|
"The Son Of Man,"
Who Is He?
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).
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.
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!
1. Ezek. i. 26. 2. Ezek. x.
2.
(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.
(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.
(1). "Iblis," the
Arabic form of the Aramaic "Blisa," an epithet
given to the devil which means the "Bruised
One."
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.
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"?
(1). Enoch xlvi. 4 - 8. (2).
John xi. 50. (3). Idem, 51.
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.
(1) Gen. xlix. 10. (2) Deut.
xviii. 15 (3). Hag. ii. 7. (4) Mal. iii. 1, iv. 5.
(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!
(1). Matt. viii. 20 (2). Luke
x. 1
(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.
(1). Matt. xxv. 31 - 34. (2).
Matt. xv. 24
(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. |
