When we consider the reactions to Jesus’ claims in the Gospel of John—especially in chapter 10—we find something strikingly relevant for later theological discussions. In that chapter, Jesus’ hearers respond with alarm when He speaks of His unity with the Father. Their instinct is immediate and forceful: a man must not claim divine status. The Most High must remain utterly unique. “You, being a man, make yourself God,” they protest. It is a reaction born out of reverence for divine transcendence.
In that sense, there is a real parallel between the objection raised in John 10 and the later theological instinct found in Islam. Islam is uncompromising in its insistence on the absolute oneness and supremacy of God. It strongly resists attributing divine identity to a human being. It seeks to guard the category of the Most High—Elyon—against any dilution or confusion. The impulse is one of protection: God must not be compromised by human association.
That instinct, at one level, resonates with the Jewish objection recorded in John 10. The concern is to preserve the uniqueness of the one true God. The anxiety is that calling a man “God” somehow diminishes or divides the divine.
Yet this is precisely where the divergence becomes important.
In John 10, Jesus does not retreat from the language of sonship or divine designation. He does not deny that Scripture can apply the term “gods” to those who bear God’s authority. Instead, He appeals directly to Psalm 82. There, those to whom the word of God came—appointed judges and rulers—were called “gods” because they exercised delegated authority under the Most High. They were not rivals to God; they were His representatives. Their tragedy was that they failed to act justly.
Jesus’ argument is careful and scriptural. If the term could be applied to fallible human judges because they bore God’s commission, how much more appropriate is it for the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world? He does not collapse Himself into the Father. He does not claim to be the Most High in place of the Father. He claims to be the uniquely consecrated Son—set apart, authorized, and sent.
The Jewish objectors reacted to His claim. Jesus answered them within the framework of their own Scriptures.
Islam, however, while sharing the instinct to protect divine uniqueness, does not accept even this scriptural defense. It rejects the application of “Son of God” to Jesus in any elevated theological sense. It does not allow for a Psalm 82 category in which a human agent may bear a derivative or representative divinity under God’s authority. For Islam, even that level of divine designation risks compromising the absolute distinction between Creator and creature.
This is where the paths decisively part.
In John’s Gospel, the Father remains the Most High. Jesus Himself affirms, even after resurrection, “my God and your God.” The supremacy of the Father is never threatened. Yet at the same time, John insists that the Father has sanctified and sent the Son, granting Him authority, vindicating Him through resurrection, and commanding that all honor the Son as they honor the Father.
Islam preserves the transcendence of the Most High but declines to follow John in recognizing Jesus as the uniquely sanctified Son who bears God’s authority in this elevated way. It accepts Jesus as a prophet but not as the Son in the sense John proclaims. It resists calling Him “Lord” and “God” even within the Psalm 82 framework of delegated authority.
Thus, historically and theologically, Islam sides with the instinct of the objectors in John 10—the concern to guard divine uniqueness—but does not accept Jesus’ own scriptural reasoning. It does not allow the category that Jesus Himself invoked from Psalm 82. Where John presents a faithful Son who restores the honor of the Most High by perfectly bearing His name, Islam prefers to avoid the category altogether.
The contrast is illuminating. John’s Gospel maintains both truths: the Father as the absolute Most High, and the Son as the uniquely sanctified and vindicated bearer of divine authority. The Son does not rival the Father; He reveals Him. He does not multiply gods; He restores faithful representation where others failed.
The question, then, is not whether God is one. Both John and Islam affirm divine uniqueness. The question is whether God has chosen to express His authority and restore His honor through a uniquely consecrated Son who may rightly be called “Lord” and even “God” in the Psalm 82 sense—under, from, and for the Most High.
John answers yes. Islam answers no.
And there the divergence lies—not in reverence for the Most High, but in whether Jesus’ own scriptural self-understanding is accepted.
ChatGPT, prompted by Stephen D Green, March 2026
