“The newly created Son of God” in Luke 1:35

The Word Biblical Commentary is a prestigious evangelical commentary series by leading New Testament scholars. In this significant extract on Luke 1:35 the commentator explains that for Luke the “Son of God” (Jesus) is a created being brought into existence by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is remarkably similar to the Quranic story of Jesus’s conception.


Categories: Gospels, New Testament scholarship, Qur'an

30 replies

  1. Talking about His humanity.
    He got His human nature from Mary.

    But before conception, He was the Word (John 1:1-5), who existed as the eternal Son as a spirit from all eternity past with the Father – John 17:5.

    • @ Ken

      Demi-god like Hercules got it.

      • No, the incarnation – Jesus is the Word / Son of God from eternity past
        John 1:1-5; 1:14

        existed in the form (nature / substance/ essence) of God
        Did not regard equality with God as something to be held on to at all costs
        but humbled Himself and became a man, became a servant; “emptied” Himself of acting like God – by becoming a human, a servant

        Philippians 2:5-8

        explained who God is, the one Monotheistic God, in flesh, “fleshed out who God is”

        John 1:18

        Very different from Greek paganism of pantheon of “gods” and those “Demi-gods” sinned and acted like spoiled brats many times; adulteries, jealousies, murders, etc.

        But Jesus never sinned; so therefore, you are wrong.

    • He got his human nature from Mary! Wow!

    • Jesus believed that he has God whom he has to worship and fear, which means necessarily that he believed that he’s a created being. You cannot just ignore this fact.

      • @ Abdullah 1234

        Sure you can when the Shaytan just keeps whispering in your ear so that you die commiing the only sin God doesn’t forgive.

  2. Wow, that’s just awful, wish I could remember the names of the heresies in the first couple of centuries that tried to make Jesus a created being.

  3. @ Ken

    Nope no different part human part god its all greek paganism.

    Next according to your text he(as) did sin (note Early Christians believed like us Muslims Jesus(as) didn’t deliberately disobey but may make a mistake)

    Now let’s look at a sin:

    Go up to the feast on your own. I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet come.”

    9Having said this, Jesus remained in Galilee. 10But after His brothers had gone up to the feast, He also went—not publicly, but in secret (John 7:8-10)

    That is a lie. He said he was not going to the festival then went. Next:

    John 9 Jesus works on the Sabbath which is a sin. He mixed spit with saliva and formed mud. This is not neccessary as he healed without doing so. So again even according to your text he is no different than the greek idols.

    Jesus(as) the prophet utmost respect one of the greatest of humans.

    Jesus as a god/ idol not so much.

  4. @ Ken

    Yes, I’m familiar with the context even read that bs article trying to explain away the conundrum before and it makes no difference he still lied. He could have said something more direct but PURPOSELY misled (which i a lie) Simple question did he say he was not going? Did he then go? Also can’t help but notice you got silent on him working on the Sabbath.

    • I read and heard there are manuscripts that say ‘not yet’ instead of ‘not’. This does seem to be a way for scribes to ‘correct’ the original as scribes often did. I did read someone saying that in greek it can be understood as saying ‘not yet’ while the english doesn’t convey that properly and hence the need to add the word ‘yet’. Not sure if this is true or not or whether it can even be applied to that verse.

    • Pennywise Kenny is still in his sins because his savior was also a sinner. It’s clear that the savior lied to his brothers.

    • It was late and I went to sleep right about posting the link to John Piper’s sermon. I recommend his teachings and sermons and articles and there are many there that you and others can listen to, read, and think about.

      You read the article by John Piper on John 7?
      The explanation is easy when you see the context.

      You called it “bs”, but it is good and makes perfect sense.

      Listen to the whole sermon, please. It is good for your soul.

      working on the Sabbath – Jesus did this many times in the Gospels and it is not sin. He did not violate God’s law, rather He broke the Pharisees wrong interpretation of the Sabbath law.

      It is good to do good on the Sabbath – there are times for deeds of necessity and mercy.

      He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?
      Matthew 12:11 (and many other passages)

      From an article by Dave Miller: ( I use this because it makes sense in the context, and I don’t have time right now to type everything out, etc. )

      “In John 7, calling attention to the miracle He performed in chapter 5, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:

      Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

      Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day fell on the Sabbath.

      Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

      Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally. One must be very careful that he is “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB) and not “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2).”

    • The exact part of Piper’s sermon on John 7, but reading and listening to the whole thing gives one the better overall context.

      1. Jesus Goes to the Feast Privately, Not Publicly
      His brothers want him to go to Jerusalem and show his miracles to the world, but he refuses. But then he goes after all and John draws attention to the way he went, privately — the opposite of what the brothers wanted. Verses 3–10:

      “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” For not even his brothers believed in him. . . . “You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

      So what Jesus meant when he said, “I am not going up to the feast,” was: “I am not going the way you want me to go. I am not going to seek human approval the way you want me to. You are after human praise. This desire is deeply defective. What I go to Jerusalem for is to die. But this is not what you admire about me — not what you believe.”

      • @ Ken
        Again I am familiar with the context bolding it will not change the fact that he still lied.

        1. He could have just said that not your add on of interpretation not found in the text
        2. He said I am not going to the festival. Then went to the festival this is dishonest and a lie. If you do not think this is a sin then Abraham(as) is ALSO sinless in your text as him saying “this is my sister” is what Christians attack him on even though his intent was “she is my sister in faith” and his life was in danger. So I will let you choose:

        Either Abraham(as) and Jesus(as) are sinless
        Jesus(as) sinned by saying he was not going to the festival

        Finally, it is not false interpretation the Pharisees are actually correct. The rule is not to work on the Sabbath, no Jew says one cannot perform a medical procedure on the Sabbath what is being criticized is him mixing the spit and mud. THAT is unnecessary working. He had the ability to not do this (as he had done several times before) and so he purposely violated the Sabbath.

      • No, Jesus did not lie; He was sinless. It is obvious you don’t know how to read the whole passage in context.

        Yes, it is the false interpretations of the law that the Pharisees had.

        So, you are wrong; again.

      • What’s obvious is that you and your ilk are liars just like your sinful savior. The context clearly establishes that Jesus lied and deceived his brothers. And now you’re lying to get him off the hook. It’s a vicious cycle of stupidity and deception.

      • The fact that Christians have to completely misquote their sinful savior to save him from his sins just goes to show how dishonest they are. They lie to save another liar.

  5. @ Ken

    Alrightly then Abraham(as) was sinless as well. So using Christianity’s theology we should go bow down in worship to Abraham(as) as this is the only “sin” Christians say Abraham(as) did.

    Next, you haven’t refuted anything you just gave a baseless opinion. Jesus(as) according to your text did unnecessary work on the Sabbath (making a paste) when he did not have to. He thus blatantly violated the Sabbath.

    So long story short:

    1. Jesus(as) lied or Abraham (as) was sinless (thus it is not unique). Also, we can add John(as) was sinless as well.
    2. Jesus(as) worked on the Sabbath. making the paste was not necessary to heal the person.

    Would you like me to add another one? There has been an entire book written on his sins.

  6. ?
    you are not making any sense.

    the article you linked to clearly showed that Abraham did sin. I skimmed it and from what I can tell, it demonstrates that Abraham lied and sinned and manipulated – he was selfish and did not even protect his wife Sara from the King in Genesis 20. God had to intervene and stop the king from committing adultery.

    He and Sara also sinned by being impatient with God and God’s promise and committing adultery with his maidservant, Hagar, in Genesis 16. That was wrong and also sinful.

    Where do you get, “then Abraham was sinless as well” ??

    • @ Ken

      I’ll help you Abraham’s(as) life was in danger and he said “she is my sister (in faith)” This is MORE commendable then saying I’m not going somewhere than doing so to “prove a point”. IF you claim Abraham(as) “sinned” then so did Jesus(as) as they are literally the same thing (actually Abraham(as) had more of a reason to be deceptive.

      As for your slander of adultery (when you yourself are probably a fornicator) it is not forbidden to take 2 wives and you have NO text of God condeming it othet than ambiguity.

      Now Jesus according to your text unnecessarily worked on the Sabbath and thus sinned again FOR NO REASON.

      Finally John(as) didn’t sin either according to your text so again he is MORE worthy of being worshipped using the Christian “sinless” argument.

  7. @ QB

    Wow!!! The complete disrespect to the prophets!!! This kafir really just called Abraham(as) selfish and an adulterer. He has the gall to insult someone whom God actually called his friend. Man Hell exists for a reason…

    • Yep, it reminds me of the Surah about the slanderers. These manworshipping pagans slander the prophets in order to put their own sinful savior on a pedestal and justify worshipping a man. The fires of hell have been prepared for these charlatans.

      • @ QB

        I mean seriously and THEN have enough nerve to claim they are holding on to Abraham’s(as) legacy which is what this WHOLE thing is about (hence the whole title of Abrahamic religion). I mean they think so lowly of the prophets even IF the crap they claimed about Muhammad(saw) was true he would STILL be superior to the lion’s share of who they consider to be true ones.

      • Well said.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: