God's will. What is the force of calling Him "the Word of God" (كلمةُ الله )?

163. M. By the rules of Arabic grammar it should mean that He is the one expression of God's will. But this cannot be, as the other prophets also expressed God's will.

C. Your argument would convict the Qur'an of error. We understand that the prophets spoke through the Word of God, to whom they bore witness. Thus the difficulty vanishes. Is the title of "the Word of God" given to any other prophet in the Qur'an?

164. M. No.

C. Well then, is it not clear from the Qur'an that Christ alone is the one expression of God's mind and will (Luke x. 22)? If so, how can He be a mere man, like the other prophets? Can any one but yourself and God know your mind and thoughts, unless they are expressed?

165. M. No one.

C. Are they not expressed by your word?

166. M. Yes.

C. Then Christ is the expression of God's mind and will. Only through Him can these be revealed. Can He reveal them without knowing them? If not, can He be less than or different from God, the expression of whose will He is? Hence He says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" (John xiv. 6). You see here again the doctrine of the Trinity comes


in to explain not only the Gospel's but even the Qur'an’s teaching about Christ. You Muslims often call Jesus "the Spirit of God" (روح الله Ruhu’llah), which we do not. If you are right, then this is another proof of His deity. The Bible gives this title to the Third Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, which proves1 that all the three Hypostases are included in the Unity of the Divine nature2.

1 The Bishop of Lahore says: "There is a slightly different line of thought which I have often found extremely helpful. I begin, much as in this chapter, by asking the Muhammadan to define the nature of the Unity of God. In many respects one accepts his definition and lays stress on the Unity—in the sense of entire distinction from all created Being. Then I say, 'Now here we have the Divine Nature on one side, by itself (so to speak), and all else on the other: we see how wholly distinct and unique it is. But we have not yet touched the question of what mysteries it may contain in itself.' I go on to point out how inevitable it is that there should be some great mystery in that Supreme Nature when there is so much in the world of which we are parts. I then lay stress on the fact that, whatever answer we may give to this,—whether we hold a sterile Monotheism or a Plurality of hypostases in one Essence—in either case it does not conflict with the Unity, for we are dealing simply with the inner Nature of that Essence which we have already, in accepting the Unity, separated off and posited wholly by itself. This kind of line of argument I have often found to win assent. I should also lay more stress on what I consider the immensely weighty argument as to the fact that the nature of Love involves subject and object."
1 Dr. H. Martyn Clark says that he has found the following illustration helpful to Muslims:—
The figure 1 by itself is a mere straight line: its value is determined by its position with reference to the implied decimal point. It is usually taken to mean one, because it is supposed to represent 1., but if written .1 its meaning would be very different. Hence the very idea of unity implies three dimensions.