The Holy Qur'an presents to us the true Jesus Christ as "the Son of Mary;" and
the Holy Gospels, too, present him to us as "the Son of Mary;" but that Gospel
which was written on the white tablets of the heart of Jesus and delivered to
his disciples and followers orally, alas was soon adulterated with a mass of
myth and legend. "The Son of Mary" becomes "the Son of Joseph," having brothers
and sisters (1). Then he becomes "the Son of David;" (2) "the Son of Man;" (3)
"the Son of God;" (4) "the Son" only;(5) "the Christ;" and "the Lamb" (7).
------------ Footnotes: 1. Matt. xiii 55,56; Mark vi 3; iii 31; Luke ii
48; viii 19-21; John ii 12; vii 3, 5; Acts i 14; I Cor. ix. 5; Gal. i 19; Jude
i 2. Matt xxii 42, Mark xii 35, Luke xx 41, Matt. xx 30; ix 27; xxi 9; Acts
xiii 22, 23; Apoc. v 5; Rom. xv 12; Heb. vii 14, etc. 3. About eighty-three
times in the discourses of Jesus this appellation is repeated. 4. Matt. xiv
32, xvi 16; John xi 27; Acts ix 20; I John iv 15; v 5; Heb. i 2, 5, etc. 5.
John v 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, etc.; and in the Baptismal formula, Matt. xxviii.
19; John i. 34, etc. 6. Matt. xvi. 16, and frequently in the Epistles. 7. John
i. 29, 36; and often in the Revelation. ----------- end of footnotes
Many years ago, one day I visited the Exeter Hall in
London; I was a Catholic priest then; nolens volens I was
conducted to the Hall where a young medical gentleman
began to preach to a meeting of the Young Men's Christian
Association. "I repeat what I have often said," exclaimed
the doctor, "Jesus Christ must be either what he claims to
be in the Gospel or he must be the greatest impostor the
world has ever seen!" I have never forgotten this
dogmatizing statement. What he wanted to say was that
Jesus was either the Son of God or the greatest impostor.
If you accept the first hypothesis you are a Christian, a
Trinitarian; if the second, then you are an unbelieving
Jew. But we who accept neither of these two propositions
are naturally Muslims. We Muslims cannot accept either
of the two titles given to Jesus Christ in the
sense which the Churches and their unreliable Scriptures
pretend to ascribe to those appellations. Not alone is he
"the Son of God," and not alone "the Son of Man," for
if it be permitted to call God "Father," then not only Jesus,
but every prophet and righteous believer, is particularly a
"son of God." In the same way, if Jesus were really the
son of Joseph the Carpenter, and had four brothers and
several married sisters as the Gospels pretend, then why
alone should he assume this strange appellation of "the Son
of Man" which is common to any human being?
It would seem that these Christian priests and pastors,
theologians and apologists have a peculiar logic of their
own for reasoning and a special propensity for mysteries
and absurdities. Their logic knows no medium, no
distinction of the terms, and no definite idea of the titles
and appellations they use. They have an enviable taste for
irreconcilable and contradictory statements which they
alone can swallow like boiled eggs. They can believe,
without the least hesitation, that Mary was both virgin and
wife, that Joseph was both spouse and husband, that James,
Jossi, Simon, and Judah were both cousins of Jesus and
his brothers, that Jesus is perfect God and perfect man,
and that "the Son of God," "the Son of Man," "the Lamb,"
and "the Son of David" are all one and the same person!
They feed themselves on heterogeneous and opposed
doctrines which these terms represent with as greedy an
appetite as they feel for bacon and eggs at breakfast. They
never stop to think and ponder on the object they worship;
they adore the crucifix and the Almighty as if they were
kissing the bloody dagger of the assassin of their brother
in the presence of his father!
I do not think there is even one Christian in ten millions
who really has a precise idea or a definite knowledge about
the origin and the true signification of the term "the Son
of Man." All Churches and their commentators without
exception will tell you that "the Son of God" assumed the
appellation of "the Son of Man" or "the Barnasha" out of
humility and meekness, never knowing that the Jewish
Apocalyptical Scriptures, in which Jesus and his disciples
heart and soul believed, foretold not a "Son of Man" who
would be meek, humble, having nowhere to lay his head,
and be delivered into the hands of the evildoers and
killed, but a strong man with tremendous power and strength
to destroy and disperse the birds of prey and the ferocious
beasts that were tearing and devouring his sheep and
lambs! The Jews who heard Jesus speaking of "the Son
of Man" full well understood to whom he was alluding.
Jesus did not invent the name "Barnasha," but borrowed
it from the Apocalyptical Jewish Scriptures: the Book of
Enoch, the Sibylline Books, the Assumption of Moses, the
Book of Daniel, etc. Let us examine the origin of this
title "the Barnasha" or "the Son of Man."
1. "The Son of Man" is the Last Prophet, who established "the Kingdom of Peace"
and saved the people of God from servitude and persecutions under the idolatrous
powers of satan. The title "Barnasha" is a symbolical expression to distinguish
the Savior from the people of God who are represented as the "sheep," and the
other idolatrous nations of the earth under various species of the birds of
prey, ferocious beasts, and unclean animals. The Prophet Hezekiel is almost
always addressed by God as "Ben Adam," that is "the Son of Man" (or of Adam)
in the sense of a Shepherd of the Sheep of Israel. This Prophet has also some
Apocalyptical portions in his book. In his first vision with which he begins
his prophetic book he sees besides the sapphire throne of the Eternal the appearance
of "the Son of Man." (l) This "Son of Man" who is repeatedly mentioned as always
in the presence of God and above the Cherubim is not Hezekiel (or Ezekiel) him-
self (2). He is the prophetical "Barnasha," the Last Prophet, who was appointed
to save the people of God from the hands of the unbelievers here upon this earth,
and not elsewhere!
------------- Footnotes: 1. Ezek. i. 26. 2. Ezek. x. 2. -------------
end of footnotes
(a) "The Son of Man" according to the Apocalypse of Enoch (or Henoh).
There is no doubt that Jesus Christ was very familiar with the Revelation of
Enoch, believed to be written by the seventh patriarch from Adam. For Judah,
"the brother of James" and the "servant of Jesus Christ," that is the brother
of Jesus, believes that Enoch was the real author of the work bearing his name
(l). There are some dispersed frag- ments of this wonderful Apocalypse preserved
in the quotations of the Early Christian writers. The book was lost long before
Photius. It was only about the beginning of last century that this important
work was found in the Canon of the Scriptures belonging to the Abyssinian Church,
and translated from the Ethiopic into the German language by Dr. Dillmann, with
notes and explanations (2). The book is divided into five parts or books, and
the whole contains one hundred and ten chapters of unequal length. The author
describes the fall of the angels, their illicit commerce with the daughters
of men, giving birth to a race of giants who invent all sorts of artifices and
noxious knowledge. Then vice and evil increase to such a pitch that the Almighty
punishes them all with the Deluge. He also relates his two journeys to the heavens
and across the earth, being guided by good angels, and the mysteries and wonders
he saw therein. In the second part, which is a description of the Kingdom of
Peace, "the Son of Man" catches the kings in the midst of their voluptuous life
and precipitates them into hell (3). But this second book does not belong to
one author, and assuredly it is much corrupted by Christian hands. The third
book (or part) contains some curious and developed astronomical and physical
notions. The fourth part presents an Apocalyptical view of the human race from
the beginning to the Islamic days, which the author styles the "Messianic" times,
in two symbolical parables or rather allegories. A white bull comes out of the
earth; then a white heifer joins him they give birth to two calves: one black,
the other red; the black bull beats and chases away the red one; then he meets
a heifer and they give birth to several calves of black color, until the mother
cow leaves the black bull in the search the red one; and, as she does not find
him, bawls and shrieks aloud, when a red bull appears, and they begin to propagate
their species. Of course, this transparent parable symbolizes Adam, Eve, Cain,
Abel, Sheth, etc., down to Jacob whose offspring is represented by a "flock
of sheep" - as the Chosen People of Israel; but the offspring of his brother
Esau, i.e. the Edomites, is described as a swarm of boars. In this second parable
the flock of sheep is frequently harassed, attacked, dispersed, and butchered
by the beasts and birds of prey until we come to the so-called Messianic times,
when the flock of sheep is again attacked fiercely by ravens and other carnivorous
animals; but a gallant "Ram" resists with great courage and valor. It is then
that "the Son of Man," who is the real master or owner of the flock, comes forth
to deliver his flock.
------------- Footnote: (1). Judah i. 14. In the Gospels he is mentioned
as one of the four brothers of Jesus, Matt. xiii. 55, 56, etc. (2). It has also
been translated into English by an Irish Bishop Laurence. (3). Enoch xlvi. 4
- 8. ------------
A non-Muslim scholar can never explain the vision of
a Sophee - or a Seer. He will - as all of them do -
bring down the vision to the Maccabees and the King
Antiochus Epiphanes in the middle of the second century
B.C., when the Deliverer comes with a tremendous truncheon
or scepter and strikes right and left upon the birds and
the beasts, making a great slaughter among them; the earth,
opening its mouth, swallows them in; and the rest take to
flight. Then swords are distributed among the sheep, and
a white bull leads them on in perfect peace and security.
As to the fifth book, it contains religious and moral
exhortations. The whole work in its present shape exhibits
indications which show that it was composed as late as
110 B.C., in the original Aramaic dialect, by a Palestinian
Jew. At least such is the opinion of the French Encyclopedia.
The Qur'an only mentions Enoch under his surname "Idris" - the Arabic form of
the Aramaic "Drisha" being of the same category of simple nouns as "Iblis" and
"Blisa" (l) "Idris" and "Drisha" signify a man of great learning, a scholar
and an erudite, from "darash" (Arabic "darisa"). The Qur'anic text says: "And
mention in the Book Idris; he too was a man of truth and a Prophet, whom We
exalted." Ch.19:56-57 Qur'an.
------------- Footnote: (1). "Iblis," the Arabic form of the Aramaic "Blisa,"
an epithet given to the devil which means the "Bruised One." ------------- end
of footnote
The Muslim commentators, Al-Baydhawi and Jalalu
'd-Din, seem to know that Enoch had studied astronomy,
physics, arithmetic, that he was the first who wrote with the
pen, and that "Idris" signifies a man of much knowledge,
thus showing that the Apocalypse of Enoch had not been
lost in their time.
After the close of the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures
in the fourth century or so B.C. by the "Members of the
Great Synagogue," established by Ezra and Nehemiah, all
other sacred or religious literature besides those included
within the Canon was called Apocrypha and excluded from
the Hebrew Bible by an assembly of the learned and pious
Jews, the last of whom was the famous "Simeon the Just,"
who died in 310 B.C. Now among these Apocryphal books
are included the Apocalypses of Enoch, Barukh, Moses,
Ezra, and the Sibyline books, written at different epochs
between the time of the Maccabees and after the destruction
of Jerusalem by Titus. It seems to be quite a la mode with
the Jewish Sages to compose Apocalyptical and religious
literature under the name of some celebrated personage of
antiquity. The Apocalypse at the end of the New Testament which bears the name of John the Divine is no
exception to this old Judeo Christian habitude. If "Judah
the brother of the Lord" could believe that "Henoh the
Seventh from Adam" was really the author of the one
hundred and ten chapters bearing that name, there is no
wonder that Justin the Martyr, Papias, and Eusebius would
believe in the authorship of Matthew and John.
However, my aim is not to criticize the authorship of,
or to extend the comments upon these enigmatic and
mysterious revelations which were compiled under the most
painful and grievous circumstances in the history of the
Jewish nation; but to give an account of the origin of this
surname "the Son of Man" and to shed some light upon
its true signification. The Book of Enoch too, like the
Apocalypse of the Churches and like the Gospels, speaks
of the coming of "the Son of Man" to deliver the people
of God from their enemies and confuses this vision with
the Last Judgment.
(b) The Sibylline Revelation, which was composed after the last collapse
of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, states that "the Son of Man" will appear
and destroy the Roman Empire and deliver the Believers in One God. This book
was written at least fourscore years after Jesus Christ.
(c) We have already given an exposition of "the Son of Man" when we
discussed the vision of Daniel, (l) where he is presented to the Almighty
and invested with power to destroy the Roman Beast. So the visions, in the
"Assumption of Moses," in the Book of Baruch (or Barukh), more or less similar
in their views and expectations to those described in the above-mentioned "Revelations,"
all unanimously describe the Deliverer of the people of God as "Barnasha" or
"the Son of Man," to distinguish him from the "Monster;" for the former is created
in the image of God and the latter transformed into the image of Satan.
------------ Footnotes: 1. Dan. vii. See the article, "Muhammad in the
Old Testament," in the Islamic Review for November, 1938. ------------
2. The Apocalyptic "Son of Man" could not be Jesus Christ.
This surname, "Son of Man," is absolutely inapplicable
to the son of Mary. All the pretensions of the so-called
"Gospels" which make the "Lamb" of Nazareth to "catch
the kings in the midst of their voluptuous life and hurl
them down into the Hell;" (1) lack every bit of authenticity,
and the distance separating him from "the Son of Man"
marching with the legions of angels upon the clouds towards
the Throne of the Eternal is more than that of our globe
from the planet of Jupiter. He may be a "son of man"
and a "messiah," as every Jewish king, prophet, and high!
priest was, but he was not "the Son of Man" nor "the
Messiah" whom the Hebrew prophets and apocalyptists
foretold. And the Jews were perfectly right to refuse him
that title and office. They were certainly wrong to deny
him his prophethood, and criminal to have shed his
innocent blood - as they and the Christians believe. "The
Assembly of the Great Synagogue," after the death of
Simeon the just in 310 B.C., was replaced by the "Sanhedrin,"
whose president had the surname of "Nassi" or Prince. It
is astonishing that the "Nassi" who passed the judgment
against Jesus, saying: "It is more profitable that one man
should die rather than the whole nation should be
destroyed," (2) was a prophet (3)! If he were a prophet, how was it that he
did not recognize the prophetic mission or the Messianic character of "the Messiah"?
------------- Footnotes: (1). Enoch xlvi. 4 - 8. (2). John xi. 50. (3).
Idem, 51. ------------- end of footnotes
Here are, then the principal reasons why Jesus was
not "the Son of Man" nor the Apocalyptic Messiah:
(a) A messenger of God is not commissioned to pro- phesy about himself
as a personage of some future epoch, or to foretell his own reincarnation and
thus present him- self as the hero in some great future drama of the world.
Jacob prophesied about "the Prophet of Allah," (1) Moses about a prophet who
would come after him with the Law, and Israel was exhorted to "obey him; (2)
Haggai foretold Ahmad (3); Malachi predicted the coming of the "Messenger of
the Covenant" and of Elijah; (4) but none of the prophets ever did prophesy
about his own second coming into the world. What is extremely abnormal in the
case of Jesus is that he is made to pretend his identity with "the Son of Man,"
yet he is unable to do in the least degree the work that the foretold "Son of
Man" was expected to accomplish! To declare to the Jews under the grip of Pilate
that he was "the Son of Man," and then to pay tribute to Caesar; and to confess
that "the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head;" and then to postpone the
deliverance of the people from the Roman yoke to an indefinite future, was practically
to trifle with his nation; and those who put all these incoherences as sayings
in the mouth of Jesus only make idiots of themselves.
------------- Footnotes: (1) Gen. xlix. 10. (2) Deut. xviii. 15 (3). Hag.
ii. 7. (4) Mal. iii. 1, iv. 5. ------------- end of footnotes
(b) Jesus knew better than everybody else in Israel who "the Son of
Man" was and what was his mission. He was to dethrone the profligate kings and
to cast them into the Hell-fire. The "Revelation of Baruch" and that of Ezra
- the Fourth Book of Esdras in the Vulgate - speak of the appearance of "the
Son of Man" who will establish the powerful Kingdom of Peace upon the ruins
of the Roman Empire. All these Apocryphal Revelations show the state of the
Jewish mind about the coming of the last great Deliverer whom they surname "the
Son of Man" and "the Messiah." Jesus could not be unaware of and un- familiar
with this literature and this ardent expectation of his people. He could not
assume either of those two titles to himself in the sense which the Sanhedrin
- that Supreme Tribunal of Jerusalem - and Judaism attached to them; for he
was not "the Son of Man" and "the Messiah," because he had no political program
and no social scheme, and because he was himself the precursor of "the Son of
Man', and of "the Messiah" - the Adon, the Conquering Prophet, the Anointed
and crowned Sultan of the Prophets.
(c) A critical examination of the surname "Son of Man" put three and
eighty times in the mouth of the master will and must result in the only conclusion
that he never appropriated it to himself; and in fact he often uses that title
in the third person. A few examples will suffice to convince us that Jesus applied
that surname to someone else who was to appear in the future.
(i) A Scribe, that is a learned man, says: "I will follow thee wheresoever
thou goest." Jesus answers: "The foxes have their holes; the birds of heaven
their own nests; but the Son of Man has no place where to lay his head." (1)
In the verse following he refuses one of his followers per- mission to go and
bury his father! You will find not a single saint, father, or commentator to
have troubled his head or the faculty of reasoning in order to discover the
very simple sense embodied in the refusal of Jesus to allow that learned Scribe
to follow him. If he had place for thirteen heads he could certainly provide
a place for the fourteenth too. Besides, he could have registered him among
the seventy adherents he had (2). The Scribe in question was not an ignorant
fisherman like the sons of Zebedee and of Jonah; he was a scholar and a practiced
lawyer. There is no reason to suspect his sincerity; he was led to believe that
Jesus was the predicted Messiah, the Son of Man, who at any moment might summon
his heavenly legions and mount upon the throne of his ancestor David. Jesus
perceived the erroneous notion of the Scribe, and plainly let him understand
that he who had not two square yards of ground on earth to lay his head could
naturally not be "the Son of Man"! He was not harsh to the Scribe; he benevolently
saved him from wasting his time in the pursuit of a futile hope!
------------- Footnote: (1). Matt. viii. 20 (2). Luke x. 1 -------------
end of footnote
(ii) Jesus Christ is reported to have declared that the Son of Man "will separate
the sheep from the goats." (1) The "sheep" symbolize the believing Israelites
who will enter into the Kingdom but the "goats" signify the unbelieving Jews
who had joined with the enemies of the true religion and were consequently doomed
to perdition. This was practically what the Apocalypse of Enoch had predicted
about the Son of Man. Jesus simply confirmed the revelation of Enoch and gave
it a Divine character. He himself was sent to exhort the sheep of Israel (2)
to remain faith- ful to God and await patiently the advent of the Son of Man
who was coming to save them for ever from their enemies; but he himself was
not the Son of Man, and had nothing to do with the political world, nor with
the "sheep" and "goats" which both alike rejected and despised him, except a
very small number who loved and believed in him.
------------- Footnotes: (1). Matt. xxv. 31 - 34. (2). Matt. xv. 24 -------------
end of footnotes
(iii) The Son of Man is said to be "the Lord of the Sabbath day," that is,
he had the power to abrogate the law which made it a holy day of rest from labor
and work. Jesus was a strict observer of the Sabbath, on which day he used to
attend the services in the Temple or in the Synagogue. He expressly commands
his followers to pray that the national collapse at the destruction of Jerusalem
should not happen on a Sabbath day. How could, then, Jesus claim to be the Son
of Man, the Lord of the Sabbath day, while he was obliged to observe and keep
it like every Jew? How could he venture to claim that proud title and then predict
the destruction of the Temple and of the Capital City?
These and many other examples show that Jesus could
never appropriate the surname of "Barnasha" to himself,
but he ascribed it to the Last Powerful Prophet, who really
saved the "sheep," i.e. the believing Jews; and either
destroyed or dispersed the unbelievers among them;
abolished the day of Sabbath; established the Kingdom of
Peace; and promised that this religion and kingdom will last
to the day of the Last Judgment.
We shall in our next essay turn our attention to find all
the marks and qualities of the Apocalyptic "Son of Man"
which are literally and completely found in the last Prophet
of Allah, upon whom be peace and the blessing of God!
No Copyright:
Any
organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents of
this website
may do so as long as the information is kept in its original form,
names of
all authors and sources are kept intact and is used for non-malicious
purposes.
An acknowledgement would be HIGHLY appreciated.
