The Orthodox Muslim

How misused: Misinterpreted as Jesus claiming only a unity of purpose with the Father, not essential divinity, often equated with the unity of believers (John 17:21-23). Denied that the Jewish reaction to this statement implied a claim of equality with God.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' statement 'I and the Father are one' (Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν) uses the neuter 'one' (ἓν), indicating one essence or nature, not merely one purpose or will. The Jewish reaction to this statement, attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy because 'you, being a man, make yourself God' (John 10:33), unequivocally demonstrates that they understood Jesus' claim as one of essential divinity. This is distinct from the spiritual and relational unity Jesus prayed for among believers in John 17, which reflects, but does not equate to, the ontological unity within the Godhead. The 'one' in John 10:30 is an essential unity.

How misused: Repeatedly asserted that this chapter refers exclusively to the nation of Israel (specifically, 'righteous Israel' or a collective remnant) and not to a singular, individual Messiah. Used to deny Jesus' vicarious atonement and suffering for sins.

Scripture's answer: While Isaiah 53 is part of the 'Servant Songs' in Isaiah which often refer to Israel, the specific language in chapter 53 points to an individual figure whose suffering is vicarious and atoning. Phrases like 'He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities... by His wounds we are healed' (Isaiah 53:5), 'He poured out His soul unto death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors' (Isaiah 53:12) cannot be adequately applied to the nation of Israel without significant reinterpretation. The text speaks of one who 'had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth' (Isaiah 53:9), a characteristic not consistently attributable to the nation of Israel collectively. The New Testament consistently applies this prophecy to Jesus Christ (Acts 8:32-35, 1 Pet 2:24-25).

How misused: Misapplied as a universal ontological prohibition against God becoming a man ('God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent') to deny the Incarnation and Jesus' divinity.

Scripture's answer: Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man that He should lie or change His mind. The context is God's faithfulness and immutability regarding His promises and character. It speaks to God's *moral* nature (He is not deceitful or fickle like sinful humans), not His *ontological* capacity to assume a human nature. The Incarnation asserts that God *became* man (took on human nature) without ceasing to be God, and without compromising His divine attributes, including His truthfulness and immutability (John 1:14, Phil 2:6-8). The verse does not imply God cannot choose to take on human form.

How misused: Interpreted as Jesus denying His own goodness or divinity ('Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.') to claim Jesus did not believe Himself to be God or perfectly sinless.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' question is a rhetorical one, challenging the rich young ruler's superficial understanding of 'good.' Jesus was not denying His own goodness or deity, but rather probing the man's heart to see if he truly understood the implications of calling Jesus 'good Teacher' and recognizing the divine standard of goodness. Jesus' sinlessness is unequivocally affirmed throughout the New Testament (Heb 4:15, 1 Pet 2:22, 1 John 3:5). To be good in the absolute sense is to be God, and Jesus' question invites the man to consider this very truth about Him. The earliest manuscripts of Matthew 19:17 actually read 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.' Even with this reading, the point remains that Jesus is redirecting the focus to the divine source of goodness, which he embodies.

How misused: Claimed that this prophecy of a prophet 'like Moses' refers to Muhammad, misinterpreting 'from among your own people' or 'from your brethren' to include non-Israelites (Arabs).

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 18:15-18 states, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me *from among you*, *from your fellow Israelites*.' The Hebrew phrases מִקִּרְבְּךָ ('from among you') and מֵאַחֶיךָ ('from your brethren') consistently refer to fellow Israelites within the context of the Torah (e.g., Deut 17:15 regarding a king). The New Testament explicitly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of this prophecy (Acts 3:22-23, 7:37), highlighting His unique mediatorial role similar to Moses, particularly as a lawgiver and covenant mediator, but superior. Muhammad was not an Israelite. The prophecy points to a prophet from within Israel.

How misused: Claimed that the 'Son of Man' figure described here refers to Muhammad or the Islamic caliphate, rather than Jesus Christ and His divine, eternal kingdom. Misinterpreted 'serve' (פְלַח, pelek) to exclusively mean homage to a king, not divine worship.

Scripture's answer: Daniel 7:13-14 describes 'one like a Son of Man' coming with the clouds of heaven, to whom 'dominion and glory and a kingdom' are given, that all peoples, nations, and languages should 'serve' (יִפְלְחוּן, yiphlekhun) him. This Aramaic verb is used for both human homage and divine worship in Daniel (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28 for worship of idols or God). Jesus Himself consistently identified with this 'Son of Man' figure, claiming divine authority (Mark 14:61-62). The New Testament affirms Jesus as the fulfillment (Matt 24:30, 26:64, Rev 1:7, 13-14), establishing an eternal, spiritual kingdom, not a temporal earthly empire like the Islamic caliphate. The text explicitly states 'His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed' (Daniel 7:14), which points to a divine, eternal reign.

How misused: Misapplied 'no one can serve two masters' to the persons of the Trinity, implying that Christians worship multiple gods if they serve the Father and the Son, rather than understanding the unified nature of God.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' statement 'No one can serve two masters' (Matt 6:24) refers to conflicting loyalties (e.g., God and money, or two human masters with opposing commands). It addresses the *singular* and *exclusive* devotion required by the one true God. In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (Deut 6:4), sharing one divine will and essence. Serving the Son is serving the Father (John 14:7), and serving the Holy Spirit is serving God, because they are one divine being. This passage does not imply that acknowledging distinct persons within the Godhead leads to polytheism or divided loyalty. It presupposes the singular object of ultimate devotion.

How misused: Denied its Messianic fulfillment in Jesus. Claimed 'almah' (עַלְמָה) means 'young woman' exclusively, not 'virgin,' and that the prophecy refers to a child born in Isaiah's time (e.g., Hezekiah) who was 'already pregnant,' thus precluding a virgin birth for Jesus.

Scripture's answer: While 'almah' (עַלְמָה) can mean 'young woman,' its usage in contexts like Genesis 24:43 for Rebekah often implies a virgin. More importantly, Matthew's inspired application (Matt 1:23) draws on the Septuagint's translation of 'almah' as 'parthenos' (παρθένος), which unequivocally means 'virgin.' The prophecy has a dual fulfillment: a near-term sign for King Ahaz and a far-term, ultimate fulfillment in the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus, who is 'God with us' (Immanuel). The context of Isaiah 7, which speaks of an extraordinary sign, supports a miraculous interpretation, and the New Testament, under divine inspiration, affirms this fulfillment in Christ. The prophecy is not about Hezekiah, whose birth predates this event.