DerekhHikmah

It’s obvious that Paul has switched Jesus instead of God. Note use of Kyrios for God in both Isaiah and Philippians. This is no representative, this is identity! Kyrios can be used in a non-God way, but also in a ‘God only’ way. In context this is unambiguously 'God only': So when Paul goes: unambiguously he means Jesus, use of Kyrios in both, so Paul clearly saying the Joel 2 Kyrios is Jesus. And the adapted Shema in 1 Cor 8:6, an utterly shocking, mindblowing act. We agree that Paul is not abandoning monotheism. He is including Jesus right with the One God. Your quotations of scriptures are inaccurate in translation. Joel 2:32 says, everyone who 'calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.' Hebrew Text (Joel 2:32 / 3:5):וְהָיָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה יִמָּלֵט (יהוה—YHWH) appears explicitly in the original text. So, when Paul quotes Joel in Romans 10:13, he—being an early first-century Jew—would have quoted God's name, Jehovah; he grew up learning that. The oldest copy of Romans comes from the Chester Beatty Papyri collection, the letter to the Romans is Papyrus 46. It dates from the late 2nd/early 3rd century. By then, people were no longer using the divine name YHWH. They substituted Kyrios (Lord) instead, so the oldest surviving copies of Paul's letters contain Kyrios. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not changing the Shema or teaching a theological point around identity. In Paul's first letter to Timothy, he states in chapter 2, verse 5: 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.' Also, Isaiah 45:23–24 says: '...that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, saying, "Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength."'

Thank you for taking the time to walk through Isaiah 42. Whether one ultimately identifies the Servant here with Prophet Muhammad, Jesus, Israel collectively, Jeremiah, or sees multiple layers of fulfillment, what particularly caught my attention was not first the identity of the Servant, but the identity of the One speaking. In Isaiah 42:8 we read: אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא אתן "I am YHWH (Jehovah), that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another." As someone who spends a fair amount of time studying the Hebrew Bible, I find this verse difficult to separate from Exodus 3 and the burning bush. When Moses asks God His Name in Exodus 3:13, the answer is not merely a title. In Exodus 3:14, God reveals Himself through the mysterious declaration: "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" often translated: "I Will Be What I Will Be," or "I Am Who I Am," or "I Will Become What I Choose to Become." God then immediately identifies Himself as YHWH in Exodus 3:15, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and says: "This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation." (Exodus 3:15) For me, this becomes one of the great themes running through the Biblical canon. The Divine Name is not merely a designation. It is tied to God's self-disclosure, covenant faithfulness, presence, and uniqueness. The Name reveals not simply that God exists, but who He proves Himself to be through His actions in history. That is why when I read: "I am (Jehovah) YHWH, that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another" I hear an intentional echo of Exodus. The God who revealed Himself to Moses is reaffirming His uniqueness and covenant faithfulness before speaking about His Servant. Since Muslims place profound emphasis on tawhid, divine names, and God's self-disclosure through revelation, I am curious how this is understood from a Shi'i perspective. Is there anything in Shi'i theology comparable to this Biblical emphasis on the revealed Divine Name? In other words, is there a particular Name of God in the Qur'an or Shi'i tradition that functions in a similarly foundational way—not merely as an attribute, but as a disclosure of God's relationship to creation and His covenantal faithfulness?

One poster seemed to imply that the Prophets and Imams are capable of sinning but freely refrain from it due to their knowledge and perfection, while another seemed to speak of them as incapable of sin. What is the official Twelver Shia position exactly? Is it that they just merely choose not to commit sin? And what is it they possess knowledge or a spiritual station that allows them that? How is that viewed in Shia belief exactly? What is it that the Imams have that even the greatest scholars don't have? Am I understanding all this correctly?

Salam, I understand your point here, I would say 2 millennia of Jews have largely also not recognized Jesus as a prophet or Messiah, so I would have to disagree with that majority. As for the early followers, I wouldn't say they misunderstood but had partial understandings of the prophecies and their fulfillment around Messiah and his role. I think they understood many things but came to understand other things more fully as events unfolded. For example, when Jesus entered the Temple and said: "Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19. They nor the followers understand what he means. John then says "But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples recalled that he used to say this, and they believed the scripture and what Jesus had spoken." John 2:21,22. As for the remnant, I actually think there is a parallel here with Shi'i history. You believe that after the Prophet's death the majority did not fully understand or preserve what should have been obvious regarding Imam Ali. Likewise, from a Christian perspective, the majority of Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, while a remnant accepted him as Messiah. Jesus tells his apostles the night before his death "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf." This phrase of a new covenant is not new, he is referencing the prophet Jeremiah, 31:31 "Look! The days are coming... when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant." I would say like above, Jeremiah as well as Daniel anticipate a "new covenant" now did Jesus' followers understand all the details of this covenant? Probably not right away, no. But this would remind them of the prophets. Jesus himself revealed this new covenant would not center around the physical location of Jerusalem, John 4:24 "Jesus said to her: "Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father... the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth." (John 4:21, 23) Also, Isaiah 56:7 says speaking of foreigners: "I will also bring them to my holy mountain And make them rejoice inside my house of prayer. Their whole burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar. For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” This was not allowed in the first century temple, foreigners were not allowed into the courtyards of the temple in Jerusalem. Again, Daniel mentions "terminating the transgression, finishing off sin, making atonement for error, anointing the Most Holy." These are priestly categories, not political. When Daniel speaks of making atonement for error and bringing in everlasting righteousness, what do you understand those things to be referring to? Perhaps this is one area where Christians and Muslims may read the same prophecy differently, but I think it is an interesting discussion because it seems to touch directly on the question you originally raised regarding sin, atonement, and the role of the Messiah.

I would like to go into this very point, because I think it may be a very good area for Christian and Muslim discussion to examine the differences here. To answer simply, there may not be one single verse that explicitly says, “The Messiah will defeat sin and death.” It is also likely true that many Jews living during Jesus’ life and ministry were not expecting a dying and rising Messiah. Not even the apostles and closest disciples initially understood this. For example, when Jesus began speaking about his coming death, Peter rebuked him, saying: “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this happen to you at all.” (Matthew 16:22) It was only after Jesus’ resurrection that the disciples began to understand that these things had been foretold in the Scriptures. As Jesus himself explained: “Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day.” (Luke 24:46) However, there is a deep theme of atonement, sacrifice, repentance, purification, and reconciliation running throughout the Hebrew (OT) Scriptures. Now I would point first to the book of Hebrews in the NT, however, I understand that a Muslim would not accept Hebrews as revelation, so the question is not simply whether Hebrews teaches this. The deeper question is whether Hebrews is drawing its conclusions from patterns already present in the Torah and Prophets. To begin, look first at the pattern established in the Torah. Before Israel is delivered from Egypt, they are commanded to observe the Passover. A sound one-year-old male lamb is selected, slaughtered, and its blood is applied to the doorposts of each household. (Exodus 12:1-12) Verse 13 says: “The blood will serve as your sign on the houses where you are; and I will see the blood and pass over you.” Later, after Israel arrives at Sinai, Moses receives detailed instructions regarding worship and the Tabernacle. The instructions are given in Exodus chapters 25-28. Then in chapter 29, Aaron is appointed as High Priest, while his sons are appointed to serve as priests. Exodus 29:9 says: “This is how you should install Aaron and his sons to serve as priests.” The chapter continues with detailed instructions regarding sacrifices, offerings, and the use of blood in Israel’s worship. These sacrifices and priestly services were carried out continually as part of Israel’s covenant relationship with God. Concerning the consecration of the altar, Exodus 29:36 states: “You will offer the bull of the sin offering daily for an atonement, and you are to purify the altar from sin by making atonement for it.” The result of this arrangement is given in verse 45: “I will reside among the people of Israel, and I will be their God.” However, the innermost compartment of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant resided, could only be entered one day each year. This was Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The instructions are found in Leviticus chapter 16. On that day the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies to make atonement for himself, his household, and the nation. Leviticus 16:16 says: “He must make atonement for the holy place concerning the acts of uncleanness of the Israelites and concerning their transgressions and their sins.” One goat was sacrificed and its blood was brought before God. The other goat remained alive, and Aaron confessed over it the sins of the people before sending it away into the wilderness. Verses 21-22 state: “Aaron will lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the errors of the Israelites and all their transgressions and all their sins... The goat will carry upon itself all their errors into a desert land.” The Tabernacle exists because sinful humans cannot simply walk into God’s presence. This whole arrangement was put in place to keep Israel clean before God. One of the central problems here is sin, uncleanness, and separation from God. Or to use categories that you may appreciate, the issue involves purification (tazkiyah), nearness to God (qurb), intercession or mediation (shafa‘ah), divine guidance (hidayah), and reconciliation with God. Notice also that Israel was not originally given a human king. In fact, when they later ask Samuel for a king, it is because they want to be like the nations around them. Originally, the entire priestly system assumes that reconciliation between God and man is one of the deepest issues. The Mishkan (Tabernacle) stood in the center of the camp, and the priests served as mediators between God and the people. These sacrifices and rituals continued year after year. They were never intended to be occasional events. But that raises an important question: why? Even if one rejects the Christian conclusion, the question still remains: Why did God spend centuries building Israel’s worship around sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, cleansing, and mediation if these themes were not central to His final purpose? Now, is there a precedent in the Tanakh for understanding the Temple arrangement as pointing toward something greater? Yes, there is, and not merely in one place. However, for the sake of brevity, I will point to Daniel chapter 9. Daniel was living in exile in Babylon near the end of the 70 years foretold by Jeremiah. In his prayer, he confesses the sins of Israel and seeks God’s mercy. While praying, the angel Gabriel appears and gives a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah. Daniel 9:24 says: “There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.” Notice what Gabriel says the coming of Messiah will accomplish: terminate transgression finish off sin make atonement for error bring in everlasting righteousness etc. These are priestly categories, not merely royal ones. The Messiah may accomplish restoration and kingship as well, but Gabriel’s language suggests that his mission involves something deeper than politics alone. Why does Gabriel describe the work connected with Messiah using the language of atonement, transgression, sin, righteousness, and the Holy of Holies if Messiah’s role is purely political? This is where Hebrews enters the discussion. Hebrews addresses the very question of why the sacrifices continued year after year. Hebrews 10:1-4 says: “For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect... for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.” Hebrews references Psalm 110, where this was already hinted at when it says: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 5:6; and 6:20) The expected son of David is simultaneously described as a priest. Hebrews then argues that Jesus fulfills the role of both High Priest and sacrifice. In its view, the earthly priesthood, sacrifices, and Temple services were not ends in themselves but shadows pointing toward a greater heavenly reality. Hebrews 7:11 says: “If, then, perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it was a feature of the Law that was given to the people), what further need would there be for another priest to arise who is said to be in the manner of Melchizedek and not in the manner of Aaron?” This brings us back to Passover. Why was Israel redeemed through the death of a lamb? Not because the blood itself possessed magical properties. Rather, redemption was being taught through symbolic action. A life is given. Death passes over. Deliverance follows. That pattern stands at the beginning of Israel’s story. The question, then, is not whether first-century Jews were all expecting a suffering Messiah who would defeat sin and death. Many clearly were not. The question is whether the Scriptures already contained a framework in which God’s final deliverance would involve sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, cleansing, mediation, and the removal of sin. From Passover to Yom Kippur, from Daniel 9 to Psalm 110, those themes are deeply embedded in the Tanakh. Hebrews argues that Jesus did not abolish those patterns but fulfilled them by becoming the High Priest through whom atonement is accomplished and everlasting righteousness is brought in. There is more I could go into, like Jesus presenting the value of his earthly life, represented by his blood, before God in heaven, and also the issue of the Kingdom and Christ taking his kingship which happens later, but I can address those in another post if anyone so wants, I just think this can be a really good start to get into the details of the differences of our faiths here.

One thing I've found interesting following this discussion and many others is that many Muslims seem to know Christian theology and church history far better than I would expect, and frequently better than many Christians. As a Christian myself, I've noticed that many Christians know their Bible but often have not spent much time studying subjects like Arianism, the development of Trinitarian theology, church councils, or how various doctrines were historically formulated. This is a perfect response here from @ServantOfMahdi. It seems many Christians forget that apostasy was a problem in the congregation from the very beginning. Jesus warned about false teachers and misleading influences (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). Acts 20:29-30: "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." 2 Thessalonians 2:3: "Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first..." 2 Peter 2:1-3: "However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects..." Jesus and the first-century apostles repeatedly warned about doctrinal corruption arising from within Christianity itself. When I look into the history of Nicaea, what I see is an imperial council called by Constantine, a political ruler, not an apostle or a prophet. From what I understand, he wasn't even baptized yet when the council was convened. In Acts 15 we have a doctrinal issue involving circumcision being discussed directly by the apostles themselves. They arrived at a unanimous conclusion and wrote: "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored..." (Acts 15:28). My question has always been: what evidence is there that the same authority and divine approval present in Acts 15 was present at Nicaea nearly 300 years later? If the doctrine was clearly taught by Jesus and the apostles, why did it require centuries of controversy, philosophical debate, imperial involvement, and church councils to define? As a non-Trinitarian Christian, I've always found the debate frustrating because the same texts seem to be read in radically different ways. On this point, I thought @ServantOfMahdi made an excellent observation, and I completely agree. And I would point to Hebrews chapter 1 as one example. Paul begins by saying: "Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things..." Notice the distinction. God appoints; the Son is appointed. Then Hebrews 1:4 says: "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." Again, Christ receives, inherits, and is exalted. Then Hebrews 1:8-9 states: "God is your throne forever and ever... That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions." The Son has a God. The Son is anointed by God. The Son is distinguished from God. And Hebrews 1:13 quotes Psalm 110: "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." Again, one sits at the right hand, while the other grants the position. The same distinction appears in Daniel 7, where the Son of Man receives authority from the Ancient of Days, and again in Revelation 5, where the Lamb approaches the One seated on the throne and takes the scroll from His hand. For me, these passages consistently show exaltation, authority, kingship, and divine appointment. They do not naturally read as one person of a co-equal Trinity speaking to or receiving authority from another. Just my thoughts.

@Eddie Mecca thank you so much for sharing that video, this gives me a lot of insight here. Dr. Ali Ataie is very sharp and well-read, and he raises several good points and some objections to 'orthodox' Christian interpretations, and I agree with a lot of his points. Just to be clear too, one of the major objections to common Christian interpretations is the idea that God literally became a man. On this point I totally agree, I am NOT a Trinitarian. The idea that God could become a human being conflicts with the clear biblical teaching of God’s oneness, Deuteronomy 6:4. In Islamic terms this would violate tawhid, and I do not see any justification for Trinitarian metaphysics in the Bible. It is a later theological development, and in my opinion a departure from the original teaching. Now, turning back to the text in Isaiah, in chapters 40-55 the identity of the 'servant' shifts several times. Sometimes the servant refers to Israel collectively: "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified." Isaiah 49:3 So the servant imagery operates on multiple levels, like they mentioned Hebrew prophetic poetry often works this way. The servant could refer at different times to Israel, to a faithful remnant, or to a righteous prophetic figure. Later prophets such as Jeremiah experienced rejection and persecution that resemble aspects of the 'suffering servant.' If we look closely at Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the passage also contains a shift in speakers. It begins with God speaking: "My servant shall act wisely…" But in chapter 53 a group of observers appears: "Who has believed our report?" "Surely our griefs he carried..." "We considered him stricken by God." These speakers seem to be people who once misunderstood the servant. They believed he was cursed by God but later realize they were mistaken. This reversal could reflect how the nations once interpreted Israel’s suffering in exile, or how a true prophet such as Jeremiah was rejected by those he was sent to. However, the text also introduces an interesting tension. Isaiah 53:8 says the servant was cut off "for the transgression of my people." In Isaiah, "my people" normally refers to Israel, since they were under covenant at that time. This suggests the servant is somehow distinct from the people. Another interesting phrase appears in Isaiah 53:10: "If his soul makes an asham (guilt offering)..." The word asham is the same word used in the Torah for a specific sacrifice prescribed for temple worship. For example, "he is to bring to Jehovah a sound ram from the flock as a guilt offering;" Leviticus 5:15 "This is the law of the guilt offering (asham); it is most holy." Leviticus 7:1 So the sacrificial framework already exists in the Torah, and that was the structure of worship within which Isaiah was writing. I agree with Dr. Ataie that Isaiah 53 alone does not create a theology of atonement, but the concept of sacrifice and atonement is already clearly established earlier in the Torah: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood… it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Leviticus 17:11 At the same time, and here Dr. Ataie's point is important, the prophets repeatedly warn that sacrifice without repentance is meaningless: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6 So in the Tanakh sacrifice, repentance, and righteousness always belong together. When Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is read as a whole, it forms a structured poem: 1-Isaiah 52:13-15; God announces the servant’s future exaltation. 2-Isaiah 53:1-3; The servant is rejected and misunderstood. 3-Isaiah 53:4-6; Observers realize their mistake. 4-Isaiah 53:7-9; The servant suffers unjustly. 5-Isaiah 53:10-12; God vindicates and exalts him. The servant suffers and is "cut off," yet afterward he is vindicated by God. So yes, Isaiah doesn’t mention messiah, he is more so poetically describing an archetypal pattern of the righteous servant who suffers innocently and is later vindicated. Figures like Jeremiah or John the Baptist reflect aspects of that pattern, but in the gospel accounts Jesus embodies it in its fullest form, he says of himself: "all the things written about me in the Torah of Moses and in the prophets (Nevi'im) and Psalms must be fulfilled." For instance, when Abraham was prepared to offer his son in obedience to God, God stopped him and provided a ram in his place: "Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son." — Genesis 22:13 And Abraham named that place Jehovah-jireh ("Jehovah will provide"). — Genesis 22:14 So already in the Torah we see a powerful pattern: the faithful servant is willing to give everything to God, but ultimately God Himself provides the offering. This connects with the broader sacrificial language and the mission of Jesus within that earlier Torah framework. Just as Abraham’s son was willing to give his life in obedience but was spared when God provided the ram, Jesus offers his life voluntarily but again 'Jehovah provides.' After his resurrection he is described as existing in a transformed spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44), something that could perhaps be compared with what I've found in Shi'ism around the 'jism mithali' a subtle or imaginal resurrection body. In that sense Jesus earthly life, which is symbolized by his blood in Christian theological understanding becomes the basis for atonement and reconciliation between God and faithful mankind, I could go into that another time if someone wanted. So all together the story of Abraham, the sacrificial system established in the Torah, and the righteous servant in Isaiah, we can see a recurring pattern in the biblical narrative. God’s faithful servants may suffer and be misunderstood, yet through that suffering God brings about reconciliation and understanding. In that sense, the claim that Jesus fulfills 'the Torah and the prophets' is not necessarily about reading too much into the text, but about how his life reveals a deeper meaning already present within it; what one might describe in Shi'i terms as the batin emerging from the zahir in the Tanakh. "And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures." Luke 24:27. That is how the pattern appears to me when reading these passages together. I would genuinely be interested to hear how others, especially those more familiar with the Islamic tradition of interpretation understand the connections. I am curious about how Jesus himself is understood within Islamic theology. I know he is believed to have been raised to heaven, so I would be interested in the theological understanding behind that. And how does the idea of the Messiah relate to Jesus’ role on earth within Qur’anic interpretation?

Salam, Thank you for all the information, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain some of this I am trying my best to follow here. I wanted to come back to the original point I was asking about, because I am trying to understand the structure of sacred history in your Shi‘i theology. In the biblical tradition the promise of the future kingdom is tied to the covenant with King David of Israel. For example: “When your days come to an end and you are laid to rest with your forefathers, I will raise up your offspring after you… and I will firmly establish his kingdom.” (2 Samuel 7:12) And later: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.” (2 Samuel 7:16) Now in my earlier post which did not come through, I was drawing upon a reference you made that I went and looked up. You mentioned Qur’an 4:54, and this is very interesting to me. It says: “Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them of His bounty? But We had already given the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom and conferred upon them a great kingdom.” (Qur’an 4:54) I wanted to understand how you view the legitimacy of the kingdom and kingship in ancient Israel, such as David and Solomon and the others. Because David’s kingship had a covenant attached to it, and this thread runs through history from David, through the exile to Babylon, and then into a future restoration of the kingship beginning in heaven. This appears in Daniel, Ezekiel, Luke’s gospel, Revelation, and other places. From my understanding, Jesus appeared first as the Messiah in a humble role, but the scriptures also describe his future return as a king who establishes the kingdom of God. So the expectation of restoration continues after his first appearance. So my question is really about how Shi‘i theology understands that same long arc of sacred history. Is the role of Imam Mahdi understood as the culmination of those earlier prophetic hopes connected with Abraham and the expectation of the Messiah who would become a blessing to all nations? I was also interested in the idea you mentioned about the primordial light. In your explanation the fourteen infallibles share one light which culminates in Imam Mahdi. Is that light understood as something that runs through the whole history of prophecy, or specifically through the Prophet Muhammad and the line of the Imams? From my perspective, the Hebrew prophets and their prophetic messages can be seen almost like partial reflections pointing toward the Messiah who appeared in the figure of Jesus, who is spoken of in John as the logos “word.”. So I am curious how Shi‘i theology understands the unity of divine guidance across all of sacred history. I know it was mentioned before that guidance and authority shifted away from the Jews, but what exactly is the role of Jesus and the purpose of what Messiah really is? I am not sure I understand that. Thank you again for the discussion. I am learning a lot from hearing how your tradition understands these things. Salam.

Hey I did come back and respond, it is still waiting for a moderator to approve. But I have even more questions now.

Salam, And this is great, there is so much in your last response that I appreciate and that I did not know before. And thanks for the food recommendation, I have not tried tahini so I will give that a try. So I looked up your quote in Qur’an 4:54, and this is very interesting. This is all new to me. In the biblical tradition the promise of the kingdom under the Messiah is tied to the covenant with David and the coming Messiah from that line. It seems from this verse there is recognition of the kingship of the earlier times of covenantal Israel, if I understand this correctly. “Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them of His bounty? But We had already given the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom and conferred upon them a great kingdom.” Qur’an 4:54. In Samuel, David is promised a covenant of kingship in his lineage: “When your days come to an end and you are laid to rest with your forefathers, then I will raise up your offspring after you, your own son, and I will firmly establish his kingdom.” 2 Samuel 7:12. Now the interesting thing is that it continues to speak of that kingship covenant as eternal: “Your house and your kingdom will be secure forever before you; your throne will be firmly established forever.” 2 Samuel 7:16. In later scripture, both in the prophets like Daniel and in Luke’s gospel, the kingdom is associated with the Messiah. Is there a relationship or any commentary on the relationship between that Davidic kingship and the role of the Mahdi? Or was the kingdom mentioned above strictly understood as referring to ancient Israel before its exile to Babylon? Next I want to address the primordial light and the reference to John 1. This is very interesting and close to me here. First off, I DO NOT believe in a trinity or that Jesus is somehow co-equal with God. I respect strict tawhid, and that is not what John was saying anyway, and you seem familiar with that verse already. However, John was talking about Jesus there, as he had been with him closely. I am interested in this understanding of the “light,” though in relation to the logos, 'word'. You see that as the 14 infallibles sharing one light. So is this a primordial light across all sacred history, from Seth and Enoch all the way through the prophets and the Imams? As though all history is refracted through this light? Or is this strictly from the Prophet Muhammad and the Imams culminating in the return of Al-Mahdi? I am wondering because the whole Hebrew canon, as I understand it, is pointing toward the Messiah in the figure who appeared as Jesus, and the earlier prophets are like partial reflections of that light that reveal aspects of the Messiah. If that makes sense, how is the continuity and unity through all human history seen in Shi‘i theology? This is where my study through Henry Corbin, not sure if you are familiar, resonated with me. I understand Biblical scripture as portraying Christ’s kingdom in multiple places (Daniel, Revelation, and elsewhere) as beginning in heaven, and his presence marking the end of the age. His guidance is both visible and invisible through this time, and this strikes me as a possible convergence. I suppose the light you are describing culminates in Al-Mahdi, toward which all creation is moving. Is that correct? And is reaching perfection tied to the guidance through this light during occultation? Am I understanding that correctly? And if I follow with your references, yes, the world does reflect a deep spiritual sign of the end times in its violence, lawlessness, and wickedness. I would totally agree. Also you mentioned two phases of the Mahdi’s kingdom and also two deaths. I am not quite following that part. Could you explain what you mean there? Also thank you to Eddie Mecca for the additional explanation about the Mahdi and the shift of prophetic authority. I want to come back to that and think on it a little more, because there are some deep points there as well that I would like to explore. The question of prophetic authority and how different traditions understand that transition is very interesting, and I would like to think on this more before responding in detail. Thanks again, this is very interesting. Salam!

Thank you for responding, I appreciate you taking the time. From what I understand, in Shi’i Islam there is an eschatological expectation surrounding the future return of the 12th Imam, Al-Mahdi. Is he understood as a continuation or culmination of the line of earlier prophets and the covenantal hopes associated with figures such as Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of Israel? I’m curious how Shi‘i theology connects the Mahdi to the broader line of sacred history and earlier prophetic hopes about the restoration of worship. Please correct me if I misunderstand anything, as I am not very familiar with the Qur’an. I’m coming from a biblical background where there are strong expectations among the prophets about a future restoration associated with the Messiah. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Davidic psalms and prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel describe this restoration in terms of kingship, justice, and governance over the nations. Even after Jesus’ resurrection, the apostles still carried these expectations. In Acts (1:6–7), “They asked him: ‘Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?’ He said to them: ‘It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.” So those who recognized Jesus as the Messiah were still thinking within a larger prophetic expectation of restoration. Is there a similar structure in Shi’i thought regarding the return of the Mahdi? And what expectations exist within the Qur’an and Islamic tradition regarding the conditions for future messianic restoration? I hope that makes sense. Thanks again.

Hello everyone, I am a Christian who spends a great deal of time studying the Bible and the prophetic and theological themes that run through scripture. Over the past several years I’ve also become very interested in Islamic thought, especially the philosophical and spiritual traditions within Shi‘i Islam. Much of that interest was sparked by reading the work of Henry Corbin and I have become fascinated with the rich intellectual and philosophical traditions preserved in Shi’ism. There are a few convergences I would be deeply interested in discussing with someone, especially around the messianic hope and eschatology. In the Biblical tradition, many of the prophets speak about a future restoration under the authority of the Messiah. Texts in Isaiah, Daniel, and other prophetic books describe a time when God’s sovereignty and justice will ultimately be established in the world. As a follower of Jesus, I believe him to be the Messiah spoken of in these prophecies, and the Christian Greek Scriptures present his kingship as something that unfolds within God’s larger plan for history. When I began reading more about Shi‘i Islam, I was struck by how seriously the tradition also takes the idea that sacred history continues to unfold under divine guidance, particularly through the line of the Imams and the expectation of the Mahdi. Because of that, I have many questions and would be very interested in discussing these themes with anyone who is genuinely interested. I am especially curious whether Shi‘i thinkers connect Qur’anic teachings with the broader idea of messianic hope found in earlier scriptures such as the Bible. I’m not here to debate or criticize. I’m genuinely interested in learning how Shi‘i Muslims think about these themes and how they understand the relationship between prophecy, authority, and the culmination of sacred history. If anyone here enjoys thoughtful discussion of scripture, theology, or philosophy, I would be very interested in hearing your perspective and learning more about how these ideas are understood in Shi‘i tradition. Peace to everyone here.