd for Jesus’ death. Matthew also

points out that the Kingdom of Heaven is an other-wordly kingdom that does not threaten

the Romans, and that the Jesus of Nazareth they crucified is the answer to all Jewish

problems of the time.50

In attempting to elucidate how the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus, we will

depend much on the method of narrative criticism. What it means in this study is that in

reading Matthew’s Gospel we will consider it as a finished product and we will also

consider the Gospel as one narrative or story in its own terms.51 The researcher will also

take note of the findings of other methods as a supplementary to this study. If the Gospel

of Matthew is a narrative, then just like other narratives, it has two parts: the story and the

discourse.52 The story has three stages of development: the story of Jesus’ life with a

beginning, middle, and end. The story part of the gospel then tells us about Jesus’ birth,

49
Peter F. Ellis, Matthew: His Mind and His Message, (Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1974), 6.
50
Daniel J. Harrington, “Why Did Matthew Write a Gospel?” The Bible Today 49, 1
(January-February 2011): 10.
51
Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Matthew (Minnesota: The Liturgical
Press, 1994), 1-3.
52
See Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew As Story (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 1-40.

39
ministry, death, and resurrection. It is basically what is being told about Jesus. The other

part of the narrative is the discourse. The discourse mentions the different means,

techniques, or ordering of the events the author used so that the story becomes more

intelligible to the readers, in this context, the Matthean community.

Scholars do not agree about the structure of the Gospel of Matthew. Some

scholars, like B.W. Bacon, propose that the Gospel’s composition resembles that of the

Pentateuch referring to the five discourses with a preamble and an epilogue before and

after the five discourses. While other scholars, like Jack Dean Kingsbury and Augustine

Stock, propose a threefold structure: the figure of Jesus Messiah, the ministry of Jesus

Messiah to Israel and Israel’s rejection of him, and Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and his

passion and suffering.53 The threefold structure is an attempt to understand the Gospel of

Matthew as a story of the life of Jesus, while the former is an attempt to study the

structure of the text and its function. Since this endeavour makes use of narrative

criticism, the researcher subscribes to the latter proposal, meaning, we will discover the

Jesus of Matthew using the threefold structure.

B. THE STORY OF THE MATTHEAN JESUS

Behold, the angel of the appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph,
son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is
through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a
son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their
sins.” All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophets:
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him
Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” (Matthew 1:20-23)

53
See Stock, 6-9.

40
 Jesus is the main character in the Gospels. Three of the four gospel accounts can

be seen as the biographical account of Jesus’ life. He is known as the Son of God, Son of

Man, New Moses, Messiah or Christ, the Lord, the Incarnate Word of God, Great

Teacher, and Saviour. All these titles have been attributed to Jesus. But in this study we

will dwell on the story of Matthew and his ways to discourse Jesus. Our study will focus

primarily on the personhood of Jesus. Christology, therefore, is our main point of interest

here. The question “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:16) will be our guide question in

this chapter. In other words, who does Matthew say that Jesus is?

In trying to arrive at an answer to this question, we will discuss the most

dominant titles Matthew has attributed to Jesus. For convenience sake, the researcher will

make use of “Matthew” as both the implied author and the narrator of the Gospel.54

Nevertheless, we must also bear in mind that Matthew included to present ideals about

Christian living, and to proclaim the message of salvation. Matthew then wrote a story

about the fulfilment of God’s promises in Jesus, and the realization of the Kingdom in the

words and deeds of Jesus. We can say that the Gospel of Matthew is a theological

account which centers on Jesus. The evangelist acts like a theologian who knows the Old

Testament.55 He shows that in Jesus the prophecies of the prophets are already fulfilled as

shown in the extent of his quotations of the Old Testament. So, though it appears that

Matthew has copied most of his material from Mark, it also makes sense to give credit to

54
See Kingsbury, 30.
55
See Mogens Müller, “The Theological Interpretation of the Figure of Jesus in the
Gospel of Matthew: Some Principal Features in Matthean Christology,” New Testament Studies
45, 2 (1995): 157-8.

41
Matthew who does not duplicate Mark’s account of Jesus. Rather, Matthew presents

Jesus differently. Let us now examine the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew.

B.1. Genealogy of Jesus

The Gospel of Matthew has twenty eight chapters. It is also the longest of the four

gospel accounts in terms of chapters and verses. The first part of the Gospel, the figure of

Jesus the Messiah, runs from chapters 1:1-4:16. It tackles the genealogy of Jesus, the

birth narrative and the visit of the magi, the character of John the Baptist, and Jesus’

baptism and temptation. These are the major themes found in the first part of the Gospel

of Matthew. The gospel begins with the prologue “The book of the genealogy of Jesus

Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” The evangelist Matthew establishes in his

gospel account the identity of Jesus56 as someone who belongs to the family of David and

Abraham. The author presents three sets of fourteen generations from Abraham to

Joseph. Matthew’s employment of the genealogy is his way of presenting Jesus as

somebody who belongs to a group of people with whom God made a covenant. The mere

mention of him as son of Abraham connotes that he belongs to the chosen people and that

the history of Israel starting with Abraham has culminated in Jesus through whom God

will bless all people. The title son of David underlines the fulfilment of God’s promise to

David from whom the King of Israel would come, not as a warrior but as a humble

king.57 Thus, Matthew was able to employ “the genealogy to assert that God has guided

56
Kingsbury, 43.
57
Ibid., 44-5.

42
the whole of Israel’s history so that it might culminate in the birth of “Jesus.”58 The first

verse of the gospel already identifies Jesus as the Christ. Thus, the words Jesus Christ

serve as both a personal name and a title. Here, Christ must be understood in a context of

son of Abraham and son of David. The first verse gives us already a hint about

Matthew’s depiction of Jesus. The evangelist however indicates that Jesus is not fathered

by any human as he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Matthew’s genealogy is also a

pericope about the adaption of Jesus to legitimize that claim that he comes from the line

of David. With this he was able to justify also that indeed Jesus is the realization of God’s

promise of Emmanuel. In other words, Jesus sonship is divine by virtue of the Holy Spirit

and not merely human. The birth narrative of Jesus adds two new categories to the

Matthean presentation: (1) that the child to be born is to be named Jesus because he will

save people from their sins; and (2) he is the Emmanuel, God is with us, an assurance

from God that he will never abandon his people Rather, he will be with them always, and

thus become the visible sign of God’s presence. The visit of the magi from the East poses

a conflict of interest to the rulers of the time. “Where is the newborn King of the Jews?”

is the question asked by the magi. King of the Jews is another perspective of Jesus’

identity presented by Matthew. Somehow, it is an apparent reinforcement of the claim

that Jesus is the son of David from whom will come the king of Israel. The King of the

Jews reference is another claim that the Christ, the Anointed One, has come not to restore

the political aspiration of the nation but to bring justice and salvation to people.59 The

title King of the Jews rattled the Jews of the time. Consequently, God had Joseph, Mary,

58
Ibid., 46.
59
Ibid.

43
and the child take refuge in Egypt until king Herod perished. Only after Herod’s death

were they told to go back so that the prophecy might be fulfilled “out of Egypt I called

my son” (Hos 11:1) – an allusion to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Joseph’s

family returned and settled in Nazareth so that the child will be called a Nazorian,

probably an allusion to Samson, the Nazarite, who was consecrated to God. Likewise,

Jesus will be totally consecrated to God.

We have noticed so far that the Gospel of Matthew has a good number of Old

Testament quotations. As we can see, Matthew presents the birth narrative of Jesus with a

number of scriptural references. His intention is likewise to prove that Jesus Christ is

truly the one foretold by the prophets.

The presence of John the Baptist in the first section is very crucial to describe the

nature of Jesus. He is referred to as the forerunner of the Messiah who will prepare the

way: “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at Hand!” He can be likened to Elijah, as

prophesied by the prophet Malachi, who will come at the end of time to “restore all

things” (Mal 17:10). John and Jesus proclaim the same message and both of them ended

up in the hands of their enemies. Like Elijah, John prepares the way for the coming of the

Messiah, and Jesus is the Messiah who is to come. As the forerunner, John baptizes

people with water and is regarded as a prophet. Jesus’ baptism by John in the river Jordan

is symbolic in two ways: (1) it does not mean that by being baptized, Jesus is in need of

repentance; rather, by insisting that he be baptisized, Jesus “voluntarily identifies himself

with sinful humanity”60; and (2) the baptism of Jesus is the central plot of the first

section, and God acknowledges Jesus by saying “This is my beloved Son, with whom I

60
Ibid., 49.

44
am well pleased” (Mt 3:17). This declaration confirms the person of Jesus in Mt. 1:1 that

indeed Jesus is the Christ or the Messiah. The implied author then is able to establish

categorically that Jesus is the Son of God by virtue that no less than God acknowledges

Jesus to be his beloved Son.

Thus, God declares who Jesus is. The descent of the Spirit during the baptismal

event should not be construed as the only time Jesus received his divine character. It is

rather more of a confirmation of Jesus’ nature: he was conceived by the Spirit and now,

as he begins his ministry, the Spirit descends upon him to empower him to preach God’s

word and love. As God’s beloved son, Jesus represents God on earth, he is Emmanuel.

After receiving the Spirit, Jesus is led to the desert to be tested by the devil. The devil

tests Jesus thrice, and in every temptation, the devil begins by saying “if you are the son

of God…” in an apparent presumption that the devil knows who Jesus is. The devil asks

first Jesus to turn stones into loaves of bread because he must be hungry. Then he brings

him to the pinnacle of the Temple, and asks Jesus to throw himself down knowing that

God will send his angels to rescue him. Lastly, the devil brings him to a high mountain,

shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, and asks him to worship him. In return, Jesus

will have dominion on the earth. Jesus is not tempted by the devil. He is able to show his

fidelity to God when he rejects Satan and his temptations. By incorporating the

temptations of Jesus in this pericope, Matthew establishes that Jesus is a son of Abraham.

Abraham, known as the father of faith because of his uncompromising obedience, is

reflected in Jesus character. Like Abraham, Jesus is firm in his faith in God. Had Jesus

succumbed to the fist temptation, he would serve no one but himself alone. Had Jesus

been persuaded to jump from the pinnacle of the Temple, he would be testing God. Had

45
Jesus worshipped the devil, he would become lustful of material things. Had the devil

been successful in tempting Jesus, the devil would have been able to show that Jesus is

not the Son of God. In the end, the devil concedes that Jesus is truly the Son of God, and

Matthew is successful too in his attempt to portray Jesus as the Son of God.

In Mt 1:1-4:16, the evangelist establishes Jesus’ identity by claiming that Jesus is

the Christ. He is a son of David, the Messiah-King, prophesied by the prophets of old.

The magi attest to this by saying “King of the Jews.” He is also the son of Abraham for

he will be a model of faith and obedience. By claiming that Jesus is son of David, son of

Abraham, Matthew speaks of the culmination of Israel’s salvation-history. In Jesus,

God’s promise is now fulfilled. Matthew also shows that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is

not the son of Joseph although through him Jesus becomes a legitimate son of David. He

is not just a son of Mary though she gave birth to him. Rather, Jesus is the Son of God by

virtue of the Holy Spirit. During Jesus’ baptism God declares that he is his beloved Son

with whom he is pleased. The descent of the Holy Spirit marks the beginning of Jesus’

messianic ministry. Jesus is also tempted by the devil to show Jesus’ faith and obedience

and his being the son of God. The devil’s withdrawal affirms that Jesus belongs to God.

B.2. Ministry of Jesus

The second part of the Matthean Gospel (4:17-16:20) talks about the ministry of

Jesus, and the rejection he suffers at the hands of his own people. The section deals with

Jesus’ preaching, teaching, and healing because he “speaks as the mouthpiece of God

46
(Mt. 7:28-29) and acts as the instrument of God (Mt. 12:28).”61 The ministry of Jesus

takes place in a context of an irreconcilable conflict between him and the Jewish religious

leaders. Jesus’ ministry is received differently by three main groups: the Jewish leaders,

the crowd at large, and his disciples. The crowds are always amazed and hysterical about

what they see and hear from Jesus. Matthew describes them as half-hearted and hollow-

minded people who, though able to see and hear God’s word, remain in ignorance and

darkness despite some confessions that he may be one of the prophets of old like Elijah or

even John resurrected. Jesus conflict with the Jewish leaders highlights the conflict of

understanding with regard to the Mosaic Law. Eventually, the conflict becomes a conflict

of interest too as the Jewish religious leaders move to get rid of him. Jesus accuses the

Jewish leaders of hypocrisy (Mt. 6:1-18) while the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of

blasphemy (Mt. 9:3-4), being unclean (Mt. 9:10-14) and not observing Jewish customs,

and conniving with demons (Mt. 9:32-34). On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples see Jesus

as the “Messiah, son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16). In their confession, Jesus’ identity is

revealed but Israel remains ignorant about him. The preaching of Jesus focuses on the

Kingdom of Heaven62 (Mt. 4:17). Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

This is the same message which is proclaimed by John, and later on, by the post-Easter

disciples. The imminent already-but-not-yet coming of the Kingdom is the good news of

salvation. The expression Kingdom of Heaven emphasizes the rule of God,63 a kingdom

where justice, peace, and equality prevail. This understanding of the Kingdom is

61
Ibid., 49.
62
The Kingdom of Heaven is synonymous with Kingdom of God. Heaven is a reverential
synonym for God.
63
Kingsbury, 58-9.

47
consistent with Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as Emmanuel. Thus, the Kingdom of

Heaven is the fulfilment of the Matthean “God-is-with-us” theology. Jesus, being the

“God-is-with-us,” is the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Matthean

understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven has three dimensions: the salvation-historical,

the cosmic, and the existential.64 The salvation-historical dimension speaks of the

present-future, spatial-temporal nature of the Kingdom. God’s rule is already at work in

Jesus but its total consummation will be in the end of time. Therefore, salvation-history is

not just about fulfilment of God’s promises but also an eschatological reality. The cosmic

dimension of the Kingdom speaks about the early beginnings of Jesus’ ministry that is

ever growing: from the ministry to Israel to the ministry to the whole world. Jesus

parables about the mustard seed (Mt. 13:31-32), the leaven (Mt. 13:33), and the net (Mt.

13:47-50) best illustrate the idea of the growth of the Kingdom from small undertaking to

encompassing the entire world. And the third dimension is existential or personal. Jesus

asks people to repent and change their ways because the coming of the Kingdom is a

personal experience of God that calls forth conversion and decision for a new life. Jesus

teaching emphasizes “utter devotion to God and radical love of neighbour (Mt. 5:48;

22:37-40).”65 Because of this kind of teaching, he is considered by his contemporaries “a

threat to the continued existence of Jewish society, for he places himself above law and

tradition.”66

Jesus teaching focuses on righteousness, the interpretation of the Law of Moses,

and the will of God in general. Jesus urges the people to repent so they may enter or

64
Ibid., 60-4.
65
Ibid., 65.
66
Ibid.

48
welcome the kingdom of Heaven with purity and fidelity. Jesus’ teachings will always be

questioned by Jewish leaders because he speaks with certainty and authority as well.

Though he is depicted as a devout Jew, his ways of teaching speak otherwise. It is no

surprise that Jewish leaders hate him as it appears that his interpretation of the Law of

Moses is so radical that he tends to overrule or ignore some Jewish practices and tradition

as a whole, for example, the Sabbath Law (Mt. 12:7) and ritual cleansing (Mt. 9:10-13).

Jesus speaking with authority shocks Pharisees and Sadducees alike. In some instances

we read Jesus says “for God says” (Mt. 15:4) and not “for Moses said,” “have you not

read what was said to you by God” (Mt. 22:31), “heaven and earth shall pass away, but

my words shall not pass away” (Mt. 24:35), and “all that I have commanded you” (Mt.

28:20). Careful reading suggests that these formulations connote authority. Jesus, as

teacher, is perceived differently by his disciples and the leaders. His being a teacher is

connected with his being the Messiah (Mt. 23:8-10). His disciples do not address him as

teacher but lord, and it is an address uttered with faith conviction that Jesus’ teachings are

of divine origin. On the other hand, the Jewish leaders address him as a teacher or rabbi,

titles signifying respect and nothing more. Though Jesus admonishes the Jewish leaders

and warns his disciples regarding their teachings, on one occasion Jesus approves them,

and urges his disciples to observe and practice what they teach because they sit on

Moses’ seat (Mt.23:2-3).

For Jesus, to be righteous does not only mean keeping the Law of Moses, it also

entails to live according to the highest ethical standard. More than righteousness, the

central theme of Jesus teaching is love. He summarizes the Law of Moses in terms of

love: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and

49
with all your mind” (Mt. 22:37-38)67 and “You shall love your neighbour as you love

yourself” (Mt. 22:39).68 In interpreting the Law of Moses, Jesus teaches his disciples to

go beyond the letter of the Law, and discern the spirit or the will of God hidden in the

text of the Law. To love God implies total surrender, fidelity, and sacrifice. To love your

neighbour is to treat them as you would like to treat yourself. The golden rule (Mt. 7:12)

best explains the love of neighbour. In the Sermon on the Mount or the Beatitudes, Jesus

teaches his disciples how it is to be children of God and how to enter the Kingdom of

Heaven. The glaring difference between Jesus teaching and that of the Jewish leaders is a

difference about interpretation of the Law. For Jesus, the Law is a Law of God, and it is

all about the Kingdom of Heaven, a kingdom where justice, faithfulness, and equality

abound. Love is the essence of the Kingdom of Heaven. To do the will of God is to love

God, and to love your neighbour as one’s self.

It is in this perspective that we must see the relevance of Jesus’ miracles and

healing. Jesus wants to make manifest how it is in the Kingdom of Heaven: no more

diseases, no more suffering and pain, no inequality and oppression. The Kingdom of

Heaven is a kingdom that surpasses human ingenuity and law. It is rather a kingdom

rooted in the love of God, a kingdom of fulfilment and totality. However, most Jews of

his time see these miracles and healings as mere magic or they say that he is in

connivance with demonic forces. The disconnection happens primarily because of the

difference in conceptual framework. Most Jews, especially the religious leaders, consider

the Kingdom of Heaven primarily as material. On the other hand, Jesus’ Kingdom of

67
See Deuteronomy 6:5.
68
See Leviticus 19:18.

50
Heaven is not only a material but also a spiritual reality. Whereas most Jews focus their

belief on the political nature of the Kingdom of Heaven to effect change and fulfilment of

God’s promise, Jesus’ kingdom teaches them the moral exigency as well.

B.3. Passion Narrative: Suffering, Death, and Resurrection

Jesus’ passion and suffering constitutes the third and last part of the narrative.

Jesus’ imminent death confronts his disciples with a contradiction: how can the Son of

God ever suffer at the hands of his enemies? The suffering servant idea is somewhat

farfetched to the extent that Peter who professed Jesus as the Son of the living God, is

eventually reprimanded by Jesus associating him with Satan (Mt. 16:23) The

transfiguration event in Chapter 17 reiterates the baptismal claim that Jesus is the Son of

God: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I take delight; hear him!” (Mt. 17:5). Jesus entry

into Jerusalem is a narrative fulfilment of the Old Testament too. He enters Jerusalem

riding on a donkey as a servant in all humility and not as a military figure with an army.69

People pay him homage by spreading cloths on the way and waiving branches befitting a

king70 while singing the Hosanna.71 The Davidic Messiah-King title has been loaded with

meaning and irony in the third part of the Gospel. People welcome their king, and Jesus,

King of the Jews, triumphantly enters the city. At the same time, the King of the Jews

will be handed over to die a gruesome death in humiliation and mockery. Jesus knows

what awaits him. He predicts his arrest and death (Mt. 26:1-2), and so he prepares his

disciples for his fate. Before reporting Jesus’ death, Matthew describes “the culpability of

69
See Zech. 9:1
70
See 2 Kings 9:13
71
See Psalm 118:25-26

51
the Jewish leaders for Jesus’ death, the unreadiness of the disciples to master the events

that lie before them, and the inability of Judas to foresee the true nature of the act he is

committing in agreeing to betray Jesus for gain.”72

Jesus is tried for blasphemy. The first accusation levelled against him by two men

citing an occasion when Jesus told the people to destroy the temple, and that he will raise

it in three days. To this accusation Jesus is silent. The high priest then asks Jesus: “By the

living God I charge you to tell us: are you the Messiah, the Son of the living God?” (Mt.

26:63). To this question Jesus replies: “The words are yours. But I tell you this: from now

on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty ad coming on the

clouds of heaven” (Mt. 26:64). Due to non-affirmation and non-denial of the question

posed by the high priest Jesus was convicted of blasphemy and is sentenced to die.

Kingsbury comments: “The irony is that in condemning Jesus to death for blaspheming

God, they are effectively disavowing God’s ‘thinking’ and demonstrating that they have

in no wise penetrated the secret that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.”73

The Sanhedrin heads for the Praetorium of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate to

present Jesus to be sentenced to death. Pilate investigates Jesus by asking his defense to

the accusation that he is the king of the Jews. After a while, Pilate is convinced of Jesus

innocence and intends to set him free but yields to the demand of the crowd to crucify

him. Not eager to be involved, Pilate washes his hands in public signifying his innocence

in the death of the man. The charge of blasphemy, after all, is a religious offense and not

a political one. As to the charge that he is the King of the Jews, Pilate brushes it off for

72
Kingsbury, 86.
73
Ibid., 88.

52
lack of proof. We have to note also that Matthew made the crowd shout: “His blood be on

us and on our children.” It signifies that the crowd that participates in the condemnation

of Jesus is the one responsible for the death of Jesus. Pilate also becomes part of God’s

plan of salvation for doing nothing to stop the death of Jesus and for yielding to the

wishes of the crowd. In plain reading, Pilate’s role is merely trying to avoid the

possibility of a riot if he frees Jesus. Jesus is crucified. The traitor, feeling guilty of what

he has done, returns the money he has received for betraying Jesus, and he commits

suicide. A disciple named Joseph of Arimathea buries the body of Jesus, but most of his

disciples are shattered. The chief priests secure the tomb where Jesus is buried after

having received permission from Pilate because they remember that Jesus has said that

after three days he will be raised again. Eventually, the resurrection event happens on the

first day of the week. The chief priests bribe the guards to claim that Jesus’ disciples stole

his body to make it appear that he has resurrected. The bribing of the guards is another

element Matthew mentions and is not found in Mark and Luke. This sets aside the idea

that the tomb is empty because his disciples have stolen it. While all gospels make

mention of the risen Jesus, Matthew’s resurrection account differs from other gospel

accounts. The resurrection narrative of Matthew can be found in chapter 27 with three

pericopes: the empty tomb, Jesus’ appearance to the women, and the bribing of the

guards. Can the empty tomb be a definitive proof that Jesus has resurrected? The

following quote summarizes well the relationship of the empty tomb and the resurrection

of Jesus:

The discovery of the empty tomb is not absolutely essential to the bare minimum of
Christian faith (it is not mentioned in the creeds or early kerygma, e.g., 1 Cor 15: 3-5),
but it is an external support for that faith. In strict logic, empty tomb and resurrection do

53
 not entail each other: Jesus could have risen and the corpse be in the tomb; Jesus could
have not risen and the tomb be empty (the corpse could have been stolen). But they fit
together well and are inserted by the evangelists.74

The risen Jesus appears to his disciples and tells them to go to Galilee where he will meet

them. There in Galilee Jesus commissions them with his parting words: “Full authority in

heaven and on earth have been committed to me. Go therefore to all nations and make

them my disciples, baptise them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the

Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. I will be with you

always to the end of time” (Mt. 28:18-20). Keerankeri explains that, though Jesus

exercises authority in his public ministry, in his death and resurrection his Father in

heaven has given him full authority not only on the earth but in heaven also emphasized

by the repeated usage of “all”: all authority, all nations, all I commanded, all days. 75

The Great Commissioning implies that Jesus is giving his disciples full authority

in their missionary task. The three-fold missionary task of the disciples is to (1) make

disciples; (2) baptize people using the Trinitarian formula; and (3) teaching them all Jesus

has taught them in his ministry. This great commissioning is be loaded with so many

interpretations. What we can immediately deduce is that (1) Jesus’ message of salvation

and the Kingdom is not only for the Jewish people but has been given to all nations also;

and (2) the disciples are to establish a community of believers immersed in the life and

love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This great commissioning explicitly stresses the

universal character of Jesus’ message. This is indeed the good news.

Benedict Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” 673.

74

See George Keerankeri, “God’s Victory over Death and the Turning point of History:
75

The Resurrection of Jesus in Matthew,” Vidyajyoti 69 (2005), 850-1.

54
 The ascension account, present in other gospel accounts is not found in Matthew. His

narrative and theology is God-is-with-us: he will be with his followers until the end of

time. Matthew’s resurrection account is not in need of the Ascension because his is a

theology of immanence. For Matthew, Jesus’ birth is an Emmanuel. If indeed Matthew’s

Christology is theocentric, then Matthew is able to deliver the message he wants to

convey: The Kingdom of God is at hand; what God has promised to the prophets of old

has been fulfilled in Jesus, and he is vindicated and glorified by his Father.

C. JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION

Crucifixion is a Roman capital punishment especially meted out to erring slaves,

rebels, and hardened criminals, normally, non-Romans. The fact that Jesus was crucified

by the Romans may imply that they considered him a nuisance or even a threat to be

eliminated. The narrative says that he was accused of blasphemy, which is a religious

offense. But why would his fellow Jews single him out and hand him over to the

Romans? Are there also political motives? If this religious offense has a political

dimension, it is “exactly because of his religious message, he was a threat to the political

power of Israel’s rulers. Hence we can hardly depoliticize Jesus’ death and insist that he

was only condemned for religious reasons.”76 However, if we understand the crucifixion

only as a punishment for a religious and political offense, we will surely miss the point of

the Matthean narrative. Jesus’ crucifixion is not for naught, it is part of the whole drama

in the narrative and theology of Matthew to disclose who Jesus is, and in Jesus who God

76
Jose de Mesa and Lode Wostyn, Doing Christology: The Re-Appropriation of a
Tradition (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2005), 187.

55
is. We can now claim that the crucifixion is connected to the event of the resurrection.

But how do we understand the resurrection?

The resurrection is central to the Christian faith. All four gospel accounts have

resurrection narratives,77which entails significance and centrality to the narrative and

theology espoused by the evangelists. Though the presentation may vary, the

proclamation is one: Jesus is risen from the dead. But how does Jesus’ case differ from

other cases in the New Testament like the resuscitation of Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, or

the son of the widow of Nain? How come Jesus’ case is called resurrection while other

cases are referred to as resuscitation or restoration to life? What makes the difference?

The New Testament accounts imply bodily resurrection (resurrection of the body)

because the disciples were able to verify it: he eats with them (Lk 24: 41-43), and the

disciples are able to touch his wounds (Lk 24:39; Jn 20: 24-28). Although Matthew does

not have this in his narrative, it draws our attention to what kind of event has transpired

before the disciples. Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, and the son of the widow of Nain were

resuscitated, and will eventually die.

The resurrection of Jesus is a definitive act God has shown to people that he is

indeed a living and almighty God. It is a glorious event, a triumph, a vindication for

Jesus. It is the ultimate point Jesus makes to people. The resurrection event must be seen

in line with the Emmanuel and the Kingdom of God. In resurrecting Jesus, God was able

to show that He is with his people and not even in death will he abandon them, and that

the Kingdom of Heaven is a state where darkness and death do not exist. But how must

we understand resurrection? Is it a historical event or a kerygmatic event? Is it an

77
See Mt. 28: 1-10; Mk. 16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-12; Jn. 20: 1-10.

56
objective or subjective reality? Biblical scholars and theologians do not have a unified

stand on this issue. While Jesus’ death on the cross can be established as a historical fact,

his resurrection must be seen beyond what facts can offer. The empty tomb and the

angelic appearance to the first witnesses of the resurrection will fail to prove that truly

Jesus has risen.

There are two extreme trends or schools of thought that have dominated Christian

theology on the resurrection: naïve realism or empirical objectivism and subjectivistic

reduction.78 Naïve realism or empirical objectivism espouses the idea that Jesus

resurrection is the greatest miracle, ultimately proves that he is God, and teaches his

disciples that they too will rise from the dead. The most common imagery for this

interpretation is that Jesus was resuscitated, and the proofs are the apparitions and the

empty tomb. On the other hand, subjective reduction argues that the resurrection is a

symbolic expression of the disciples’ belief that transforms them into new persons who

find a meaningful existence in Jesus. The common imagery that we can have for this

interpretation is that Jesus is alive in each one of us and does not necessarily mean he was

risen bodily. If we will simply choose between these two trends of understanding we

might fall short in appreciating the Matthean narrative because we cannot be purely

objective or purely subjective. Rather, we must read Jesus’ resurrection in the light of

faith and revelation.79 If we want to tread the middle path of these two trends, then Paul

has something to say about it. Paul emphasizes personal transformation as he draws a

connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead (1Cor

78
See De Mesa and Wostyn, 194-5.
79
Ibid., 196.

57
15:12). The perishable, the weak, and the mortal dies while the glorious, the

imperishable, and the immortal rises. “It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual

body” (1Cor 15:44). Paul suggests that it is no longer a question whether Jesus was raised

with a body or not. Peter, the disciples, other witnesses, and finally Paul “see” Jesus – a

transformed Jesus. Indeed, the event of the resurrection made Jesus’ disciples tremble in

fascination. The reality of the resurrection that they have experienced is so unique that

they are not able to put it into words. Language cannot fully express this newly found

meaning in Jesus. The narrative that we have cannot adequately express that reality

because “every single shred of evidence about this unique event would indicate that the

disciples were claiming to have seen the body of Jesus that had been crucified and had

lain in the tomb […] On the other hand, there is a reiteration in the NT that the risen Jesus

was different (in another form – Mk 16:12) and somewhat unrecognizable (Lk 24:16; Jn

20:14; 21:4).”80

Faith in Jesus as God’s agent of revelation enables the disciples to see that Jesus’

resurrection is an Easter experience, an event of conversion and renewed existence. The

proclamation “Jesus is alive!” is an “eschatological event that transforms the disciple’s

memory of the historical Jesus into a transfigured memory full of new and in-depth

significance.”81

80
Raymund Brown and David Stanley, “Aspects of New Testament Thought,” in The
Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymund Brown, et. al, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968): 792.
81
Keerankeri, 845.

58
D. MATTHEAN CHRISTOLOGY: JESUS, THE SON OF GOD, THE

MESSIAH-KING

Matthew’s narrative is best understood if we read in its entirety. While there have

been a lot of discussions among Matthean scholars if Matthew’s narrative is

Christological per se (e.g. Kingsbury) or merely a part of the narrative (e.g. Perkins and

Fuller), it is of utmost importance to understand Matthew’s own narrative Christology. In

this particular section, the researcher aims to shed light on the question: Who does

Matthew say that Jesus is? One way to understand the Jesus of Matthew is to survey the

different titles Matthew uses to portray Jesus. By doing so, we will be able to see

Matthew’s Christology. The study of Christology is central to the understanding of Jesus’

identity, and of Christian theology in general. It is therefore an imperative topic to talk

about, and to know how varied the methods used today are in recent New Testament

studies, and how Matthean scholars have gone about in interpreting Matthew’s

Christology. Let us start our survey of Matthean christological titles with the synthesis of

Felix Just:

The Gospel according to Matthew accepts and uses the main Christological titles
found already in his main narrative source (Mark's Gospel), including
Christ/Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, Rabbi, and Teacher. But in contrast to
Mark, Matthew adds several new titles and emphasizes certain aspects of Jesus'
identity differently from Mark. Matthew's Gospel begins by identifying Jesus as
"the son of David, the son of Abraham" (1:1), thus indicating Jesus'
Davidic/royal and Abrahamic/Jewish heritage, respectively. Throughout
Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is also presented as "the New Moses" for the people of
Israel, and is given a variety of other titles, including Emmanuel, Savior, Prophet,
and King of the Jews.82

82
Felix Just, The Gospel according to Matthew: Literary Features & Theological
Emphases(http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Matthew-Themes.htm, March 13, 2012).

59
 Matthew uses a good number of titles for Jesus: Lord (34x), Son of Man (30x),

Christ/Messiah (17x), Son of David (10x), Son of God or my Son (9x), Teacher

(10x)/Rabbi (4x), King (6x), Prophet (4x), The One who is to come (3x), and Son (2x).83

If we base our analysis merely on the number of times these titles appear, we can observe

in the above presentation of Christological titles by Matthew that there is an obvious

preference for royal titles like Lord, Christ/Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man. 84 The

second observation is that Matthew uses numerous titles and attributes. Eugene Boring

explains:

Matthew’s Christology utilizes a plurality of titles, and does not seem to bind
Christological significance to any title….The gospel presents Jesus in numerous
roles, functions and paradigms not bound to any particular title, but indispensable
to Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ identity: new Moses, suffering servant,
divine wisdom, healer, definite interpreter of Scripture, miracle worker, and the
one who saves his people from their sins.85

Matthew’s use of numerous titles to elucidate Jesus’ identity moves scholars to search

which of them all can best picture Jesus. In this survey, let us concentrate on those titles

that occur the most. In his study, Boring has preference for the King-Messiah title, be it

understood eschatologically or temporally, as the most dominating title. For Boring,

Matthew’s Christology is a God-centered theology. Jesus acts in words and deeds in such

a way as to make known the Kingdom of God. The Messiah-King identity of Jesus

speaks more about who God is rather than who Jesus is. Boring puts it plainly when he

writes that “[k]ingship, for Matthew, is a term that ultimately points to God […] The

Messiah is God’s agent, whose kingship comes from and is in the service of God-the-
83
See Eugene M. Boring, “Matthew’s Narrative Christology: Three Stories,”
Interpretation, 64, 4 (October 2010): 357-9.
84
Ibid., 359.
85
Ibid.

60
rightful-king. The Christ is the anointed one, the Anointer86 is God […] Christology is

not oriented to the question, ‘Who is Jesus?’ but ‘Who is God?’”87 However, the royal

titles are understood not in political terms but leading to a Servant Christology.

Kingsbury, a leading Protestant theologian and Matthean scholar, wrote a

monumental study on the Gospel of Matthew. He contends that the title Son of God is the

most significant one, and that the other titles are subordinate to it. His narrative analysis,

a departure from the reductionist method, reveals that, though mentioned nine times (9x)

only, the Son of God is used by Matthew consistently in the structure of his gospel: in

Jesus’ baptism and the devil’s temptation, the transfiguration, Peter’s and the disciple’s

confession, the Roman centurion’s conversion, and the high priest’s doubt before the

Sanhedrin during the trial. Kingsbury also stresses very much the importance of the

baptismal scene (Mt. 3:17) and the transfiguration event (Mt. 17:5) where God declares

Jesus as his beloved Son. From the evaluative point of view of Matthew, this is God

speaking of Jesus. For Kingsbury, Matthew is stating that Jesus is claimed by God as his

own, and nothing can be more categorical than this declaration.

However, Kingsbury’s overemphasis on the title Son of God, though an important

one, has generated a number of reactions from other Matthean scholars. Perkins and

Fuller would portray the Jesus of Matthew as a new Moses or a Moses-like figure. In this

perspective Jesus is seen primarily as a teacher. The birth narrative is similar to that of

Moses. The killing of children by Herod reflects Pharaoh having the Hebrew children

killed. Jesus’ return from Egypt parallels that of Moses’ and Israel’s entry to the

86
The letters ed and er are in Italics in the text.
87
Boring, 367.

61
Promised Land. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount reflects Moses reception of the Torah on

Mt. Sinai, and Jesus’ ten parables in chapters 8-9 correspond to Moses’ ten plagues.88

The five discourses of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), the Missionary

Discourse (Mt. 10:5-11:1), the Parable Discourse (Mt. 13:1-52), the Community

Discourse (Mt. 18:1-35), and the Eschatological Discourse (Mt. 24:1-25:56), display

what kind of teacher Jesus is. The depth of his teachings encompasses questions and

matters pertaining to the Law and ethics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. These five

discourses “enable Matthew to display the wisdom of Jesus in depth and to provide the

most obvious structural marker in his gospel, reminiscent of the five books in the

Torah.”89 Matthew portrays Jesus as a teacher like Moses, or even greater than Moses.

But unlike Moses, Jesus does not only teach people the will of God, he also preaches and

heals people of every disease: “He went around all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,

proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness among the

people” (Mt. 4:23). Jesus is a wise teacher that speaks with authority in all cases.

Sometimes he adheres to the Law of Moses, sometimes he supersedes it. His parables and

pronouncement stories embody wisdom. This propels some scholars to say that Jesus is

the incarnation of wisdom in Matthew. But since the idea of incarnation presupposes pre-

existence, we must be very careful because Matthew does not really develop a theology

of incarnation. The most we can say is that God’s wisdom which is at work in Israel is

now operative in Jesus.90

88
Reginald Fuller and Pheme Perkins, Who is this Christ?: Gospel Christology and
Contemporary Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 84.
89
Harrington, 18.
90
Fuller and Perkins, 85.

62
 The Son of Man91 title is used not less than thirty times (30x). With such a

number of occurrences, it is undeniable that it holds a significant place in the exposition

of Jesus’ identity. If we weigh the number of occurrences this “is the key title in the

Gospel of Matthew.”92 In Matthew, Jesus uses the term to refer to himself (Mt. 16:13),

and unlike the title Son of God which is a confessional title, the Son of Man is a public

title93 or a functional one.94 In the Gospel of Matthew, this title is a self-reference of

Jesus’ conversation with the crowd, his disciples, and his detractors, when he tells his

disciples about his future suffering he is to endure, and the exalted one who will reign

and judge the world in due time. According to Fred Burnett, Kingsbury reasons that this

title “does not identify who Jesus is.”95 Kingsbury argues that this title is a leading title

for the Son of God for Jesus never refers to himself as Son of God directly. He is trying

to say that the title Son of Man does not really hold who Jesus is because this title is more

of a description of Jesus’ eschatological function. Jesus is confronted with several

contestations when he claims that it is subordinate to the Son of God title. John Meier, for

example, emphasizes that the Son of Man title has, in its own right, a significant meaning

indebted to the apocalyptic message of Daniel. David Hill holds that Matthew might have

intended to add another layer of meaning to the Son of God title with the use of Son of

91
Son of Man: The Greek ho huios tou anthropou (son of man) literally means “human
being.” Ezekiel uses the term to designate a human being. In Daniel the term means apocalyptic
deliverer from heaven who will judge the world. Somehow, the New Testament usage of the term
is based on the latter’s sense.
92
Fuller and Perkins, 86.
93
See Jack Dean Kingsbury, Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981), 72.
94
George Keerankeri, “Jesus in Matthew: Christology in the First Gospel,” Vidyajyoti 69
(2005): 932.
95
Fred Burnett, “Characterization and Christology in Matthew: Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew” in Society of Biblical Literature1989 Seminar Papers, ed. David Lull (Atlanta,
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1989), 597.

63
Man typifying the servant nature of Jesus as Son of God96 because it appears that

“Matthew wishes to show Jesus distancing himself from the language and titles used by

immediately appealing (with a strong adversative) to the Son of Man designation and

imagery.”97 In this sense, the Son of Man gives another dimension and meaning to the

Son of God title. While the Son of God title is a confessional title of the believing

disciples, the Son of Man is a function that best describes the ministry of Jesus as the Son

of God. Viviano, however, stresses that, unlike the Gospel of Mark which identifies Jesus

as the Son of God, Matthew’s son of David, son of Abraham, focuses on Jesus’ humanity

and de-centers divinity.98

The four christological titles discussed above are the most dominant in the Gospel

of Matthew. It is significant to note that Matthew’s use of numerous Christological titles

and attributes of Jesus is distinct in the sense that it presents Jesus as a multi-layered

person. If Christology is theocentric, and if Jesus is the manifestation of God on earth,

then, it must lead us to inquire what kind of God Jesus preaches. Reading the gospel, we

will notice two contradictory portrayals of God: the loving God and the punishing God.

These two images of God have an impact on the ethical part of the gospel. Can these two

images of God be at work alongside each other? “Is God capricious – sometimes loving

and forgiving, and sometimes punitive and vindictive?”99 How can we reconcile Jesus’

96
Donald Senior, The Gospel of Matthew (Nashville: Abington Press, 1997), 57.
97
David Hill, “The Figure of Jesus in Matthew’s Story: A Response to Professor
Kingsbury’s Literary-Critical Probe,” JSNT 21: 46, quoted in Burnett, 597.
98
See Benedict Viviano, “God in the Gospel According to Matthew” Interpretation 64, 4
(October 2010): 341-2.
99
Barbara Reid, “Which God Is With Us?,” Interpretation 64, 4 (October 2010): 380.

64
God of boundless graciousness and a harsh and punishing God?100 The Sermon on the

Mount and the parables of the sower, the lost sheep, and the vineyard are some important

teachings of Jesus that elucidate a God who is loving and forgiving. In these instances,

Jesus teaches his disciples to be more righteous or just than the Scribes and the Pharisees,

and to forgive not only neighbours but enemies as well. Jesus’ image of God as Father

best exemplifies the kind of relationship God wants with his children. The Beatitudes in

the Sermon on the Mount set forth the ideal characteristics we must show to other people.

Jesus urges his followers to “be perfect as your Father is perfect.”101 On the other hand,

God is also harsh and punishing. The parables of the weeds and the wheat, the dragnet,

the final judgment, the treacherous tenants, the wedding feast, the faithful servants, and

the talents represent an image of dread and violence. The wicked and the evildoers will

be punished. They will weep and gnash their teeth in darkness. These two images of God

would lie between what theologians call an apophatic and kataphatic theology. The

apophatic or negative position states that we cannot state positively who God is because

he is more than what we can think. The kataphatic or positive position states that we can

positively attribute a characteristic to God by analogy.102

It is interesting to note that most Old Testament themes can be found in Matthew:

(1) the living God as center of faith and revelation; (2) “there is only one who is good”

(Mt. 16:16); (3) the holy, righteous, faithful, and wise God (Mt. 18:14); (4) God takes

100
See ibid., 380-9.
101
Reid notes: “The translation of teleios as “perfect” is unfortunate. The Greek word
connotes not so much moral perfection, which is unattainable, but more the sense of
completeness, maturity, and full development.” Ibid., 382.
102
Viviano, “God in the Gospel,” 343-4.

65
care of his anawim103 and prefers good over evil (Beatitudes).104 These are the

dominating themes in the Gospel of Matthew when it speaks about God. These are the

very themes that dominate the Old Testament theology. Surveying the gospel, there are

two images or titles of God in Matthew: the Father and the Emmanuel. The Emmanuel

should serve as a context in order for us to understand and value Jesus’ God in Matthew.

The God-with-us theme is present in the Infancy narrative (Mt. 1:23) though not in the

prologue as we have seen. Matthew does not have an Ascension narrative because Jesus

will be with his people until the end of time (Mt. 28:20). The lack of an Ascension

narrative is consistent with the earlier Emmanuel theme because Ascension implies

absence. The Emmanuel theme implies that God is present and he will save his people.

Jesus’ teaching, preaching, and healing must be seen in the context of Emmanuel as Jesus

makes known to people who God really is and how he reigns in his Kingdom.

The Father image appears forty times (40x) in the Gospel and in most cases

referred to be in heaven. The title Father for God first appeared in Mt. 5:16 which talks

about good works and giving glory to God. The most number of occurrences is in Mt.

11:25-27 or the cry of Jubilee which talks about the gift of revelation, and in the garden

of Gethsemane (Mt. 26:36-46) where Jesus prays to his Father about his imminent

suffering. These are some passages in Matthew that refer to God as Father. Note also that

in the Baptismal and the Transfiguration scenes the Father is absent because it is the

Father’s moment claiming Jesus as his own son. The devil too recognizes and tests Jesus

whether he is truly the son of God. Jesus’ use of Father as a reference has an ethical

103
They are the poor of Yahweh. It also refers to people who put their complete trust in
God.
104
Viviano, 346-7.

66
dimension. Somehow, Jesus does not only want to show to people that God is actively at

work in their midst, but he wants people to realize that God is like a Father who takes

good care of his children. Jesus somehow underlines that kind of relationship people must

have with God: God is a boundless, gracious Father who forgives sin and saves his

people, not necessarily a punisher and an oblivious God. We can conclude that “the

address to God as Father is most appropriate in moments of worship, prayer, crisis, and

extreme need. Although most appropriate on the lips of Jesus as the Son par

excellence.”105

E. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we have seen how Christians read their scripture. They believe

that it is coming from God and contains divine truths - the word of God- a revelation

from God. The Bible, the sacred scripture of Christians, contains two testaments: the Old

Testament (the testament God has made with his chosen people) and the New Testament

(the fulfilment of God’s promises in the Old Testament in Jesus). Though the Bible is the

word of God, it is primarily seen as a record of God’s revelation. God is the God of

history – salvation history- as he has revealed himself in various ways in the history and

life of his people. We have discovered also that central to the faith of Christians is the

person of Jesus. The life, ministry, and passion of Jesus are contained in the New

Testament of the Christian Bible. Christians are able to see the fulfilment of God’s

promises and the near coming of God’s kingdom in Jesus. The evangelist Matthew is able
105
Ibid., 353.

67
to establish who Jesus is and how Jesus reveals God’s kingdom to the people. Jesus

means God saves. Christ means the anointed one –the anointed who is to come to liberate

God’s people from their oppression and bring them justice. The ministry of Jesus is a

ministry that culminates the Kingdom of God on earth: he teaches, he preaches, and he

heals people.

This prophetic mission of Jesus makes his disciples confess that indeed he is the

Son of God. In his gospel, the evangelist Matthew attributes a number of titles to Jesus in

order to bring out a holistic understanding of him. Jesus is a teacher, a new Moses, a

servant, a prophet, the lord, a king, etc. But Jesus ends up crucified and the hopes and

aspirations of his disciples are shattered. At first glance, it is an unfortunate event, but

looking at the theology of the gospel, Jesus’ death on the cross is a vindication, a

triumph, and the ultimate manifestation of God’s love for his people. Christology is

fundamentally theocentric. All in the life and ministry of Jesus is meant to reveal who

God is. Jesus, as the Son of God, is God’s agent on earth. His death on the cross is a

metaphor of God’s love. We can say that Matthew’s theology “is all about one single

character, interpreted from different angles; one single Christology with many

aspects.”106

106
Birger Gerhardsson, “The Christology of Matthew,” in Who Do You Say That I Am?:
Essays on Christology, ed. Mark Allan Powell and David Bauer (Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 18.

68
 Chapter III

JESUS IN THE QUR’AN

A. INTRODUCTION: GOD’S WORD HAS BECOME A BOOK107

For Muslims, the Qur’an108 is a living and a holy book written in the Arabic

language. It is the center and source of Islamic faith, the norm of life and action for all

Muslims. Every Muslim must hold the Qur’an with utmost reverence and must inculcate

in his or her memory the teachings of the Qur’an, and if possible memorize its verses.

Unlike the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, the Qur’an is one holy book, though every sura

tackles particular themes or topics. Thus, the 114 suras are roughly speaking, a collection

of various revelations. The Qur’an is also known as Al-Furqan (the discernment), Al-

Hada (the guide), Umm al-Kitab (the mother of books), and dhikr Allah (the

remembrance of God). These “other” names of the Qur’an indicate how important this

holy book is for Muslims.

The Qur’an, proclaims Islam (submission to God) as its fundamental teaching.

The Shahadah, the belief that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger

of Allah, is the creedal confession of Muslims. It is the gist, the core of the Islamic faith.

The Qur’an “is not only inspired by God but ‘revealed’ by God and therefore directly the

107
In this particular section, the researcher relied much on Hans Küng, Islam: Past,
Present and Future, trans. John Bowden (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007) and Andre De Bleeker,
Introduction to the Islamic Religious Experience (2009 photocopy).
108
Qur’an literally means recitation. The Arabic verb qara’a means to read. The word
qur’an comes from the same root, and thus, in a religious context means recitation of the sacred
text.

69
word of God (kalimat Allah)”109 This is the fundamental character of Islam. It is no

surprise therefore that most Muslims can be deeply emotional if non-Muslims disrespect

the Qur’an. Disrespecting the Qur’an is offending Allah himself. Let us briefly review

how the Qur’an came to be a written book.

The Sacred Scriptures of all religions passed through a process of redaction and

canonization. The principle of mediation tells us that “only through the human, always

and everywhere already graced by God, do we come to know and respond to what God is

enabling and requiring us to be and to do.”110 It simply says that there is always a human

element involved in the whole process of writing down revelation. This holds true not

only in the formation of the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles but also in the Qur’an.

Whereas the redaction and canonization of the present Hebrew Bible took 400-500 years

and the New Testament almost 200 years111, the Qur’an canon was formed in roughly 24

years after Muhammad’s death. It must be noted that Allah’s revelation to Muhammad

took place between 610-632 CE.

The twenty-two years of revelation are very important because during this period

the Islamic community was founded. The 114 suras are a collection of various revelations

given to Muhammad in two important cities, namely, Mecca and Medina. 112 The 632-656

CE period marks the redaction and canonization process under the guidance of the three

109
Küng, 64.
110
Richard M. Gula, Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality (New
York: Paulist Press, 1989), 8.
111
Lee McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority
(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2007), 11.
112
Küng, 72.

70
caliphs,113 namely, Abu Bakr (632-634), ‘Umar (634-644), and ‘Uthman (644-654). But

it was the caliph ‘Uthman who ordered the settlement of all disputes concerning the

Qur’an, and produced an authoritative copy of the Qur’an to be held binding by all

Muslims. This edition of the Qur’an was made possible with the help of Muhammad’s

secretary Zayd ibn Thabit. This edition also is said to be the mother copy or blueprint of

the modern or latest editions of the Qur’an. And so we can say that, if bishops and synods

were instrumental in the canonization of the New Testament, and the rabbis had a hand in

the Hebrew canon after the second destruction of the Temple, the caliphs after

Muhammad and the Islamic scholars contributed to the Qur’an’s formation.

Islamic tradition insists that Muhammad was illiterate. Accounts say that in the

year 610, Muhammad, while in seclusion in a cave on Mt. Hira, received the first

revelation. The angel of the Lord, Gabriel, appeared to him and asked him to read.114 This

particular account is the proof for Muslims that the Qur’an is not a mere human work or

invention. Sura 2:1-2 reads: “A.L.M.115 This is the Book; in it is guidance sure without

doubt, to those who fear Allah.” It is therefore worth to take note that non-Arabic

Qur’ans bear the subtitle “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” or “Translation of the

Meaning and Commentary.” This is what scholars call the Qur’anic miracle which

113
Caliph means successor of the Prophet and head of the Muslim Community.
114
Chawkat Moucarry, Faith to Faith: Christianity and Islam in Dialogue (England:
Inter-Varsity Press), 31-4.
115
A.L.M. is an abbreviation of the Arabic term Alif-Lām-Mīm. The same letters appear in
suras 3, 29, 30, 31, and 32. Scholars are divided on the real meaning of this word. It has been
noted that most interpretations about this word/letters remain conjecture. One of the widely used
meanings which appear in some translations of the Qur’an is “These letters are one of the
miracles of the Qur’an and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meaning.”

71
“consists in recognizing that the Qur’an has superhuman literary perfection.”116 However

sura 10:37 and sura 5:48 are very striking in the sense that the Qur’an does not claim to

have revealed a new message. Sura 10:37 reads: “This Qur’ān is not such as can be

produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations)117 that

went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book – wherein there is no doubt – from

the Lord of the Worlds.” While sura 5:48 adds: “To thee we sent the Scripture in truth,

confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between

them by what Allah hath revealed.”

Accounts would also add that since Muhammad is illiterate he cannot write also.

He learns how to memorize by heart the revelations given to him by Allah through the

angel Gabriel. The first generation of Muslims is very instrumental in the compilation of

the Qur’an. They were the ones who memorized accurately and recorded the words

preached by Muhammad. After Muhammad, the caliphs decided to compile the Qur’an

fragments because those who had learned it by heart were dying in the battlefields.

Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God spoken through men in

human fashion, and therefore the “necessity to investigate what meaning the sacred

writers really intend, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words”118

underscore the human element in crafting and writing down God’s revelation. This is not

the case for the Qur’an. The two passages from the Qur’an quoted above indicate the

116
Moucarry, 36.
117
Earlier revelations include the Torah given to Moses, the Psalms of David, and the
Gospel of Jesus.
118
Austin Flannery, ed., “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” in Vatican
Council II: The Conciliar and Post-conciliar Documents, rev. ed., Vol. 1 (Northport, New York:
Costello Publishing Company, 1996), 757.

72
divine character of the Qur’an. The strong tradition that maintains the illiteracy of the

Prophet suggests that Muhammad’s role is simply instrumental or ministerial in the sense

that he preached what was revealed to him by Allah through the angel Gabriel. He did not

add or omit anything. Aydin quotes Muslim modernist Fazhur Rahman:

the Qur’an is the Word of God (Kalam Allah). Muhammad, too, was
unshakeably convinced that he was recipient of the Message from God, the
totally other […] The ‘Other’ through some channel ‘dictated’ the Qur’an with an
absolute authority […] Not only does the word Qur’an, meaning ‘recitation’,
clearly indicate this, but the text of the Qur’an itself states in several places that
the Qur’an is verbally revealed and not merely in its ‘meaning’ and ideas.119

It must be noted that non-Muslims must be careful when reading the Qur’an. The

Qur’an is not only an ordinary book; it cannot even be likened to the Christian Bible. The

Qur’an is God’s Word per se, it is revelation itself. It entails that the use of a literary

approach or historical-critical methods to understand the Qur’an is not appropriate. Such

would not fit properly the Muslims conceptual framework. To insist on the use of these

methodologies to study the Qur’an will rather do harm than improve Muslim-Christian

relations. The following quotations sum up the value of the Qur’an for Muslims:

The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad in the Arabic language which makes
Arabic part of the divine revelation. No translation can provide the pure Qur’anic
message. The content of the Qur’an and the medium of revelation, the Arabic
language, are both considered divine. That’s why the Qur’an is considered by
Muslims as the “standing miracle” of Islam. Hence, the Qur’anic text cannot be
subjected to literary or historical criticism. The word of God is beyond the
scrutiny of human beings.120

The famous Muslim theologian Mahmoud Ayoub explains the technicalities and doubts

as follows: “Although it was shaped by the Muslim community, the Qur’an in fact

119
Mahmut Aydin, “Towards a Theological Dialogue between Christians and Muslims”
IslamoChristiana 26 (2000): 29.
120
De Bleeker, 34.

73
created the community and remains the foundation-stone of its faith and its morality.

Many of its verses were circumstantially determined by the social and religious

conditions and questions of the Prophet’s society; yet the Qur’an is believed to transcend

all considerations of time and space.”121

We can say that for Muslims the Word of God became a book, the Qur’an.

Scholars use the term Inlibration122 to denote how God’s Word become a scripture for the

Muslims. Non-Muslims must always note that “if one is truly to appreciate the Muslim

perspective, one must bracket previous conception and knowledge […] in order to allow

the Qur’an to speak with its own distinctive voice.”123 It might be difficult for non-

Muslims to understand how God’s Word has become a book considering that after all it

can be historically established that the human element in the redaction and canonization

process is very evident. But this mystery is again the very character of the Qur’an as the

Word of God. Perhaps, the only way for non-Muslims to fully appreciate this divine

revelation is not only bracketing one’s prejudices and biases against the Qur’an, but

becoming a believer.

B. THE STORY OF THE QUR’ANIC JESUS

“Behold! the angels said: ‘O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from

Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the

121
Mahmoud Ayoub, ‘Qur’an’, EncModIsl III, 385 qouted in Küng, 73.
122
See Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of Kalam
(http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePhilosophyOfTheKalam_Wolfson_djvu.txt, March 25, 2012).
123
Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’anic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern
Exegesis (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 8-9, quoted in Michael
Fonner, “Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion in the Qur’an: An Issue for Interpretation and Muslim-
Christian Relations,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29, 3-4 (1992): 434.

74
hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; He shall speak to the people in

childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous’” (Q. 3:45-

6). Jesus is one of the most important figures in the Qur’an. He comes next after the

prophet Muhammad. Muhammad is considered the Seal of the Prophets, and Jesus is the

the forerunner of Muhammad. He is known as a Prophet (nabī) of God, Al-Masīh, a Sign,

a Messenger (rasūl) of God, Servant (ͨabd) of God, the Word (kalima) of God, and a

Spirit (rūh) from God. These are titles attributed to Jesus in the Qur’an. Our intention in

this particular section is to go over the details of Jesus’ life in the Qur’an. Who is this

Jesus of the Qur’an and how is he different from the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew?

This will be our guide question as we study the Qur’anic Jesus. Unlike in the four Gospel

accounts of the New Testament, the details of the Qur’anic Jesus are scattered and

present in 14 suras of the Qur’an.124 The treatment of Jesus is rather thematic or topical,

whereas in the gospels the presentation is a narrative. Whereas he is the central figure in

the Gospel accounts, his role is limited in the Qur’an by virtue of his appearances.125 The

researcher’s task therefore is to reconstruct the Qur’anic Jesus: his life, ministry, his

nature, and his role in the whole drama of the Qur’an. Since Jesus’ treatment in the

Qur’an is thematic, the researcher will reconstruct the story of Jesus to make it

biographical. This is necessary so that we have a presentation of the Qur’anic Jesus

124
See Roelf Kuitse, “Christology in the Quran,” Missiology: An International Review,
20, 3 (July 1992): 357. It must be noted that scholars do not have the same counting of Jesus
references in the Qur’an. For instance, Oddbjørn Leirvik quotes Claus Schedl’s Muhammad und
Jesus (1978) who counts references to Jesus in 15 out of 114 suras. This difference is perhaps due
to translation.
125
More attention is given to Abraham and Moses. Moses is mentioned 502 times while
Jesus is mentioned 37 times, designated as Christ (11), Jesus, Son of Mary (25), or as “her son”
(1).

75
parallel to that of the Gospel of Matthew. The researcher hopes that, by doing so, he will

do justice to Jesus of the Qur’an and to the Qur’an itself.

Of the 14 suras with references to Jesus, four are Meccan revelations (6, 19, 23,

and 43) and ten are Medinan revelations (3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 57, and 61). The identification of

the place of revelation is necessary because it gives us the background of the theme of a

sura. In the Meccan revelation, “the sayings are rather ‘neutral’ in their form, and positive

references are made to the miracles of Jesus, both his miraculous birth and the life-giving

miracles performed by him […] In the Medinan revelation, the sayings are marked by a

gradually more polemical discourse, at a stage when Islam is organised as a distinct

religious community in competition with Arab Christianity and Judaism.”126 This

explains somehow why some suras are unforgiving in tone and some are more subtle in

expressing ideas. Sura 19 is entitled Maryam (Mary). This sura is a good narrative about

Jesus and Mary. The fact that this sura is named after Mary explains already why

Muslims hold Mary in high esteem. They consider her as one of the few women highly

favoured by God.127 Sura 19 can be considered a primary text from which we can draw a

Qur’anic Christology. This sura emphasizes that Jesus is the “son of Mary.” Sura

Maryam contains the stories of some prophets and biblical figures. Mentioned in the sura

are Zechariah, his son John the Baptist, Abraham, who is considered the hero of

monotheism, his son Ishmael, and Enoch. Important topics in this sura are the Day of

Resurrection, the exhortation and the reward of the faithful followers in the afterlife, and

126
Oddbjørn Leirvik, Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: Introduction, Survey of Research,
Issues of Dialogue (Uppsala: Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia LXXVI, 1999), 41.
127
See John Renard, 101 Questions and Answers on Islam (New York: Gramercy Books,
2002), 109.

76
the admonition and punishment of the wicked ones including those who refuse to believe

in the message of God. Lastly and importantly, the teachings regarding God’s

monotheism and negation of God’s offspring are the most obvious stress of the sura.128

B.1. The Annunciation

Sura 19: 16-21

16. Relate in the Book 19. He said: “Nay, I am only

(The story of) Mary, A messenger from thy Lord
When she withdrew (To announce) to thee
From her family The gift of a pure son.”
To a place in the East.
20. She said: “How shall I
17. She placed a screen Have a son, seeing that
(To screen herself) from them: No man has touched me,
Then We sent to her And I am not unchaste?”
Our angel, and he appeared
Before her as a man 21. He said: “So (it will be):
In all respects.129 Thy Lord saith, ‘That is
Easy for Me: and (We
18. She said: “I seek refuge Wish) to appoint him
From thee to (Allah) As a Sign unto men
Most Gracious: (come not And a Mercy from Us’:
near) It is a matter
If thou dost fear Allah.” (So) decreed.”

The story of Jesus begins in verse 16 of sura 19. Verses 1-15 narrate the

story of Zechariah, a pious servant of God, and his son John, who is also a

prophet of God. Verses 16-21 describe the Annunciation of Mary. Mary is

128
Kamil Unda, The Story of Jesus and Mary in the Qur-an: Commentary of Surah
Maryam (Manila: N.p., 1994), 1.
129
It is worth noting that most commentaries have a problem comparing the Meccan
revelation of Sura 19 and the Medinan revelation of Sura 3 as it has been widely discussed how
the annunciation took place. In Sura 19:17, “our spirit” (rūhanā) (i.e. the Spirit f God) appears to
Mary “as a man in all respects” but in Sura 3:42, the announcement is given by angels (al-
malā’ikatu). However, The Translation of the Meaning of the Qur’an used as reference material
by the researcher translates rūhanā in Sura 19:17 as “our angel” (we sent to her our angel) and
not “our spirit.”

77
looking for a tranquil place where she can pray and worship God. Commentaries

suggest that Mary “chose the eastern side of Bait al-Moqaddas (the great place of

worship) which has perhaps a serene place or a more tidy and suitable on account

of the sunshine.”130 Then, God’s messenger appears in human form and

announces to her the glad tidings from God: she will conceive a son. Mary is a

chaste and faithful woman. The announcement of God’s messenger surprises her

since no man has ever touched her. But nothing is impossible from God. She will

bear a son who will be God’s sign to men and a mercy from Him.

B.2. The Pangs of Birth and the Miracle in the Cradle

Verses 22-26 narrate the struggles of Mary and her pains of childbirth.

Mary withdrew to a remote place where God took care of her.131 In her hardship,

God provides her with fresh ripe dates after she asked for intervention. Jesus

performs his first miracle as a babe in the cradle. He defends Mary, his mother,

against malicious accusations of being unchaste. It appears also that Jesus knows

already his mission on earth, his being a servant and prophet of God. He also hints

at an eschatological knowledge pertaining to his being raised to life.

Sura 19: 22-33

22. So she conceived him, They said: “O Mary!

And she retired with him Truly a strange thing
To a remote place. Has thou brought!

130
Unda., 25.
131
See Unda, 25. She retreated from the Sacred Temple Bait al-Moqaddas. Since the
Qur’an does not give a well detailed account, commentators argue about Mary’s pregnancy.
Some believe that is only one hour, while some favoured the idea of 9 months.

78
 23. And the pains of childbirth 28. “O sister of Aaron!
Drove her to the trunk Thy father was not
Of a palm-tree: A man of evil, nor thy
She cried (in her anguish): Mother a woman unchaste!”
“Ah! Would that I had
Died before this! would that 29. But she pointed to the babe.
I had been a thing They said: “how can we
Forgotten. Talk to one who is
A child in the cradle?
24. But (a voice) cried to her
From beneath the (palm-tree): 30. He said: “I am indeed
“Grieve not! for thy Lord A servant of Allah:
Hath provided a rivulet He hath given me
Beneath thee; Revelation and made me,
A prophet:
25. “And shake towards thyself
The trunk of the palm-tree: 31. “And He hath made me
It will let fall Blessed wheresoever I be,
Fresh ripe dates upon thee. And hath enjoined on me
Prayer and zakat132 as long
26. “So eat and drink As I live;
And cool (thine) eye.
And if thou dost see 32. “(He hath made me) kind
Any man, say, ‘I have To my mother, and not
Vowed a fast to (Allah) Overbearing or unblest;
Most Gracious, and this day
Will I enter into no talk 33. “So Peace is on me
With any human being”. The day I was born,
The day that I die,
27. At length she brought And the day that I
The (babe) to her people, Shall be raised up
Carrying him (in her arms), To life (again)”!

Verses 27-33 states Jesus’ nature and relationship with God: his

distinguished qualities, two tenets, and a prayer.133 The qualities are being a

servant of God, bearer of God’s revelation, his status of prophethood, being

blessed and kind. The two tenets are prayer and zakat. They symbolize one’s

132
Zakat: Almsgiving or mandatory charity. It refers also to the act of submission in
which the rich surrender or give a portion of their wealth to the needy.
133
See Unda, 35.

79
relationship with his creator. And Jesus prayer is fully expressed in the words

“My God.” It says everything about thanksgiving, submission, and humility.

B.3. Teachings and Miracles of Jesus

The Qur’an says little about Jesus’ teachings. Sura 5:110 informs us of some

miracles performed by Jesus. He speaks to his people as a babe in the cradle, out of clay a

bird has come to life, he heals lepers and blind people, he brings dead back to life, and is

able to ask God to send a table of food (Q. 3:50) for his disciples. All these miracles

performed by Jesus are always done by “God’s leave.” This means that Jesus does not

perform these miracles by his own will or authority or through his powers. He is able to

perform miracles because God allows it and makes it happen. Jesus receives the gospel

(Injil) which confirms the Torah and the message of the prophets before him about God’s

oneness. He made lawful also part of what had been forbidden to Israel. Jesus is a true

Muslim. He preaches nothing except the oneness of God. His prayer is “my Lord and

your Lord” and worship of God alone is the straight path (Q. 3:51; 19:36). He warns

those who ascribe partners to God (Q. 5:72) and admonishes those who deny and reject

the faith (5:78). But the children of Israel would not believe what they see in Jesus’

miracles. They fail to see the signs from God and their unbelief makes them think those

miracles are mere magic. And lastly, he foretells the coming of a messenger with the

name of Ahmad who would come after him (Q. 61:1).134

134
The words “Ahmad” and “Muhammad” are derived from the same root letters. In
chapter fourteen of the Gospel of John, the Greek word “parakletos” referring to the Holy Spirit
who will be sent after Jesus, can be found. The Greek “periklytos” which can mean famous is
near to the meaning of the word “Ahmad.” Muslims believe that “parakletos” is a corrupted word

80
 It must be noted time and again that Jesus’ miracles do not possess any divine

character coming from his authority. In the context of the Qur’an, Jesus’ miracles come

from God as a sign of God’s greatness and grace lest people forget the One who is

Almighty and Wise. Thus Jesus’ miracles are a mere demonstration of God’s power. The

Prophets of God before Jesus have performed miracles by God’s permission. The

teaching or message of Jesus is the same as those of the prophets who came before him.

Islam (submission to God) is the message or teaching of Jesus.

B.4. Jesus’ Death and Ascension

Sura 4: 157 is the only verse which mentions Jesus’ death. The Qur’an asserts that

Jews neither killed nor crucified Jesus. It appears to them that they were able to kill him

but God is mighty and wise because he saved his prophet from the plot of the

unbelievers. Sura 4:157 clearly denies the death of Jesus because God took him up to

Himself. At the same time, sura 3:55 and sura 19:33 mention Jesus’ resurrection and

ascension. Sura 3:55135 says “Behold! Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee

to myself,’” whereas sura 19:33 informs us about the baby Jesus speaking “so Peace is on

me the day I was born, the day that I die and the day that I shall be raised up to life

(again)!”

of “periklytos.” This theory is maintained by Muslims to justify the idea that Jesus prophesied the
coming of Muhammad.
135
Sura 3:55 is also vague in the sense that commentators would not agree on its proper
interpretation. Some say that it must be read in the context of sura 4:157 because the phrase “raise
thee to myself” does not necessarily mean there has been a prior death. Other commentators
favour the idea that Jesus died a natural death. However the belief that Jesus still lives in heaven
with a body is the generally accepted Muslim view.

81
Sura. 4: 157-9

157. That they said (in boast) 158. Nay, Allah raised him up
“We killed Christ Jesus Unto Himself; and Allah
The son of Mary, Is exalted in Power, Wise;-
The Messenger of Allah”;-
But they killed him not, 159. And there is none
Nor crucified him Of the People of the Book
Only a likeness of that But must believe in Him
Was shown to them Before his death;
And those who differ And on the Day of Judgment
Therein are full of doubts, He will be a witness
With no (certain) knowledge. Against them;-
But only conjecture to follow,
For of a surety
They killed him not:-

The reference to the resurrection has stirred debates, and opened up various

interpretations among Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike, regarding its proper understanding.

It appears that the inconclusiveness or abstract construct of the Sura 4:157 led to diverse readings

so much so that every interpretation is being supported by a tradition or hadith.

B.5. Jesus’ Nature

Sura 19: 34-35

35. It is not befitting
34. Such (was) Jesus the son To (the majesty of) Allah
Of Mary: (it is) a statement That He should beget
Of truth, about which A son. Glory be to Him!
They (vainly) dispute. When He determines
A matter, He only says
To it, “Be”, and it is.

The two verses above serve as a brief synthesis of the Qur’anic view on Jesus:

first, he is only human, and second, God does not take a son or God does not need to have

a son. He just said “Be” and it is. There is already a strong admonition against non-

82
believers who view Jesus as a son of God, and those who deny or question the mystery of

Jesus birth.136 Likewise Sura 9:30 boldly declares that Jesus is not a son of God: “and the

Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they

but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they

are deluded away from the Truth!” This particular verse admonishes Christians who

claim that Jesus is a son of God. This is shirk, associating partners or children with God,

and is the greatest sin for Muslims because it contradicts the very nature of God who is

mighty, eternal, and absolute. Sura 112 asserts:

Say: He is Allah,
The One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not,
Nor is He begotten;
And there is none
Like unto Him.

For God to have children or a partner would render Him incompetent, weak, and

powerless. Therefore, Jesus does not possess a divine nature or superhuman powers. Sura

5:75 affirms this by saying, “Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger.” His

conception might have been supernatural, just like God created Adam, and his miracles

might have been astonishing but all these extraordinary events in Jesus’ life were all done

by “God’s leave.” The signification that Jesus is “the son of Mary” casts no further doubt

that Jesus is a mere human being just like all the prophets and messengers who came

before him. If we look at it in the context of the fundamental doctrine of the Qur’an, the

claim that Jesus is a mere human is consistent with the declaration of God’s oneness.

What the Qur’an wants to safeguard is God’s absolute uniqueness and transcendence.

136
See Unda, 39.

83
 B.6. Eschatology

Sura 19: 36-40 informs us about the Day of Resurrection and how Jesus reminds

his people to serve God alone for this is the right path. To serve the Lord is to follow his

commandments and submit oneself to God. Jesus teaches monotheism. His teaching is

consistent with the message and teaching of all the prophets who came before him.

Unfortunately, his followers are divided because of disagreement about his nature.

Sura 19: 36-40

38. How plainly will they see
And hear, the Day that
They will appear before Us!
But the unjust to-day
Are in error manifest!
40. It is We Who will inherit
The earth, and all beings
Thereon: to Us will they
All be returned.

39. But warn them of the Day

Of Distress, when
The matter will be determined:
For (behold,) they are negligent
And they do not believe!

36. Verily Allah is my Lord 37. But the sects differ

And your Lord: Him Among themselves: and woe
Therefore serve ye: this is To the Unbelievers because
A Way that is straight. Of the (coming) Judgment
Of an awful Day!

C. THE QUR’ANIC POSITION REGARDING JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION,

ASCENSION, AND DIVINITY

The crucifixion, ascension, and the divinity or divine sonship of Jesus are major

concerns, if not outright problems, in Muslim-Christian dialogue. The Qur’an is

84
categorical in its denial of the divine status to Jesus. Sura 5:75 reads: “Christ the son of

Mary was no more than a messenger.” There is no doubt that Jesus is merely a human

person, contrary to what Christians claim that he is divine or the Son of God. Another

admonition comes from Sura 9:30 when it reiterates that “the Christians call Christ the

son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth. (In this) they but imitate what the

unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away

from the Truth!” However, in the Qur’an, the words “ibn” and “walad” are used to

designate sonship. “Ibn” can be translated as “son” while “walad” is “child.” The former

can be read as analogical which implies closeness and filial relationship while the latter’s

meaning is biological which implies physical paternity. The danger is, while the former is

a possibility by virtue of its metaphorical sense, the latter constitutes the greatest offense:

shirk, associating partners with God. Such concept obstructs the Qur’anic image of God

as almighty, transcendent, and wise. If God is in need of something or of someone, he is

not almighty, transcendent, and wise at all. In almost all cases, however, the Qur’an uses

the word walad to designate the Christian belief about Jesus’ relationship with God.137 In

other words, the Qur’anic wordings, and its very understanding, suggest that Christians

believe that Jesus is God’s biological son, which is not the case of course.

Ali Merad, a noted Muslim scholar who adheres to the orthodox interpretation,

offers a good synthesis of the things the Qur’an denies of Jesus Christ, and every denial is

followed by Qur’anic verses to support it. There are basically five points of denial in the

137
Mahmoud Ayoub, A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue, ed. Irfan
Omar (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2007): 118.
85
Qur’an of what Jesus Christ is not:138 (1) Christ is not God himself (Q. 5:17, 72); (2)

Christ is not a divinity outside of God (Q. 5:116); (3) Christ is not the third person of the

trinity139 (Q. 5:73, 116; 4:171); (4) Christ in not the Son of God (Q. 4:171; 9:30; 19:35);

and (5) Christ did not die a human death, he did not expire on the cross because God took

him to himself (Q. 3:55; 4:157-158). Ali Merad also points out that “all the Qur’anic

denials are accepted by the orthodox majority in their immediate sense, by virtue of the

linguistic evidence.”140 The linguistic evidence means that the text or the words of the

Qur’an are the basis for rejecting any attenuation or broader interpretation of the Qur’anic

verses.

There are four passages in the Qur’an which talk about the crucifixion and

ascension. On the issue of crucifixion, only Sura 4:157 mentions it: “We killed Christ

Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; but they killed him not, nor crucified him.

Only a likeness of that” (shubbiha). Concerning the ascension, there are three references

in the Qur’an. Sura 3:55 says “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to myself”

(mutawaffika); Sura 5:117 states “when Thou didst take me up” (tawaffaytani), and Sura

19:33 says “and the day that I shall be raised up (ubcathu)141 to life (again).” The issue of

crucifixion is clear: Jesus did not die on the cross because God raised him to himself. But

the issue of ascension is loaded with many interpretations noting the different

138
Ali M. Merad, “Christ according to the Qur’an,” Vidyajyoti 45, 7 (August 1981): 308-
9.
The Qur’anic appreciation of the Christian Trinity in Sura 5:116 is: God the Father,
139

God the Son, and the Mother of God, Mary.

140
Merad, 309. Emphasis mine.
141
Insertions mutawaffika, tawaffaytani, and ubcathu are mine.

86
terminologies used in the Arabic to mean “being taken up or raised.” Was Jesus’

ascension physical or spiritual?

The generally accepted Muslim view is that Jesus did die a natural death but still

lives with a physical body in heaven. In due time he will come again to judge the

world.142 The idea of the second coming of Jesus is an important Islamic belief for the

majority of Muslims. There are dissenting opinions among Muslim scholars regarding the

ascension of Jesus whether it is physical or spiritual. The Permanent Committee for

Research and Fatwa of Saudi Arabia states:

It has been established by proofs from the Scripture and the authentic traditions
that Jesus, son of Mary, was not killed and did not die, but that God raised him
alive unto Himself and that he will return at the end of time as a just judge in the
Muslim community. Whoever says that Jesus son of Mary died, and that he will
not return towards the end of time, has opined contrary to the book of God and
the authoritative tradition of His prophet, thereby committing a grievous error.
After such a person comes of age, and proof has been sustained against him for
lying against God and his Messenger, he is to be ruled as a disbeliever.143

Contemporary scholarship, on the other hand, is open to other interpretations. I

will refer to some scholars, both Muslims and Christians alike, who hold other

interpretations of Jesus’ death crucifixion than what the majority of Muslims hold to be

conclusive. In 1942, the shaykh of al-Azhar University, Mahmoud Shaltut, issued a fatwa

on the “Ascension of Jesus.” His position, which runs contrary to that of the Permanent

Committee for Research and Fatwa of Saudi Arabia (quoted above), is that the Qur’an

denies the idea that Jesus’ placement on the cross caused his death. The Qur’an does not

say that Jesus was not placed on the cross. Besides, it can be argued that “nothing in the

142
See commentary on Q. 4:158-9, 268.
143
Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Razzaāq al-Dawīsh, Fatāwā al-Lajnat al-Dā’ima l’il Buhuth al-
‘Ilmiyya wa’l Iftā (Riyadh: General Presidium for Research, Responsa, Propagation, and
Guidance, 1411), 3:213-215 qouted in Khaleel Mohammed, “The Case of the Overlooked
Fatwa”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 46, 3 (Summer 2011): 379-380.

87
Qur’ān or the Sunna to reliably establish as a tenet of creed that Jesus was bodily raised

to Heaven, is currently alive there, and that toward the End Times will return to earth.”144

This analysis would bring us to the claim that in some cases, if not most, hadith

collections supply and interpret Qur’anic verses especially those which are vague and

non-conclusive. Khaleel Mohammed writes:

The answer seems to lie in the fact that, once the hadith became accepted as a
reliable source of Muslim belief, the Qur’ān was read through the
presuppositions of hadith imagery. If it is argued that the hadith seems so much
in conflict with the qur’ānic imagery and that common piety ought to have been a
protection against such superimposition, it has to be taken into account that the
hadith is so structured that, since it is imputed to the prophet, it comes with the
stamp of authority.145

Mahmoud Ayoub, a Muslim scholar, argues that the Qur’an does not deny the

crucifixion but notes that Muslim commentators made the issue more complicated by

asserting the substitution theory, meaning, someone who looks like Jesus was crucified in

his behalf, or that God substituted someone so that it may appear that they (the Jews)

were able to kill Jesus.146 Todd Lawson, after a thorough and careful investigation, adds

that not the Qur’an but the commentaries (tafsir) deny the crucifixion.147 He also notes

that some Muslim groups such as the Ikhwan al-safa and the Ismailis affirm the

crucifixion.148 He claims then that, though the majority of the Muslims believe that Jesus

was not crucified, some Muslim groups believe that Jesus was crucified.

144
Ibid., 384.
145
Ibid., 386-7.
146
See Ayoub, 156-186.
147
Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim
Thought (Oxford: One World, 2009), 19
148
Ibid., 41.

88
 Important to note also is the “swoon theory” popularized by Ahmeed Deedat.149

The swoon theory says that indeed Jesus was nailed to the cross but he did not die but

simply lost consciousness, and was later revived in the tomb. Of the four passages in the

Qur’an about Jesus’ death and ascension only Sura 4:157 denies the death of Jesus, and

the three other passages talk about ascension. Was Jesus’ ascension physical or spiritual?

The prevalent Muslim view is that the ascension was physical but the Qur’an is not

categorical if it is physical or spiritual. The possibility then that Jesus died on the cross is

not remote after all since it appears that the Qur’an and commentaries of influential

scholars of Islam never had a single yes or no regarding Jesus’ death.150 The real

difficulty for Muslims regarding Jesus’ death and ascension is the Christian theology of

resurrection. Does God need to sacrifice a son for the atonement of sin? It sounds not

fitting and would render God powerless if he would not do anything to save his prophet

being killed by unbelievers. God is the “best of plotters.”

However, it is also good to point out that the Qur’an asserts that God’s

messengers have been killed by unbelievers (the Jews). Sura 2:61 states that “they (the

Jews) went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers.”151 Can this

passage then justify the possibility of Jesus’ crucifixion? Mahmoud Ayoub has this to

say:

the denial of the killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of men to vanquish and
destroy the divine Word, which is forever victorious. Hence the words, “they did
not kill him, nor did they crucify him,” go far deeper than the events of
ephemeral human history; they penetrate the heart and conscience of human

149
Larson, 333.
150
Ibid., 333-4.
151
See Q 2:87, 91 and Q. 3:183.

89
 beings. The claim of humanity (here exemplified in the Jewish society of Christ’s
earthly existence) to have this power against God can only be an illusion.”152

It is worth to expound Ayoub’s idea regarding “the Jewish society of Christ’s

earthly existence.” It must be remembered that the Jews were repudiated because they did

not believe the messengers sent to them, especially Jesus, and therefore the Qur’an is

polemic against them. Having in mind this context, “it can be suggested […] that the

meaning of verse 157153 is best understood not as a statement of historical fact about

Jesus but, rather, as a rebuke of the Jews.”154 The Qur’an had the Jews claim that they

were able to kill the Christ Jesus. For Muslims, it is highly unthinkable that God would

hand over his messenger to his enemies. Had Jesus been crucified it would mean that God

had abandoned his prophet, and this contradicts God’s triumph over evil. Michael

Fonner insists that Sura 4:157 must be interpreted theologically or contextually rather

than literally. He offers three meaningful ideas:155 (1) the seeming denial of Jesus’ death

on the cross should be interpreted as God’s victory over his opponents, God tricked them

by making it appear to them that they were able to crucify Jesus; (2) Sura 4:157 is meant

to honor Jesus, the exemplarily human being because “there is none of the People of the

Book but must believe in Him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a

witness against them.”156 Thus, the verse “can be read as a historically inaccurate but

152
Ayoub, 117.
153
Q. 4:157.
154
Michael Fonner, “Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion in the Qur’an: An Issue for
Interpretation and Muslim-Christian Relations,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29, 3-4 (Summer-
Fall 1992): 440.
155
See Ibid 443-6.
156
Q. 4:159.

90
theologically correct assessment;”157 and (3) it is aimed at “human arrogance and

presumptuousness” of those who wanted the messenger of God killed.

Ali Merad considers the moral and spiritual meaning of Jesus’ death in the

Qur’an. This can be a good conclusion for this particular section and a point to consider

for Christians venturing into Qur’anic studies. In order for non-Muslims to fully

understand the denial of Jesus’ death in the Qur’an we have to read it within the context

of the whole discourse of the Qur’an. Ali Merad contends that “the elevation of Christ to

Heaven is a gratuitous act of the Almighty, who is free to act as he will in his creation

[…] The denial of the death of Christ is in perfect line with the logic of the Qur’an and

with the constant elements of its teaching.”158 He sets aside the belief of the Ismailis on

redemption by claiming that such is a Christian inspiration but the orthodox

understanding is based on the Qur’anic teaching. At the same time, the refusal to accept

the image of the Passion implies that God is victorious, and the rejection of Jesus’ death

safeguards God’s honour and Man’s dignity because in Jesus “mankind attained its

supreme dignity.159

D. QUR’ANIC CHRISTOLOGY: JESUS, SON OF MARY,

PROPHET/MESSENGER OF GOD

Sura 4:171 states: “Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more) than a Messenger

of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from

Him.” Jesus as “son of Mary” and as “Prophet/Messenger of God” are the two most
157
Fonner, 444-5.
158
Merad, 317.
159
Ibid., 318.

91
important attributes of Jesus in the Qur’an. Subsequently, these two attributes also

pronounce a Qur’anic dogma or teaching about Jesus, a teaching to be beyond

deconstruction to the majority of Muslims and to which “linguistic evidence” must be

understood as is. Jesus as son of Mary is one of the most repeated attributes associated

with Jesus. Jesus is called son of Mary twenty-five times and is the only person in the

Qur’an who is referred to as son of the mother. All other personages are identified as

children of their fathers.

Just like in the case of Jesus, the Qur’an does not attribute to Mary any

shortcomings or sins. With regard to virtues, Mary is almost as holy as Jesus: she is pure,

chaste, and exalted.160 To be referred to as “son of Mary” does not only talk about

nobility of parentage but it has also theological bearing. Knowing that Jesus was

conceived by Mary through God’s breath, the Qur’an safeguards the fundamental

presupposition that God is one and alone. The title “son of Mary” presupposes that Jesus

is only mortal, a human being.161 This is to rebut the Christian claim that he is the Son of

God. To call Jesus the Son of God is an abomination and shirk. Such Qur’anic teaching

goes against Christian belief. In other words, the exceptional birth of Jesus does not make

him divine. He remains mortal. He is the son of Mary.

Jesus has become God’s servant to bring about healing and restoration to the

extent that he is also able to create a bird out of clay after breathing unto it. This explains

why Jesus is able to heal and perform miracles in spite of his humanity. For the Qur’an

there is nothing spectacular about Jesus healing and miracles. Prophets of God prior to

160
See Q. 3:42; 5:75; 21:19; 66:12.
161
José Pereira, “Portrait of Christ in the Qur’an,” Encounter N˚ 259 (October/November,
1999): 4.

92
him have also performed the same because God permitted them to do so. What is special

in Jesus case is his birth and conception. It is a sign of God’s power and a manifestation

of God’s creative word.

There is no doubt that, when the Qur’an says something about a particular issue or

person, Muslims read or understand it in its immediate sense. Without proper

understanding of Christian theology, Muslims believe that Christians do not only worship

Jesus but also his mother Mary. “Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou ever say unto men,

‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah’?” (Q. 5:116). For Muslims, this is

what the Christians do. This Islamic understanding of Christian theology reinforces the

Muslim understanding that Christians worship three Gods: God the Father, Mary the

Mother, and Jesus the Son. And no amount of Christian apologetics can convince a

Muslim that what he is reading in the Qur’an is not what Christians believe. The doctrine

of tahrif, the corruption of the Sacred Scriptures, makes Muslims believe that Christians

have hidden or forgotten part of the original message given by Jesus (Q. 5:15). So in a

sense, it is difficult to change Muslim ideas about Christian belief.

Jesus is one of the many prophets or messengers of God identified in the Qur’an.

We also notice that there is not much recorded about Jesus’ life in the Qur’an. This is

usually explained by Muslim commentators that Jesus, along with other prophets, should

not take the center stage because they all point to God. “Jesus is and is only, a Prophet of

God is the quintessence of Qur’anic Christology.”162 His life and activity is in semblance

with the prophetic life of other prophets.163 Like them, Jesus did not bring a new message

162
Matthew Paraplackal, “Jesus in the Qur’an,” Jeevadhara 18, 105 (May 1988): 171.
163
See Sura 2:136; 3:84; 5:46,47; 6:85.

93
although it was said that he made lawful some laws forbidden to the Jews. Jesus received

the Gospel. He is neither the message itself nor the one to be proclaimed or worshipped.

He rather proclaims the Almighty God who made everything possible. The identification

of Jesus as the prophet of God is the most vivid title attributed to Jesus in the Qur’an. It is

in this title that the “Word of God” becomes more meaningful. We must see the

relationship of the titles “Prophet of God” and the “Word of God.” The Qur’anic logic

indicates that among the prophets Jesus is the most blessed because he started his

ministry in the cradle as a babe. Sura 2:136 declares that all the prophets are equal in

dignity and in faith, but Sura 2:253 mentions hierarchy among the prophets. Four

prophets are indentified but only Jesus is explicitly mentioned. The other three are

identified as Muhammad, Moses, and David.164 Though he pales in comparison in terms

of appearances of name with Moses and Abraham, God endowes “gifts Christ shared

with no other created being. God endows all prophets with wisdom, but none except

Jesus is graced with that wisdom, and indeed speech.”165

Jesus message on earth then is to proclaim monotheism. As a Prophet of God, he

is a true Muslim (one who submits to the will of God). Being a Prophet of God, he too is

a Word of God because he speaks of and for God. This relationship is made meaningful if

we take into account Sura 3:59: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam;

He created him of dust, then said to him: ‘Be,’ and he was.” Sura 15:29 adds: “When I

have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down

in obeisance unto him.” Jesus is the Word of God because he was created out of God’s

164
See Pereira, 5.
165
Ibid.

94
creative and divine word: “Be.” In this sense, we can draw a conclusion that the titles

Word of God and Spirit of God refer to one and the same God’s activity which is

manifested in the creation of Jesus: “Be.”. Whereas Adam was created out of the dust

followed by the divine command, Jesus, on the other hand, was formed out of God’s

Holy Spirit166 after the divine command. This parallelism gives us an overview that the

prophetic eminence of Jesus is comparable to no other prophet. In fact, one can even

draw the conclusion that even Muhammad’s life and activity is nothing compared to

Jesus. It is also said that Jesus, alongside receiving the Gospel, proclaimed also the

coming of “Ahmad” (61:6). The root word of the words “Ahmad” and Muhammad is the

same, thus, it has been concluded that Jesus has prophesied the coming of Muhammad.

In a sense, we can say that Jesus is the forerunner of Muhammad who is

considered the final prophet of God for the Muslims. Whatever has been said about Jesus,

he “does not play a unique role in the story of salvation, as told in the Qur’an, in spite of

the special things told about him.”167 Though highly favoured by God, he remains human,

and no more than a human person. To say that Jesus is a true Muslim is to indicate that

Jesus is a servant/slave of God. Being a servant/slave by God connotes total obedience

and submission to the God’s will. This character of Jesus makes him a virtuous, noble,

and honourable Prophet/Messenger of God.

166
The Holy Spirit refers to angel Gabriel in Islamic theology.
Roelf S. Kuitse, “Christology in the Qur’an,” Missiology: An International Review 20,
167

3 (July 1992): 366.

95
E. CONCLUSION

We have seen how important the Qur’an is to the Muslims. We have seen also

how it came into being and how it ultimately built up a community of believers. The

Qur’an is at the center of every Muslim’s life and the very foundation of their faith and

religion. It is the Word of God which became a book and will endure through time and

age. It will always have the final say on all state-of-affairs.

We also took a glimpse of the Qur’anic Jesus. His miraculous birth, his short-

accounted ministry and his miracles, his prophetic nature, and his being a servant of God

– a true Muslim in other words, are all divinely favoured by God. Truly, Jesus is an

important figure in the Qur’an, if not the most important figure named. Not only is his

birth mysterious but also his death. In spite of being a Spirit proceeding from God and the

Word of God (Q. 4:171), the Qur’an remains firm in its wordings that this Jesus is the son

of Mary. Thus, it makes all matters clear that Jesus is simply human, and that he is highly

favoured by God because He made Jesus a sign to all men. For Muslims, the idea of

crucifixion is abominable and the fact of Jesus’ death remains shrouded in mystery.

Jesus’ ascension in the Qur’an is not detailed while the Day of Judgment is unclear. To a

Christian mind, the Qur’anic account of Jesus’ life and role is as obscure as the night. But

for Muslims, what the Qur’an says becomes authoritative. Muslims will always argue that

Jesus and the other prophets simply take a ministerial role in the whole drama of the

Qur’an. God is at the center of all Qur’anic construct. Jesus is simply one of the prophets

sent to the people of Israel to bring God’s message. But he was misinterpreted by his

followers as the Son of God because he is highly favoured by God. Jesus is a role model

96
for people in matters of faith and virtues. He is a Prophet and a Messenger of God, he is

the Word of God, but more than these, he is the son of Mary not of God.

97
 CHAPTER IV

COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES

A. INTRODUCTION
The question of Christ has been a sensitive one in the history of Christian-
Muslim apologetics and dialogue. One might ask whether it has ever been a real
issue for dialogue. Most attempted dialogue in this field has been overruled by an
apologetics or polemical bias on both sides. On the Muslim side, […] the
perceived ‘self-sufficiency’ of the Islamic canon (Qur’ān and Hadīth), has
implied a reluctance to recognise an image of Christ different from that of the
Islamic sources […]. Christian contributions to the issue have often implied that
Islam is but a poor copy of Christianity suggesting that Islam has transferred
central features of Christ to Muhammad and distorted the real image of Jesus
Christ to conform to another religious setting.168

Numerous researches on Jesus for Christian-Muslim dialogue have been

published so far. In most cases, the researches seek to compare similarities and

differences of the New Testament and the Qur’an. Some Christian researchers have taken

an aggressive attitude against the Muslim faith. They often read the Jesus of the Qur’an in

the light of the New Testament. The Christian accusations, such as distortion of the

historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion by Muslims and the inauthenticity of the Qur’anic sources

on Jesus coming from non-canonical accounts, have created an atmosphere of denial of

divine revelation to the Muslim faith. The Christian insistence on the influence of the

New Testament on the Qur’an, signified by a number of parallels, implies a Muslim’s

vague recollection of Christian beliefs gathered from Christian merchants and slaves. 169

On the other hand, Muslim scholars are also aggressive in refuting Christian accusations,

168
Leirvik, Oddbjørn, Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: Introduction, Survey of Research,
Issues of Dialogue (Uppsala: Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia LXXVI, 1999), 7.
169
Thomas J. O’Shaughnessy, Cardinal Bea Studies: Eschatological Themes in the
Qur’ān (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University, 1986), 116.

98
always defending its Abrahamic origin, and the continuity and perfection of divine

revelation in Islam. These theological differences have made some scholars commit to

emphasizing the ethical dimension rather than the theological issues. 170 But the ethical

dimension alone will not resolve the Jesus question. In fact, it will simply disengage

Christians and Muslims because it is a perennial issue that we need to address.

One glaring difference has to do with the reading and understanding of Scripture.

Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God coming directly from God, while

Christians believe that God chose and inspired people to write down his Word. We have

to take note of this difference because it will be an important point in our analysis of the

Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an. Kateregga and Shenk differentiate these

two ways of revelation this way:

The Christian view of revelation and Scriptures is significantly different from the
Muslim witness. The Christians believe the Bible has been inspired (breathed in
by God) but not dictated by God, that the imprint of human personality is part of
the content of biblical revelations, and that the Messiah (Jesus) himself is the injil
(gospel). However, according to Muslim witness, revelation which is contained
in Scriptures or divine books is the true guidance sent down (tanzil) directly from
God. Gifted personalities as the prophets were, their lives and histories did not
form part of divine message or scriptural message.171

In this chapter, the researcher will synthesize chapters 2 and 3. The main

objective is to present the commonalities and the differences between the Jesus of the

Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an. In chapters 2 and 3, the researcher was able to bring

out the distinctive characteristics of Jesus through the analysis of titles and attributes of

Jesus. Likewise, he also discovered the differences in the presentation of Jesus’ life and

170
See Adolfo Gonzalez Montes, “The Challenge of Islamic Monotheism: A Christian
View,” Concilium 3 (1994): 67-75.
171
Kateregga, Badru and David Shenk, A Muslim and A Christian in Dialogue (Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 1997), 150.

99
role. In both Sacred Scriptures, he finds parallel themes but they are within contrasting

theological patterns. In other words, though the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew is very

similar to the Qur’anic Jesus, these similarities must be understood within the context of

the particular scripture. Therefore, the main question the researcher would like to work

on in this chapter is: To what extent is the Matthean Jesus similar to the Qur’anic Jesus?

The use of the same terminologies and titles in reference to Jesus does not mean

the same understanding. In fact, the meaning of some of these terminologies is

completely different. Regarding this complexity David Marshall writes: “To the reader

for whom either Islam or Christianity seems an utterly alien world it may be helpful to

grasp the extent to which the Qur’an shares themes and concerns with the New

Testament. While to the reader who is inclined to see all religious language as different

ways of saying the same essential thing, it is important to grasp the irreducible

distinctiveness of either Scripture.”172

Our study of Jesus gives us eight (8) major points where the gospel of Matthew

and the Qur’an converge and diverge.173 This chapter will outline which themes are in

consonance with and in dissonance with either scripture. As mentioned above, there are

themes which are parallel in both scriptures but the meaning is contrasting. What the

researcher will do is to briefly point out to what extent the themes are similar and

different at the same time. The following themes of Jesus are found in both scriptures: (1)

172
David Marshall, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an,” in Resurrection
Considered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneword, 1996): 181.
173
For a general comparison of Jesus in the New Testament and the Qur’an, see José
Pereira, “Portrait of Christ in the Qur’an,” Encounter N˚ 259 (October/November, 1999): 1-9, and
Warren Larson, “Jesus in Islam and Christianity: Discussing the Similarities and the Differences,”
Missiology: An International Review 36, 3 (July 2008): 327-342.

100
Jesus’ virginal birth; (2) his being a miracle worker; and (3) his prophetic ministry; and

(4) Jesus’ understanding of God. The other themes are in dissonance with the Qur’an: (1)

Jesus’ crucifixion; (2) Ascension; (3) Son of God; and (4) Messiah. These are the eight

themes that will be discussed in this chapter.

B. COMMONALITIES

We must bear in mind that in the Gospel of Matthew, the story of Jesus is a proper

Christ-narrative, while in the Qur’an, it is only referred to, and in most cases, in relation

to Mary.174 The Gospel of Matthew is a story about Jesus while in the Qur’an references

to Jesus are scattered all over. The two suras which talk about Jesus in length are Sura 3

(The House of cImran) and Sura 19 (Maryam). These two suras are not directly about

Jesus but more about his mother Mary as indicated by the titles of these suras. Let us now

begin our synthesis of chapters 2 and 3.

B.1. Jesus’ Virginal Birth

In the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an, Jesus is born of Mary. In Sura 3:45-47;

Sura 19: 16-40, and Matthew 1:18-25, the angel Gabriel or the angels visit Mary and

announce the good news. The two scriptures record that Mary protested the possibility of

conception because no man has ever touched her (Mt 1:18; S 3:45). In the Gospel of

Matthew and in Sura 3, the angel Gabriel says that the child is to be called Jesus. 175 In

Matthew, the angel Gabriel gives the meaning of the name Jesus -“he will save his people

174
See Leirvik, 22.
175
In Sura 3: 45, the complete name given by the angels is Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.

101
from their sins”(Mt 1:21), while in the Qur’an, the angel is silent about its meaning. Mary

is accused of immorality by her relatives for having a child without a husband in Sura 19,

and Joseph is troubled in Matthew. The Qur’an does not mention any man in relation to

Mary, while in the Gospel of Matthew, she is betrothed to Joseph. In Matthew, Jesus is

the Emmanuel176 (God with us) (Mt 1:23) and in the Qur’an he is an aya (sign) and

mercy from God (19:21). In Matthew, Jesus is born in a house (Mt 2:11) while in the

Qur’an, Jesus is born in a distant place, probably in a desert area, under a palm tree

(19:23).

Though there are differences in details, both the Gospel of Matthew and the

Qur’an affirm that (1) Jesus is supernaturally born, that is, without human intervention;

(2) Mary’s chastity is safeguarded; and (3) God does not have a female consort in Mary

or physically engendered a son in Jesus. However, in the Qur’an, though Jesus is

conceived in a unique way, it does not make him outrightly unique because Adam too

was created by God without a father and a mother. In this sense, Jesus virginal

conception in the Qur’an confirms the magnificence of God but not the indwelling of the

divine in Jesus.177

B.2. Jesus the Miracle-Worker

Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an say that Jesus is a miracle-worker.

The Qur’an lists a number of miracles performed by Jesus in Sura 3:49, and repeated in

176
The Emmanuel title is basically understood as fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah
7:14.
177
Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of
Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries
(Paternoster: Regnum Studies in Mission, 2005), 3.

102
Sura 5:110. Jesus makes a bird out of clay,178 heals the blind and the lepers, brings the

dead back to life, and has the ability to know what people eat and store in their houses.

He also asks God to send down a table full of food for his disciples as a sign from God

that he is a messenger of God (S. 5:112-4). As a babe in a cradle, he performs his first

miracle when he defends his mother against the false accusation of immorality179 (S.

19:30). He has also foreknowledge of his death and ascension (S. 19:33). However, what

can be noted in Jesus’ miracles in the Qur’an is that Jesus can perform miracles because

he is a Word and a Spirit proceeding from God, and so he has God’s permission. The

Qur’an argues three things: (1) without God’s permission, Jesus cannot perform any

miracles; (2) in the past, prophets and messengers of God have performed miracles too by

God’s permission; and (3) miracles performed by Jesus and the prophets are signs from

God and they show that God is almighty.180 The Qur’an argues that miracles happen by

God’s authority. In all, Jesus performs seven types of miracles.

In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus performs the following miracles: cure of a leper

(Mt. 8:1-4), healing of a Centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5-13), stilling of the storm at sea (Mt.

8:23-27), cure of Simon’s mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14-15), healing of the Gadarene

demoniacs (Mt. 8:28-34), healing of a paralytic in Capernaum (Mt. 9:1-8), resuscitation

178
The miracle of Jesus creating a bird out of clay is nowhere to be found in the New
Testament gospel accounts. A version of it can be found in the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of
Thomas.
179
The account that Jesus speaks as a babe in the cradle is neither found in Matthew nor in
other canonical Gospel accounts. A parallel of which can be found in The Gospel of Pseudo-
Matthew which appears in the sixth or seventh century. Here, when the Holy Family is on their
way to Egypt, Jesus, as a babe, faces the dragons and speaks to his mother not to be afraid. See
Michel Cuypers, The Banquet: Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an (Colombia: Convivium
Press, 2009), 408.
180
See Betül Avci, “The Miracles of Jesus in the Christian Tradition and the
Commentaries of the Qur’an,” Encounter No 293 (April 2003): 1-11.

103
of the daughter of a leader of the synagogue (Mt. 9: 18-26), healing of a hemorrhagic

woman (Mt. 9:27-31), healing of a mute person (Mt. 9:32-34), healing of a man with a

withered hand (Mt. 12:9-14), multiplication of loaves (Mt. 14:15-21), Jesus walks on the

water (Mt. 14:22-33), curing of the daughter of a Canaanite woman (Mt. 15:21-28),

healing of an epileptic child (Mt. 17:14-21), healing of two blind men of Jericho (Mt.

20:29-34), healing of a mute demoniac (Mt. 9:32-34), cure of a blind and mute demoniac

(Mt. 12:22-23). We observe that in most cases, Jesus’ miracles are healing miracles and

driving out demons. The multiplication of the loaves, the stilling of the storm, and

walking on the water are nature miracles. In Matthew chapter 5-7 Jesus teaches, and in

chapters 8-10 he heals people. In Matthew 11:27; 12:28, Jesus’ power to perform

miracles comes from the Father. In this sense, we can say that in both scriptures Jesus

indeed performs miracles to make manifest his teaching, and that his power or authority

to perform these miracles comes from God.

Muslim commentators have noted that Christians interpret Jesus miracles and

unique gifts as an authority separate from God. The Qur’an criticizes this position having

in mind that it is God who made it happen and Jesus is simply a channel.181 All prophets

have performed miracles. If these miracles are proofs of divinity then Moses too is divine

because he has also performed miracles.182 What can be deduced is that Jesus is a sign

from God. In both Scriptures, the miracles of Jesus manifest God’s love for his people,

181
Beaumont, 4.
182
Ibid., 5.

104
and these miracles are miracles having to do with salvation, that is, life in its fullness, full

of meaning and purpose.183

B.3. Jesus as Prophet

The Qur’an is firm in its doctrine that Jesus is only a prophet/messenger of God

and he is sent to the children of Israel (S. 3:49), to make known what has been hidden

from the Scriptures (S. 5:15-6), and to confirm the Torah and to announce the coming of

the messenger after him (S. 61:6). Jesus, as a babe, knows already that he is sent by God

as a prophet (S. 19:30). Jesus is also righteous in the eyes of God (S. 6:85). As a prophet,

God gave him the Gospel (understood as a book) that confirms the earlier message given

to the prophets (S. 3:50). To rebuke the Christian claim that Jesus in a Son of God, Sura

5:75 says: “Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger.” Prophets in the

Qur’an are messengers of God’s revelation. Likewise, the Gospel of Matthew portrays

Jesus as a prophet. The Jews of Jesus time think that he is one of the prophets (Mt. 21:46)

who came back as Elijah or Jeremiah (Mt. 16:14) or even as John the Baptist resurrected

(Mt. 14:2). Although the evangelist may have portrayed Jesus more than a prophet, the

life and ministry, that is, the deeds (miracles and wonders) and words (teaching and

preaching), of Jesus are consistent with the life and ministry of the biblical prophets of

the Old Testament. In both Scriptures, Jesus suffers rejection by the Jews. However, the

difference is very clear: in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the one who is promised to

183
Mahmoud Ayoub, A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue, ed. Irfan A.
Omar (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2007), 112.

105
come, but in the Qur’an, Jesus is the one who prophesies the coming of the one who is to

come (Ahmad) as part of his prophetic ministry.

B.4. Jesus’ Teaching of God

Both Scriptures attest that the centrality of Jesus’ teaching is God. The Qur’an

exemplifies Jesus faith in God when he said: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord”

(S. 3:51; 5:117; 19:36; 43:64). In the Qur’an, Jesus prophetic message is the oneness of

God (Tawhid). He submits to the will of God and he is obedient to His commands. In the

Gospel of Matthew, Jesus preaches also the oneness of God. Verses like: “There is only

One who is good” (Mt. 19:17); “Be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt.

5:48); and “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven” (Mt

23:9) show that Jesus preaches the oneness of God, he calls God Father in heaven. Both

Scriptures also affirm the prophetic character of Jesus’ ministry that discloses God to

people.

However, the two Scriptures part ways about the way they speak of God. In the

Gospel of Matthew, Jesus addresses God as Father. The Qur’an simply talks of God as

God. Whereas in Matthew, Jesus’ use of Father may be understood metaphorically or

analogically, the Qur’an strictly prohibits any anthropomorphic understanding of God.

In Matthew, Jesus and God have mutual knowledge of each other: “No one knows the

Son except the Father, just as no one knows the Father except the Son and those to

whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Mt. 11:27). In the Quran, Jesus teaches that only

God knows the hidden things (S. 5:116) “because the mystery of God’s innate being is

106
to remain, even for the prophets, unfathomable.”184 In general reading, the Jesus of the

Qur’an emphasizes the transcendence of God, while the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew

emphasizes the immanence of God (the Emmanuel title and the Father reference). It is

also worthwhile to note that, while the Qur’an objects to the understanding that Jesus is

the Son of God, it is silent about the Christian record of Jesus addressing God as

Father.185

C. DIFFERENCES

In this section we will try to determine which themes in the Gospel of

Matthew are in dissonance with the Qur’an. The researcher intends to lay down

the extent of difference of each theme and, if ever there is a similarity, to what

degree they are similar. However, since Christian and Muslim scholars have

varied interpretations about these themes, the researcher will refer to the orthodox

position as it may be in agreement with literary analysis.

C.1. Jesus’ Death, Crucifixion, and Resurrection

The Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an do not agree on Jesus’ death. The Gospel

of Matthew records that Jesus died through crucifixion (Mt 27:33-56). Jesus is crucified

on the accusation of blasphemy (Mt 26:57-67). We must note here that somehow Jesus

has a foreknowledge of his suffering and death (Mt 16:21-23; 17:22-23; and 20:17-19).

Jesus might have foreseen the consequence of his radical teaching. Christian theology
184
Cuypers, 432.
185
Jesus calls God Father 42 times in the Gospel of Matthew.

107
teaches that Jesus’ suffering and death are part of God’s plan of salvation, and he will be

resurrected from the dead on the third day.

On the other hand, the Qur’anic account is unclear about Jesus’ death. The Qur’an

teaches that Jesus is a human being so we can say that he will die or has died, but not

through crucifixion. We have found out that there are two direct verses about the death of

Jesus. In Sura 19:35, Jesus, as a babe, has foreknowledge of his death. Sura 3:54-5 tells

us that the Jews plotted and planned to kill Jesus but God is the best of planners, and He

said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself.” Sura 4:157 says: “whereas they

slew him not nor they crucified him.” The former is what A. H. Mathias Zahniser would

call the affirmative verse while the latter is the denial verse.186 The Qur’an is not very

clear if Jesus died a human death or not, since he was taken up to the heaven. However, it

must be pointed out that it is not the Qur’an itself which denies Jesus’ death but the

hadith. It is also the hadith that transmits the belief that God will send down Jesus before

the Day of Judgment to kill the antichrist. After his natural death on earth, God will raise

him on the day of resurrection.187

On the other hand, Todd Lawson offers a more subtle and contextual

understanding of the denial verse. He says that the crucifixion verse is “located in a

context that does not have any aspect of Christian belief or doctrine as its theme or

purpose. The information about the event itself […] must be seen as parenthetic in

186
See A. H. Mathias Zahniser, The Mission and Death of Jesus in Islam and Christianity
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008),15-31. Zahniser translates 3:55 as I will cause you to die.
187
Zahniser explains that this tradition comes from Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī. Ibid.,
24.

108
support of the condemnation of kufr188, which in this case is located in a few

reprehensible actions of a group who esteemed themselves JEWS.”189 In this sense, we

can deduce two points: (1) that the denial of the crucifixion is not historical per se but a

theological import; and (2) the denial verse is not really for the Christians but for the

Jews who boast to have killed Christ Jesus, son of Mary. If the crucifixion happened, the

Qur’an teaches, it would render God powerless in the presence of disbelievers and

enemies. However, more and more contemporary Muslim scholars are rejecting the

traditional interpretation of Sura 4:157-9. They argue that what the Qur’an really denies

is the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as a ransom for sins, and what it

affirms is the actual death of Jesus and his redemptive role in human history.190

C.2. Jesus’ Ascension

The Qur’an reports that Jesus ascended to God. In Sura 3:55, God says to Jesus:

“O Jesus, I will make you sleep and raise you to myself.” Likewise, Sura 4:158 says:

“Allah raised him up unto himself.” Since the Qur’an denies that Jesus died during his

lifetime, we can safely argue that he was taken up to heaven body and soul. The

ascension of Jesus by God is a demonstration of God’s power, through which, he did not

let his messenger suffer death at the hands of believers. If in Matthew God vindicates

Jesus through his resurrection, in the Qur’an God vindicates Jesus through ascension. On

the other hand, the Gospel of Matthew does not record Jesus’ ascension. After he was

188
Kufr means a general disbelief on the teachings of the Qur’an.
189
Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim
Thought (Oxford: One World, 2009), 27.
190
Ayoub, 159.

109
raised from the dead, he commissioned his disciples for missionary task and told them:

“I am with you always until the end of age” (Mt 28:20). In Matthew, Jesus is with his

disciples, and need not ascend to heaven. This literary form in Matthew is consistent

with his theology of Emmanuel, whereas in other Gospel accounts Jesus ascended to

heaven. The birth of Jesus is a fulfilment of God’s promise of the deliverance of Israel.

Thus, “Jesus is Emmanuel, the divine presence with his people.”191

C.3. Jesus the Son of God

The idea of Jesus as the Son of God is the thorniest issue in Muslim-Christian

relations. Sad to say, it will always divide Muslims and Christians. In Christian

understanding, it may imply divinity. The Son of God title is not particular to Matthew.

It has its roots in the Old Testament192 to refer to Israel,193 the kings of Israel,194 and

angels.195 Thomas Buckley, alongside Kingsbury, argues that “[w]oven into the

Matthean christology and interpreted and enhanced in the light of Jesus Christ are the

Old Testament strands of royal Messianism, Servant of the Lord, Son of Man, Wisdom,

and the latter-day Moses. All are brought in the light of the higher origin of Jesus Christ,

Son of God.”196 We have seen in the Gospel of Matthew that the title Son of God is used

191
Benedict Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary Student Edition, ed. Raymund Brown, et. al, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993): 674.
192
See Marcus Borg, “Jesus and God,” in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, ed. Marcus
Borg and N.T. Wright (New York: HarperOne, 1999): 150-2.
193
Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1.
194
2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7.
195
Job 1:6.
196
Thomas W. Buckley, “The Christology of Matthew,” Chicago Studies 40, 3 (Fall-
Winter, 2001): 260.

110
 for Jesus on the occasion of Peter’s (Mt. 16:16) and the disciples’ confession (Mt.

14:33). During the Baptismal event (Mt. 3:17) and the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:5), God

claims Jesus as “my beloved Son.” This literary formula is powerful because this is God

claiming Jesus as his Son. In Mt 28: 19, we can read the baptismal formula of Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit which in turn became one of the Scriptural bases

of the Trinity. The Son in the formula has been understood by Christians as Jesus.

Though we have noted in chapter two that Matthew does not develop the doctrine of the

incarnation, Christians read Jesus through the lens of the Incarnation.197 For Christians,

the title or “the name Son of God reveals a perfect fellowship of love between Jesus and

God the Father.”198 It is “a relational metaphor, pointing to an intimate relationship with

God, like that of beloved child to parent.”199

On the other hand, the Qur’an forbids the association of any partners (S. 4:48) or

children to God. Basically, shirk is polytheism. The worship of other gods beside God

and the attribution of divine powers or nature to other gods are included in the idea of

shirk. Shirk violates the doctrine of tawhid (oneness) of God and it constitutes the

greatest of all sins. In the Qur’anic context, the term Son of God is shirk be it understood

theologically or biologically. The Qur’an warns Christians for believing that Jesus is

God (S 5:17) or that he is the son of God (S 9:30). The Qur’anic terms ibn (son) and

walad (child) in reference to Jesus complicate the Qur’anic discourse about Jesus. The

Qur’anic reading, however, suggests that walad is not used specifically for Jesus, and

197
Betül Avci notes that because of the doctrine of Incarnation, Christians see in Jesus’
miracles his divine nature. See Avci, 11.
198
Kataregga and Shenk, 163.
199
Borg, 151.

111
the Qur’an does not accuse Christians of calling Jesus the walad of God. It is the

commentators who use it to argue against the Christian understanding of divine

sonship.200 Moreover, Sura 5:72-3 refutes Christian belief: “Surely they have disbelieved

who say: Truly, God is the Messiah, son of Mary […] Surely, they have disbelieved who

say: Truly, God is the third of three.” Michel Cuypers explains: “The great rhetorical

development of this passage equals its doctrinal importance. Here we find a summary of

the theological polemic which opposes Islam and Christianity: the denial of the

Incarnation and the Trinity, and the affirmation of God’s unicity (tawhid) and the purely

human status of Jesus-the-prophet and his mother, and the negation of the saving role of

Jesus.”201 The passages also reflect the claim of the Council of Ephesus regarding Mary

as a Mother of God. Because of this, the Qur’an understood the Trinity as God, Jesus,

and Mary. Such distortion is what the Qur’an denounces, and it admonishes the

Christians for being one of faith with the polytheists in Arabia despite being a recipient

of the Gospel. For Christians, “the official declarations of Christian dogma would seem

to be a ‘middle way’ (difficult to grasp, but rationally based in theological reasoning)

between the exaggerations the Qur’an denounces, and the Qur’anic positions confirming

Jesus’ simple humanity and excluding the Trinity.”202 The problem here lies in the fact

that the linguistic formulation of Christian dogmas is so complex that is has become

detached from its literal sense leading to a misappropriation in the Qur’an and its

cultural context.

200
See Ayoub,117-131.
201
Cuypers, 337-8.
202
Ibid., 339.

112
 C.4. Jesus the Messiah/Christ

In Matthew, the words Messiah/Christ are loaded with meanings. In the Old

Testament, the kings of Israel,203 the prophets204and the priests205 are also anointed by

God. Messiah or Christ means the Anointed one, and is thought of as a royal leader

coming from the line of David to make all things new.206 He will liberate his people

from their enemies, save them from their sins (Mt 1:21), and by serving and giving his

life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28). On the other hand, the Qur’anic term Messiah is

part of Jesus’ name. It does not hold any significance aside from the fact that it is a

name. In the Qur’anic context, “God sends messengers, not saviours…although Jesus is

referred to as ‘Messiah’ in the Qur’an, the title does not have any soteriological

significance.”207 The major difference then is Christological. J. Dudley Woodberry sums

it up this way: “For Muslims, Christology is not included in theology, but for Christians

it is central.”208

However, the Messiah/Christ theme of the Gospel of Matthew is a good point of

reflection in Muslim-Christian dialogue. If we go back again to the Matthean prologue,

Matthew begins with “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the

son of Abraham.” Benedict Viviano explains that, in contrast to the Gospel of Mark,

203
1 Samuel 9:16; 16: 1-13; Psalm 89:19-20.
204
1 Kings 19:16; Isaiah 61:1.
205
Exodus 28:41; Psalm 133:2.
206
Daniel 9:25-6.
207
Marshall, 170.
208
J. Dudley Woodberry, “The Muslim Understanding of Jesus,” in Word and World 16, 2
(Spring 1996), quoted in Larson, 328.

113
 Matthew stresses more the humanity of Jesus than his divinity.209 “Matthew is the gospel

of Jesus the Emmanuel-God-with-us, the presence of the Transcendent in our world in a

human way.”210 If we understand Emmanuel as the leitmotif of Matthew’s narrative,

then it is clear that Jesus’ God in Matthew is an Immanent God who is always at work in

the struggle of His people. The relationship of the Messiah and the Emmanuel and the

qualifier son of David, son of Abraham focus on the humanity of Jesus and displace the

centrality of the Son of God title211 as emphasized by Buckley and Kingsbury. Peter’s

confession (Mt 16:16) of Jesus as the Son of God does not

make the confession more metaphysical, but more royal. The point is not that
Jesus is Son of God and not merely human, but that Jesus is God’s anointed king.
While Matthew has no doubts that Jesus is both truly human and truly divine,
these later categories are not important to him. Matthew’s Christology does not
focus on the metaphysics of Jesus’ person but on Jesus’ role in God’s restoration
of the divine sovereignty of the Creator, the establishment of God’s justice
throughout creation. For Matthew, the scene of ‘Peter’s confession’ is not the
crucial turning point in the perception of Jesus’ identity that it is in Mark. People
have long since known that Jesus is Son of God, and this has already been
confessed by all the disciples (14:33).212

The only common ground where the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an can speak

of Jesus as Messiah is on Jesus’ humanity. The bottomline is that as an Emmanuel

(Matthew) or a sign and mercy (Qur’an), Jesus’ life and ministry is a manifestation of

God’s ever enduring love and grace, justice and might.

209
See Benedict Viviano, “God in the Gospel According to Matthew,” Interpretation 64,
4(October 2010): 341-2.
210
Ibid., 342.
211
Ibid., 341-2.
212
M. Eugene Boring, “Matthew’s Narrative Christology: Three Stories,” Interpretation
64, 4 (October 2010): 365.

114
D. Conclusion

The Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an share commonalities and differences in

literary accounting and in meaning regarding Jesus. The researcher also notes that

converging themes do not really converge, and those themes that diverge have

similarities. In summary, most points that converge talk about the humanity of Jesus –

Jesus’ virginal birth, prophethood, miracles, and monotheism. Most points that diverge

talk about the divine nature of Jesus and its theological assumptions – Jesus’ crucifixion,

Messiahship, and divine sonship.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus’ birth is a prophecy fulfilment, and his

Messiahship implies God’s indwelling on earth – Emmanuel. He is the human face of

God, and he makes known God’s love and grace for his people. As a Son, his teaching-

healing activity is a ministry that makes known to people the Kingdom of Heaven. For

the Jesus of Matthew, God is an Immanent God, a Father who loves and takes care of his

people to the point that he even sacrificed His Son to manifest that love for them.

In the Qur’an, Jesus is the Word and a Spirit proceeding from God, and his

prophethood is a sign and mercy from God. As a prophet of God, he makes known the

will of God, confirming what has been revealed earlier. As a son of Mary, his teaching-

healing ministry manifests God’s power and might. For the Jesus of the Qur’an, God is a

Transcendent God, a God of justice and might who will punish the disbelievers and

wrongdoers.

115
 CHAPTER V

GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

From this mystery of unity it follows that all men and women who are saved
share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ
through his Spirit. Christians know this through their faith, while others remain
unaware that Jesus Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of
salvation reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the invisible
action of the Spirit of Christ. Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what
is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their
conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's
invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize
or acknowledge him as their saviour (cf. AG 3,9,11).213

Twenty-five years after Nostra Aetate was promulgated, the Pontifical Council for

Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples published the joint

document Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious

Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nostra Aetate lays down

the theology of dialogue with other faiths and Dialogue and Proclamation lays down the

very principles and methods to do interreligious dialogue. The document stresses the

obstacles in interreligious dialogue but emphasizes its theological presumptions and its

necessity in our ever dynamic context. Though it highlights the importance of

interreligious dialogue, the document stresses also the duty of all Christians to proclaim

the Good News and faith in Jesus. Dialogue and Proclamation reminds all Christians that

213
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization
of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation (www.vatican.va, October 25, 2012), no. 29.

116
evangelization is the mission of the Church in its totality to make known the Good News

to all people. Proclamation of the Good News is the every foundation and summit of

evangelization; interreligious dialogue is an integral aspect of evangelization to bring

forth this Good News to people of other faith traditions.214

With strengthened desire for interreligious dialogue, biblical scholars have

grappled with the question whether there are any biblical texts or passages which can be

quoted to support interreligious dialogue. However, the most captivating texts are

exclusive biblical texts on dialogue: John 3:18; 14:6, Acts 4:12 and other similar

passages. With texts like these, some Christians have shut the doors of dialogue

immediately to other believers, unless they convert. Sad to say, we always forget that

“other parts of the New Testament seem to portray Jesus more as a teacher, a healer of

the sick, one who forgives sinners, one who eats with the outcasts, one who welcomes the

poor and one who is exemplar in love and compassion. More importantly, Jesus does not

ask people to leave their religious community and does not show any anxiety that

everyone should become his immediate followers.”215 Rather than just seek for biblical

passages to support interreligious dialogue, we should also look at Jesus’ actions as

recorded in the Gospels if they support interreligious dialogue.

The good news of salvation is universal in character, thus, we must look into

biblical themes to understand fully the meaning and purpose of dialogue. Themes such as

love of God and of neighbours, option for the poor, voluntary poverty, compassion, the

parable of the Good Samaritan, the golden rule, service, and kenosis and metanoia will

214
Ibid., nos. 8-11.
215
Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, Dialogue: Resources Manual for Catholics
in Asia (Thailand: FABC-OEIA, 2001), 145.

117
make us realize how relevant dialogue is in our contemporary time. 216 It must become

part of our discernment of the signs of the time as we try to address fundamental human

and societal problems.

B. CONCLUSIONS

The researcher has made clear the very intention of this research: to be able to

contribute something to the ongoing Muslim-Christian dialogue by investigating both the

affirmations and rejections of Jesus. This research, as a comparative study of Jesus in the

Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an, investigates if Jesus hampers or promotes Muslim-

Christian dialogue toward a better mutual respect and appreciation. This chapter then is a

summary of the findings of the researcher. They are as follows.

1. Christians and Muslims read their scriptures differently. Christians understand

their scriptures as a word of God, inspired by God, but God made use of

human talent and language to make manifest His will and plan for humanity.

With this reading, proper interpretation of scriptural passages is necessary in

order for us to understand the metaphors and the language used in the

composition of the texts. Exegesis and the use of modern research methods

are important to bring out the latent meanings of the text. Muslims believe that

their scripture is the word of God, directly coming from God, but devoid of

any human intervention. With this understanding, the linguistic evidence is

sufficient enough to warrant correct interpretation of the word of God. The

216
See ibid., 147-9.

118
 literal sense, coupled with the hadith, brings out the meaning God intends for

humankind. The understanding that it is directly coming from God invalidates

the idea of using human methods to understand it, although some Muslim

scholars have embraced methods of modern exegesis.

2. The Gospel of Matthew introduces Jesus as a son of David, son of Abraham.

The evangelist uses a number of titles to bring out the distinctive character of

Jesus such as Lord, Son of God, Messiah/Christ, Son of Man, teacher, king,

and prophet. Of all these titles, the Son of God title holds a significant position

because God claims Jesus as his “son.” Though we have noted that some

scholars put primacy on the title Son of God, other scholars have raised

objections by claiming that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus humanity is

highlighted over his divine nature with the evangelist’s use of numerous titles

and quotations of Old Testament passages to imply the fulfilment of God’s

promises to his people. Jesus is portrayed as a prophet who teaches, preaches,

and heals people. His ministry is thought of as the culmination of the

Kingdom of Heaven where there is peace, justice, and equality. He is seen as

“the one who is to come.” However, he is not just one of the prophets of old

because as the Son of God he makes known to people God’s unconditional

love. Thus, christology in the Gospel of Matthew is a theocentric theology.

Primarily, Jesus ministry reveals what the Kingdom of Heaven is, and Jesus

makes known to people that God is a Father. The Gospel of Matthew portrays

119
 Jesus as an obedient son to his Father, and a figure whose deep and intimate

relationship with God puzzles people and even his followers.

3. The Qur’an presents Jesus as a prophet of God. He is always addressed as the

Son of Mary implying that he is only a human person, he is also known as the

Christ, a Servant/Slave of God, a Sign, and a Word and Spirit proceeding from

God. Though born miraculously, he has no divine status. The Qur’an has a

high regard for Jesus. His humanity is a model, his obedience or submission to

God is unquestionable, and his ministry is about the oneness of God. Though

referred to as a Christ, this title does not have any theological implication as it

is simply understood as a name. Jesus role in the Qur’an is limited. Aside

from confirming the teaching of the past prophets about God’s oneness, he

also prophesies the coming of Ahmad – understood as the prophet Mohammad

in Islamic tradition. His miracles are signs coming from God and he is able to

perform them by God’s permission. Jesus’ appearance in the Qur’an, though

considered important, is limited and simply referential compared to Moses

and Abraham. The Qur’an firmly denies the divinity of Jesus, and rebukes the

Christians, for there is but one divine God. The Qur’an portrays Jesus as a

humble and a faithful servant who always does the will of God.

4. The Matthean gospel and the Qur’anic account have commonalities with

regard to Jesus. Both accounts record that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary

without human intervention though they differ on the place and the type of

birth. Both scriptures list down miracles performed by Jesus. In the Gospel of

120
 Matthew, Jesus’ miracles include healing the sick, exorcisms, and nature

miracles. The Qur’an records seven types of miracles performed by Jesus:

among them healings, resuscitation, and speaking as a babe. Both scriptures

too acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet of God who was sent to make known to

people God’s will and love. Though there would be differences in

understanding Jesus’ prophethood and teaching, the Gospel of Matthew and

the Qur’an affirm that Jesus’ ministry is a ministry coming from God, and he

is also regarded as a prophet above any other prophets in dignity and someone

who has a deep relationship with God. As a prophet of God, Jesus ministry

revolves around teaching the oneness and the love of God.

5. There are also themes in the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an that may

forever be factors that divide Muslims and Christians. The understanding that

Jesus is the Son of God is rejected in the Qur’an. It is not only polytheism but

also a denial of God’s oneness. Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection is a thorny

issue because it is not only about the event but also the meaning it brings

forth. The Qur’an does not record that Jesus dies on the cross, and it rejects its

expiatory meaning. For Christians, it is a metaphorical language of God’s

love. The name Jesus means God saves. For Muslims, it is an abomination and

must be abandoned outright. Jesus’ ascension also is important though not that

controversial. Matthew’s narrative lacks it because his theology is God-is-

with-us. God is always with his people so Jesus need not ascend to heaven. He

remains with his disciples as the Emmanuel. And the last of these major

121
 differences is the concept that Jesus is the Christ. In the Christian mind, the

Christ is an anointed by God who will bring forth God’s will on earth in

fulfilment of His promises. In the Muslim mind, it is part of the name. For

Christians, christology is central to theology. Jesus Christ means God is at

work in Jesus. For Muslims, Christology does not have theological bearing.

The name Jesus Christ is just a name of a prophet.

6. Our comparative analysis tells us that the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew is

not similar to the Qur’anic Jesus. Though there are affirmations from both

scriptures, the common areas the two scriptures agree on are Jesus’ humanity

and his prophetic ministry. It is not enough to look for passages in our

scriptures that agree about Jesus to merit interreligious dialogue. Our

scriptures can only be meaningful and comprehensible if we also take into

account the various presuppositions and the different layers of interpretation.

Only in this way can interreligious dialogue be done with mutual respect and

understanding. On this point, the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew and the

Qur’an are not similar. Scripture and theology are not separated from each

other. If scripture is the soul of theology, theology is the reason of scripture.

On the other hand, the commonalities, Jesus’ humanity and his prophetic

ministry, warrant dialogue. It is in these fields where interreligious dialogue

grounded in the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an can flourish.

122
C. RECOMMENDATIONS

The researcher strongly recommends interreligious dialogue if it means better

understanding and communication to dispel mutual ignorance. At the same time, as

Christians, our dialogue with other faith traditions should be based on our Christian faith.

In using the Gospel of Matthew and the Qur’an, the researcher recommends the following

points regarding interreligious dialogue:

1. The theme “love of God, love of neighbour, and love of enemies” go well in

both scriptures. The theme of love should be the leitmotif of Muslim-Christian

dialogue. In the Qur’an, Jesus’ call for total submission to God is always

coupled with the idea of punishment for non-believers; while in Matthew,

Jesus’ call for conversion and faith in God is coupled with the idea of reward

in the kingdom. In both scriptures, however, though stated in different

fashion, Jesus preaches the enduring love of God to humankind.

2. Matthew 8:11 (“many will come from the east and the west, and will recline

with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven”), Mt.

25: 32 (“and all the nations will be assembled before him”), and Sura 5:82

(“And nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who

say, ‘We are Christians’”) are particular verses that affirm unity and positive

relations. These verses can be used to support dialogue, especially dialogue of

action, and encourage acceptance of each other. Dialogue must be done in the

123
 context of our scriptures and should be a reflection on the divine plan of God

for all humanity.

3. Since one of the findings of this study is that the two scriptures agree on the

prophetic ministry of Jesus and his humanity, a positive evaluation of Jesus

must begin with common issues. Interreligious dialogue must begin with

issues on which we agree before tackling those issues we disagree with. The

Qur’an says that Jesus confirms the message of the prophets of old and relaxes

some forbidden laws. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus fulfils the Law, and

urges people to live an upright life and surpass what the Law prescribes. Part

of our dialogue centering on Jesus is the question “What sort of prophet Jesus

is that he was able to win God’s favour?”

4. Jesus’ humanity is another common issue found in the Qur’an and the Gospel

of Matthew. His humanity is considered perfect because no shortcomings

were attributed to him. His life on earth is marked by a complete surrender

and total obedience to the will of God/Father. Jesus is our model to fully

realize our humanity. He preaches and teaches the will of God. It is imperative

to point out that, though Jesus is differently conceived in the Gospel of

Matthew and the Qur’an, Muslim-Christian dialogue must start off with Jesus.

If Jesus is our model to better understand our humanity, we must reflect on the

question “What sort of person I become in Jesus?”

124
5. Central to the Christian faith in God is faith in Jesus. Jesus’ uniqueness is a

faith attitude and a personal response to God’s invitation. It is therefore a

Christian duty and a mission of every Christian to continuously proclaim the

Good News of the Kingdom of God. The great commissioning in Matthew

and the universal character of the Qur’anic message underline God’s mystery

in calling and bringing together all people because we form one family, we are

destined to be together with one God, and we are created in the image of God.

As a further reflection, we must ask “If God is at work in Jesus, what are the

different images of God he portrays?”

6. The researcher observes that in both scriptures Jesus is referred to by various

titles. Some of these titles are found in both scriptures but the interpretation

and the meaning embedded in these titles vary accordingly. The fact that these

two scriptures present Jesus in such fashion affirms something about him. In

biblical proclamation, there is a metaphysical truth about Jesus that the

evangelist and the Qur’an want to convey. In this sense, it calls for further

reflection since modern methods may fail to elucidate the faith convictions

latent in these titles. Thus we have to ask questions like: “If Jesus Christ is

only human, why is it that the Qur’an seems ambiguous about portraying him

and his titles exceed those of the other prophets in the Qur’an?” and “If Jesus

Christ is not only human, why is it that the Gospel of Matthew seems indirect

in claiming Jesus’ divine nature?” If we tackle these questions against the

125
 background of the other religious context, we might realize a deeper truth in

our particular religious convictions.

7. It seems that today in Christian circles, interreligious dialogue has taken a

momentum. However, scholars are grappling with the problem of finding

terms that best suit the approach to be taken in our dialogue with other

believers. There has been a suggestion to move away from christocentrism to

theocentrism. The former is a Christ-centered approach and the latter a God-

centered approach. This study suggests that Matthew’s christology is

theocentric. Meaning to say, that our study of Jesus Christ points to God the

Father himself. However, we have to be mindful that the proclamation of the

Good News and of Jesus Christ is the core of the evangelizing mission of the

Church. It is therefore an imperative that in our interreligious dialogue our

faith convictions are laid down, not withhold. What we must avoid here are

exclusivistic approaches that shut doors for a better communication and

engagement.

The researcher hopes that this study has contributed something to an ever

dynamic interreligious dialogue of Christians with other believers. Interreligious dialogue

happens in all aspects of life: in meeting people, conversing with them, exchanging

theological ideas, and sharing of religious beliefs with other people. Interreligious

dialogue must not be seen only as a practical engagement to avoid wars, religious

violence, and misunderstanding. “The foundation of the Church's commitment to

126
dialogue is not merely anthropological but primarily theological. God, in an age-long

dialogue, has offered and continues to offer salvation to humankind. In faithfulness to the

divine initiative, the Church too must enter into a dialogue of salvation with all men and

women.”217 Interreligious dialogue is a constitutive element of our ever dynamic

reflection of the divine in our midst. Theologically, it is sound; biblically, it is founded.

217
Dialogue and Proclamation, no., 38.

127
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. SACRED TEXTS

The New American Bible. Rev. The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Makati: St. Paul
Publication, 1991.

The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Rev. and ed.
The Presidency of Islamic Researches, IFTA. Al-Madinah/ Al-Munawarah: King
Fahd Holy Qur’ān Printing Complex, 1410 H/ 1990.

B. CHURCH DOCUMENTS

Chia, Edmund, ed. Dialogue: Resource Manual for Catholics in Asia. Thailand: FABC-
OEIA, 2001.

Flannery, Austin, ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents.
Vol. 1. Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1996.

John Paul II. Redemptoris Missio. London: Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, 1991.

_______________. Redemptor Hominis. www.vatican.va. (September 30, 2011).

Pontifical Biblical Commission.“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.”Origins:

CNS Documentary Service23, 29 (January 1994): 497-524.

_______________.The Jewish People and the Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.
Vatican City: Vatican Press, 2002.

Pontifical Commission on Interreligious Dialogue. Ed. Maurice Borrmans. Guidelines for

Dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990.

Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. Ed. Francesco Gioia. Interreligious

Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Second Vatican
Council to John Paul II (1963-2005). Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2006.

Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbum. Pasay City: Pauline Publishing House, 1998.

_______________. Nostra Aetate. www.vatican.va. (July 23, 2012).

128
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of
Peoples. Dialogue and Proclamation. www.vatican.va. (October 25, 2012).

C. BOOKS

Ayoub, Mahmoud. A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue. Ed. Irfan Omar.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2007.

Beaumont, Mark. Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian

Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries.
Paternoster: Regnum Studies in Mission, 2005.

Borg, Marcus and John Dominic Crossan. The First Christmas: What the Gospels Really
Teach about Jesus’ Birth. New York: HarperOne, 2007.

Brown, Raymund. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary of the Infancy Narratives in
Matthew and Luke. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

Brown, Stuart. The Nearest in Affection: Towards a Christian Understanding of Islam.

Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994.

Campbell, William. The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science and History.
UpperDarby, PA: Middle East Resources, 1986.

Cassidy, Edward Idris. Rediscovering Vatican II: Ecumenism and Interreligious

Dialogue. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005.

Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim. London: George Allen &Unwin, 1985.

Cuypers, Michel. The Banquet: Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an. Colombia:
Convivium Press, 2009.

De Mesa, Jose and Lode Wostyn. Doing Theology: Basic Realities and Processes.
Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990.

_______________. Doing Christology: The Re-Appropriation of a Tradition. Quezon

City: Claretian Publications, 2005.

Ellis, Peter. Matthew: His Mind and His Message. Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1974.

129
Frederick, James. Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative Theology to
Solidarity. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis books, 2004.

Fuller, Reginald and Pheme Perkins. Who is this Christ?: Gospel Christology and
Contemporary Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Gula, Richard M. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality. New

York: Paulist Press, 1989.

Kateregga, Badru and David Shenk. A Muslim and A Christian in Dialogue. Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 1997.

Khalidi, Tarif. The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1981.
_______________. Matthew As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Knox, Ian. Theology for Teachers. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2003.

Küng, Hans. Christianity and the World Religions: Path of Dialogue with Islam,
Hinduism, and Buddhism.Trans. Peter Heinegg. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1986.

_______________. Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic. New York:

Crossroad Publishing Company, 1991.

_______________. Islam: Past, Present and Future.Trans. John Bowden. Oxford:

Oneworld, 2007.

Lawson, Todd. The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim
Thought. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009.

Leirvik, Oddbjørn. Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: Introduction, Survey of Research,

Issues of Dialogue. Uppsala: Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia LXXVI, 1999.

McDonald, Lee. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2007.

Mohammed, Ovey. Muslim-Christian relations: Past, Present, Future. Maryknoll, New

York: Orbis Books, 1999.

Moncarry, Chawkat. Faith to Faith: Christianity and Islam in Dialogue. Leicester:

InterVarsity Press, 2001.

130
O’Connor, Daniel. The Images of Jesus: Exploring the Metaphors in Matthew’s Gospel.
Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1977.

O’Shaughnessy, Thomas. Cardinal Bea Studies: Eschatological Themes in the Qur’ān.

Manila: Ateneo de Manila University, 1986.

Phipps, William. Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their
Teachings. New York: Continuum, 1996.

Renard, John. 101 Questions and Answers on Islam. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002.

Senior, Donald. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of the Matthew. Wilmington: Michael
Glazier. 1985.

_______________. The Gospel of Matthew. Nashville: Abington Press, 1997.

Shuler, Philip. A Genre for the Gospel: The Biographical Characteristic of Matthew.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Sobhani, UstaJa ‘far. The Prophecy of Jesus Christ about the Advent of Prophet
Mohammad. Trans. KamilUnda. N.p.: Al-Hidaya Publication, 1995.

Stein, Robert. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Books, 1987.

Stock, Augustine.The Method and Message of Matthew. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press,
1994.

Troll, Christian. Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations. Trans.

David Marshall. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2009.

Unda, Kamil. The Story of Jesus and Mary in the Qur’an: Commentary of Surah
Maryam. Manila: N.p., 1994.

Waardenburg, Jacques. Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perception in the Mid-20th

Century. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

__________________. Muslim-Christian Precepts of Dialogue Today: Experiences and

Expectations. Louvain: Peeters, 2000.

__________________. Muslims and Others: Relations in Context. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter, 2003.

131
Zahniser, A.H. Mathias. The Mission and Death of Jesus in Islam and Christianity.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2008.

D. ARTICLES IN JOURNALS

Afsaruddin, Asma. “Celebrating Pluralism and Dialogue: Qur’anic Perspective.” Journal

of Ecumenical Studies 42/3 (Summer 2007): 389-406.

Ante, Oscar. “Notes on Muslim-Christian Dialogue: A Christian Perspective.” Maryhill

School of Theology Review 6, no. 1 (2004): 1-22.

Avci, Betul. “The Miracles of Jesus in the Christian Tradition and the Commentaries of
the Qur’an.”Encounter: Documents for Muslim-Christian Understanding N. 293
(April 2003): 1-11.

Aydin, Mahmut. “Towards a Theological Dialogue between Christians and Muslims.”

IslamoChristiana 26 (2000): 1-31.

Benedict XVI. “Address to Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Vatican.” Origins: CNS
Documentary Service 40, 32 (January 20, 2011): 522-535.

Brink, Laurie. “Matthew’s portrait of Jesus as Teacher.” The Bible Today 49, 1 (January-
February 2011): 17-23.

Boring, M. Eugene. “Matthew’s Narrative Christology: Three Stories.” Interpretation 64,

4 (October 2010): 357-367.

Borrmans, Maurice. “The Doctrinal Basis Common to Christians and Muslims and
Different Areas of Convergence in Action.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 14, 1
(Winter 1977): 32-50.

Buckley, Thomas. “The Christology of Matthew.” Chicago Studies 40, 3 (Fall-Winter,

2001): 251-260.

Carter, Warren. “Kernels and Narrative Blocks: The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel.” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54, 3 (July 1992): 463-481.

Celata, Pier Kuigi. “General Situation of Islamo-Christian Dialogue.” Omnis Terra 41,
377 (May 2001): 203-212.

Cornille, Catherine. “The Role of Witness in Inter-religious Dialogue.” Communio 1

(January 2011): 61-69.

132
Cracknell, Kenneth. “Ambivalent Theology and Ambivalent Policy.” Studies in
Interreligious Dialogue 9/1 (1991): 87-111.

De Bleeker, Andre. “The Gospel of Barnabas: Obstacle to Christian-Muslim Relations?”

Maryhill School of Theology Review 12, 1 and 2 (2010): 84-109.

Fitzgerald, Michael Louis. “”Dialogue and Proclamation”: A Reading in the Perspective

of Christian-Muslim Relations.” Bulletin 82 (1983): 23-33.

Fitzmyer, Joseph.“The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the

Gospels.” Theological Studies 25, 3 (December 1964): 386-408.

Fonner, Michael. “Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion in the Qur’an: An Issue for Interpretation
and Muslim-Christian Relations.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29,3-4
(Summer-Fall 1992): 432-450.

Harrington, Daniel. “Why Did Matthew Write a Gospel?” The Bible Today 49, 1
(January-February 2011): 5-10.

Hostetter, Edwin. “Muslim-Christian Dialogue over Jesus and Muhammad.” Encounter:

Documents for Muslim-Christian Understanding N. 312 (February 2005):1-9.

Iglesias, Salvador Munos. “Literary Genre of the Infancy Narratives of St. Matthew.”
Theology Digest 9 (1969): 15-19.

Jacob, Emmanuel. “Discipleship and Mission: A Perspective on the Gospel of Matthew.”

International Review of Mission 91, 360 (January 2002): 102-110.

Jukko, Risto. Theological Foundations of Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue

in Christian-Muslim Relation.” Encounter: Documents for Muslim-Christian
Understanding 342-3 (February-March 2009): 1-26.

Kayalaparampil, Thomas. “Passion and Resurrection in the Gospel of Matthew.” Bible

Bhashyam 16, 1 (March 1990):41-51.

Keerankeri, George. “The Gospel of Matthew: The Eschatological Discourse: Jesus as

the End-time Judge.” Vidyajyoti 69, 9 (September 2005): 687-696.

________________. “The Gospel of Matthew: The Passion Narrative.” Vidyajyoti 69, 10

(October 2005):763-774.

________________. “God’s Victory over Death and the Turning point of History: The
Resurrection of Jesus in Matthew,” Vidyajyoti 69, 10 (2005): 844-854.

133
________________. “Jesus in Matthew: Christology in the First Gospel,” Vidyajyoti 69,
10 (2005): 921-934.

Kuitse, Roelf. “Christology in the Qur’an.” Missiology: An International Review 20, 3

(July 1992): 355-369.

Larson, Warren. “Jesus in Islam and Christianity: Discussing the Similarities and the
Differences.” Missiology: An International Review 36/3 (July 2008): 327-342.

Mangatt, George. “The Public Ministry of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.”Bible

Bhashyam16/1 (March 1990): 20-40.

Merad, M. Ali. “Christ According to the Qur’an.” Vidyajyoti 45, 7 (August 1981): 306-
320.

Mohammed, Khaleel. “The Case of the Overlooked Fatwa.” Journal of Ecumenical

Studies 46, 3 (Summer 2011): 378-388.

Montes, Adolfo Gonzalez. “The Challenge of Islamic Monotheism: A Christian View.”

Concilium 3 (1994): 67-75.

Mooren, Thomas. “September 11th 2001 and the Future of Monotheistic Religions.”
Maryhill School of Theology Review 6, 1 (2004): 38-72.

_____________. “Unity in Diversity: The “Prophets” Muhammad, Abraham and Jesus

and the Islamo-Christian Dialogue.” Maryhill School of Theology Review 6, 1
(2004): 73-113.

Müller, Mogens. “The Theological Interpretation of the Figure of Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew: Some Principal Features in Matthean Christology.” New Testament
Studies 45, 2 (April 1999): 157-173.

Paraplackal, Matthew. “Jesus in the Qur’an.” Jeevadhara18, 105 (May 1988): 167-178.

Pereira, José. “Portrait of Christ in the Qur’an.” Encounter: Documents for Muslim-
Christian Understanding N˚ 259 (October/November, 1999): 1-9.

Perkins, Pheme. “Who Is Jesus?: Matthew’s Christology.” The Bible Today 49, 1
(January-February 2011): 11-16.

Pratt, Douglas. “Identity and Ideology, Some Considerations for Islamo-Christian

Dialogue: An Australian Perspective.” IslamoChristiana 26 (2000): 79-93.

Reid, Barbara. “Which God Is With Us?.” Interpretation 64, 4 (October 2010): 380-401.

134
Slomp, Jan. “The ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ in Recent Research.” Islamochristiana 23 (1997):
81-109.

Tebbe, James. “Comparing Christ and Qur’an: A Brief Theological History and
Assessment of Liabilities.” International Review of Mission 88, 351 (October
1999): 414-424.

Thomas, John Christopher. “The Kingdom of God in the Gospel According to Matthew.”
New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 136-146.

Thompson, William. “An Historical Perspective in the Gospel of Matthew.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 93, 2 (June 1974): 243-262.

Troger, Karl-Wolfgang,.“Jesus the Prophet in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.”

Theology Digest 33, 1 (Spring 1986): 126-128.

Viviano, Benedict. “God in the Gospel According to Matthew.” Interpretation 64,

4(October 2010): 341-354.

Wadi, Julkipli. “Braving Muslim-Christian Dialogue: A Muslim Perspective.” Maryhill

School of Theology Review 6, 1 (2004): 23-37.

Waetjen, Herman. “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 95/2 (June 1976): 205-230.

Waardenburg, Jacques. “The Impact of Louis Massignon (1883-1962) on Islamic

Studies.” Encounter: Documents for Muslim-Christian Understanding N. 311
(January 2005): 1-13.

E. ARTICLES IN BOOKS

Borg, Marcus. “Jesus and God.” In The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. Ed. Marcus Borg
and N.T. Wright. New York: HarperOne, 1999: 145-156.

Brown, Raymund and David Stanley. “Aspects of New Testament Thought.”In The
Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. Raymund Brown, et. al. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968: 768-799.

Burnett, Fred. “Characterization and Christology in Matthew: Jesus in the Gospel of

Matthew.” In Society of Biblical Literature1989 Seminar Papers. Ed. David Lull.
Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press,1989: 588-603.

135
Gerhardsson, Birger .“The Christology of Matthew.” In Who Do You Say That I Am?:
Essays on Christology. Ed. Mark Allan Powell and David Bauer. Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999: 14-32.

Harrington, Daniel. “The Gospel According to Mark.”In The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary Student Edition. Ed. Raymund Brown, et. al. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993: 596-629.

Marshall, David. “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an.” In Resurrection

Considered. Ed. GavinD’Costa. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996: 168-183.

Viviano, Benedict. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary Student Edition. Ed. Raymund Brown, et. al. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993:630-674.

F. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL

De Bleeker, Andre. Introduction to the Islamic Religious Experience (2009 photocopy).

G. ON-LINE REFERENCE MATERIALS

Just, Felix. The Gospel according to Matthew: Literary Features & Theological
Emphases. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Matthew-Themes.htm, March 13,
2012.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of Kalam.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ThePhilosophyOfTheKalam_Wolfson_djvu.txt,
March 25, 2012.

136
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: JEFREY BERNAL CERCADO

Age: 27

Sex: Male

Birthday: August 05, 1985

E-mail: jefrey_cercado@yahoo.com.ph; jefrey.cercado@gmail.com

Profession: Educator, Faculty Member

Spouse: Malou Acebuque Cercado

Children: Megumi Matthew Acebuque Cercado

Amara Brielle Acebuque Cercado

Father: Eddie Gastar Cercado

Mother: Herminia Bernal Cercado

EDUCATION

MARCH 2013 MASTER OF ARTS, Major in Religious Studies

MAGNA CUM LAUDE

CICM Maryhill School of Theology, Inc., Quezon City

MARCH 2006 BACHELOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PH.B.)

CUM LAUDE

Saint Louis University, Baguio City

137
CAREER EXPERIENCE

2010 - PRESENT CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY, Manila City

Faculty Member, Teaches Religious and Humanities Courses,

Active Participant in Researches, Syllabi Enhancement, and Community

Outreach Programs

2008 - 2009 C.I.C.M MISSIONARIES, INC., Quezon City

Volunteer Archive Assistant, In-charge of Classifying and Cataloguing

of Documents, Prepares and Keeps Materials in Order

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES/ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

2006- PRESENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INVOLVEMENT

2012- PRESENT PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

2012- PRESENT RELIGIOUS EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

138