Any serious theological discussion of Jesus must eventually reckon not only with Jewish objections in the first century, but also with Islam’s later and sustained insistence on the absolute oneness and supremacy of God. Islam stands firmly for the transcendence of the Most High. It resists any suggestion that God could be divided, compromised, or confused with a human being. In this, it shares something important with the concern expressed in John 10: that divine uniqueness must be protected.
Our thesis affirms that instinct.
The Father—whom Jesus calls “the only true God”—remains the Most High. He is the ultimate source of life, authority, and worship. Jesus Himself distinguishes between “my Father and your Father” and “my God and your God.” The pattern throughout the Gospel of John is one of sending, obedience, and reception. The Son is sanctified and sent. The Father grants authority. The Son executes judgment in faithfulness to the Father’s will. Nothing in this pattern diminishes the Father’s supremacy.
In this sense, Islam’s emphasis on preserving the category of the Most High resonates with Jesus’ own language. It rightly rejects any notion that God can be displaced or rivaled. It rightly insists that worship belongs ultimately to the One who is above all.
However, where Islam diverges sharply is in its refusal to accept Jesus’ own scriptural self-understanding. In John 10, when accused of blasphemy, Jesus does not deny divine language; He explains it through Psalm 82. That Psalm shows that those entrusted with God’s word and authority could be called “gods” in a derivative sense. They were not the Most High Himself, but they bore His authority. Their tragedy was not that they were given such a role; it was that they failed in it.
Jesus places Himself in that category—but as its fulfillment. He is the one uniquely sanctified and sent. He does not claim to be Elyon in His own person. He claims to be the faithful Son under Elyon. His authority is not self-originating; it is granted. His mission is not independent; it is commissioned. His glory is not competitive; it is reflective.
Islam, in its zeal to protect divine uniqueness, rejects even this elevated and scriptural category. It accepts Jesus as a prophet but refuses to call Him “Son of God” in any theological sense. It resists attributing to Him even a derivative or representative divinity. In doing so, it sides with the instinct of the objectors in John 10—guarding transcendence—but declines to follow Jesus’ own appeal to Scripture.
Our thesis therefore stands at a crossroads between historic Christianity and Islam. Historic Christianity often frames Jesus’ identity in ontological terms that, to many Muslim ears, appear to blur the distinction between Father and Son. Islam reacts by rejecting divine designation for Jesus altogether. Yet John’s Gospel presents another way—one deeply rooted in Israel’s Scriptures.
In this reading, the Father remains the Most High without compromise. Jesus does not collapse into the Father, nor does He replace Him. Instead, He fulfills the role anticipated in Psalm 82: the true and faithful Son who bears God’s authority without corruption. He is rightly confessed as Lord and even as “God” in the sense of delegated, vindicated authority—under, from, and for the Most High.
This framework allows us to affirm Islam’s mission in one important respect: its unwavering worship of the One God. It refuses idolatry. It resists the deification of creatures. It seeks to guard divine transcendence. These are not trivial commitments; they echo the biblical insistence that the Most High stands above all.
Yet we must also urge a deeper adherence to the teachings of Jesus Himself. For in the Gospel, Jesus does not present Himself as a mere prophet among others. He speaks of being sanctified and sent in a unique way. He claims authority to judge. He claims to give life. He appeals to Scripture to justify divine language applied to Himself—not as a rival to God, but as God’s faithful and exalted Son.
If the Most High has chosen to restore the honor of His name through such a Son—if He has vindicated Him by resurrection and commanded that He be honored—then true fidelity to the One God must include fidelity to the One He has sent.
The question is not whether God is one. Both John and Islam affirm that He is. The question is whether the one God has, in fact, appointed and exalted a Son who perfectly bears His authority and reveals His character. John’s Gospel answers yes. It presents Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God—not displacing the Father, but manifesting Him.
Thus our position neither diminishes the Most High nor exalts the Son in rivalry. It calls for worship of the Father as the supreme God, and recognition of Jesus as the uniquely sanctified and vindicated Lord through whom the Father’s authority is exercised and revealed.
Islam preserves the transcendence of God. John urges us to see that this transcendent God has acted decisively through His faithful Son. To follow the teaching of Jesus fully is not to abandon monotheism, but to embrace the way the Most High Himself has chosen to make His name known.
ChatGPT as prompted by Stephen D Green, March 2026
