As Muslims, we affirm without reservation that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the Messiah (al-Masih). The Qur’an explicitly bestows this title upon him in numerous places, referring to him as “the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary” (Qur’an 3:45; 4:157; 4:171; 5:17; 5:72; 5:75; 9:30).

His messianic status is therefore not a point of dispute between Islam and Christianity. The Qur’an also further describes him as a prophet sent to the Children of Israel (Qur’an 3:49; 5:46), born miraculously of the Virgin Mary (Qur’an 3:45–47; 19:16–36), and one who will play a role in God’s eschatological plan.

Consequently, when Christians argue that the Old Testament anticipates the coming of the Messiah and that these prophecies ultimately find their fulfillment in Jesus, Muslims have no principled objection to the general claim. Indeed, if Jesus is the Messiah, one would naturally expect the Hebrew Scriptures to contain anticipatory references to his arrival.

The real point of contention lies elsewhere: the question is not if the Old Testament foretells a Messiah but, rather, what “kind” of Messiah it foretells.

More specifically, does the Hebrew Bible anticipate a figure who is merely God’s anointed servant and Davidic king, or does it predict what later Nicene Christianity came to confess, i.e., that the Messiah is the eternal Son of God, the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, who assumed a human nature in the Incarnation while remaining fully God and fully man?

Simply demonstrating that Jesus is the promised Messiah does not establish the truth of later Christian Christology. The concepts of Messiah and Incarnation are not synonymous, nor does belief in the former logically entail belief in the latter.

A prophecy may identify the coming anointed king without specifying his ontological status.

Therefore, the central issue is whether or not the Old Testament itself teaches the divinity of the Messiah in the robust metaphysical sense articulated by the ecumenical councils of the fourth and fifth centuries; and whether or not those doctrines represent subsequent theological developments built upon the New Testament.

The Old Testament and the Coming Messiah

What is certain is that the Hebrew Scriptures progressively develop the expectation of a future Davidic ruler whom God would appoint to restore Israel, establish justice, and extend God’s reign. Although the contours of this expectation become increasingly detailed throughout the biblical canon, the consistent emphasis is on a human king that is chosen, empowered, and commissioned by God.

The earliest indication of this expectation is found in Genesis 49:10, where Jacob blesses Judah, declaring that “the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” (Genesis 49:10). Regardless of the debated meaning of “Shiloh,” the passage firmly associates enduring kingship with the tribe of Judah and became a foundational text for later Jewish messianic expectation.

This royal hope is significantly expanded in the Davidic Covenant. God promises David, “When your days are fulfilled… I will raise up your offspring after you… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Samuel 7:12–13). The covenant culminates with the declaration, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). While Solomon initially fulfills aspects of this promise, the language of an everlasting dynasty generated the expectation of a future Davidic king whose reign would permanently realize God’s covenant.

The Psalms continue this theme. Psalm 2 opens by describing the nations rebelling “against the LORD and against his Anointed” (Psalm 2:2), after which God proclaims concerning the king, “I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill” (Psalm 2:6), and further declares, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). Within its historical and literary context, this “sonship” reflects the covenantal relationship between God and the Davidic monarch, a royal adoption formula familiar from the Davidic covenant, rather than an explicit assertion that the king shares God’s divine essence.

Likewise, Psalm 110 depicts the extraordinary exaltation of the Messiah while maintaining a clear distinction between God and His anointed ruler. The psalm begins, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool'” (Psalm 110:1), before later declaring, “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'” (Psalm 110:4). The Messiah is thus presented as a uniquely exalted king-priest who receives authority from God rather than possessing authority independently of Him.

The prophetic literature develops this portrait further. Isaiah 11 foretells that “there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit” (Isaiah 11:1). This future ruler is distinguished by the fact that “the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might” (Isaiah 11:2), enabling him to judge with perfect justice and establish an era of righteousness and peace (Isaiah 11:3–9). The source of the Messiah’s authority is explicitly God’s Spirit resting upon him, underscoring divine empowerment rather than intrinsic deity.

Similarly, Jeremiah 23 promises, “Behold, the days are coming… when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (Jeremiah 23:5). The prophecy continues, “In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely” (Jeremiah 23:6).

The emphasis remains on God’s sovereign initiative (“I will raise up”) portraying the Messiah as the divinely appointed descendant of David through whom God fulfills His covenant promises.

Finally, Micah 5 identifies the Messiah’s birthplace by declaring, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah… from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2).

Whatever the precise meaning of the expression “from of old, from ancient days,” the immediate context portrays this ruler as the shepherd-king who “shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God” (Micah 5:4). His authority is therefore exercised through God’s power and in God’s name.

Collectively, these passages establish a coherent messianic expectation: the anticipated Messiah is consistently portrayed as a descendant of David from the tribe of Judah, chosen by God, empowered by God’s Spirit, entrusted with restoring Israel, ruling with justice, and extending God’s kingdom among the nations. These texts undeniably anticipate the coming of a Messiah.

What they do not explicitly establish is the Messiah’s ontological status in the sense later defined by Nicene and Chalcedonian Christology. They identify his lineage, office, mission, and covenantal role, but they do not clearly articulate that the Messiah is the eternal, uncreated Son, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, or that he possesses both a divine and a human nature united in one hypostasis.

Indeed, if God intended Israel to understand that the promised Messiah was not merely His anointed king but God the Son Himself, the eternal Logos, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, who would later assume a human nature in the Incarnation, the texts should have been limpid on the matter.

After all, if a doctrine is central to God’s self-revelation, particularly one as foundational as the Incarnation, then one would reasonably expect the Hebrew Scriptures to communicate it with sufficient clarity to prepare Israel for the identity of its coming Messiah. While progressive revelation may unfold doctrines gradually, later revelation ordinarily develops themes already present in earlier revelation. It does not reverse the plain theological categories established by centuries of prophetic teaching.

Accordingly, one must ask if the Old Testament actually presents the Messiah as YHWH Himself; or if it consistently portrays him as YHWH’s chosen servant, king, and representative.

The dominant pattern overwhelmingly favours the latter.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah is consistently distinguished from God rather than being identified with Him. The Davidic king is repeatedly described as the one whom God appoints, whom God raises up, whom God establishes, and through whom God accomplishes His purposes. In the Davidic Covenant, for example, God declares, “I will raise up your offspring after you… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom” (2 Samuel 7:12–13). The Messiah does not establish himself; his kingdom is established by God.

Likewise, the Messiah is consistently portrayed as God’s anointed. The very title Messiah (mashiah) literally means “the anointed one,” indicating someone upon whom God confers authority. Psalm 2 introduces the figure as “his Anointed” (Psalm 2:2), while Isaiah 11:2 explains that “the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him,” emphasizing that his wisdom, authority, and power are gifts bestowed by God rather than attributes belonging intrinsically to his own divine nature.

The Messiah is also repeatedly depicted as one sent by God to accomplish God’s mission. The prophetic expectation is not that God Himself ceases to be the One who sends but, rather, that He commissions a chosen descendant of David to execute His will. The distinction between the sender and the one sent remains intact throughout the prophetic corpus.

Closely related is the Messiah’s posture of dependence upon God. His authority derives from God, his kingdom is established by God, his victories are granted by God, and his mission is fulfilled through God’s power. Even in exalted texts such as Psalm 110, where the Messiah is invited to “sit at [God’s] right hand” (Psalm 110:1), the source of his exaltation is explicitly God Himself. The Messiah occupies the place of honour because God grants it to him.

This pattern is entirely consistent with the biblical understanding of kingship. Israel’s ideal king functions as God’s vicegerent, a human ruler who governs on God’s behalf. He may uniquely represent God’s rule, exercise God’s authority, and enjoy an unparalleled covenantal relationship with God, but representation should not be confused with identity. Acting with divine authority is not equivalent to possessing the divine essence.

Indeed, this distinction explains why the Old Testament can employ highly exalted language regarding the Messiah without collapsing the distinction between God and His anointed king. The Messiah may be enthroned by God, empowered by God’s Spirit, adopted as God’s royal “son,” and entrusted with universal dominion, yet in every instance these honours are presented as gifts bestowed by God rather than as evidence that the Messiah is ontologically identical with God.

Therefore, if one approaches the Hebrew Scriptures without importing later theological formulations, the natural expectation is that the Messiah is God’s supreme human representative, the climactic Davidic king through whom God fulfills His covenant promises, not that he is the uncreated Second Person of the Trinity who shares the Father’s divine essence.

RELATED: Christianity Is Losing the Most Followers BY FAR: What Are Apologists Doing About It?

Examining Some Christian Arguments

If the Old Testament clearly teaches that the Messiah is the eternal Son of God, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father and destined to become incarnate, then one would expect this doctrine to emerge from its principal messianic passages. Christians have traditionally appealed to several texts as anticipating Christ’s divinity.

The question, however, is not if these passages can be read in light of the New Testament but, instead, whether or not they plainly and naturally communicate the Messiah’s ontological deity within their own literary, historical, and linguistic contexts.

Isaiah 9:6

Perhaps the most frequently cited text is Isaiah 9:6, where the promised child is described as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). At first glance, the title “Mighty God” (el gibbor) appears to support a high Christology.

Nevertheless, several observations deserve consideration.

First, the immediate literary context concerns the Davidic monarchy. The prophecy announces the birth of a royal heir who will establish David’s throne in justice and righteousness (Isaiah 9:7). The focus is on the enthronement of the Davidic king rather than on a metaphysical exposition of his divine nature.

Second, the Ancient Near East frequently employed exalted royal titulature. Kings were often described using hyperbolic or theophoric expressions intended to magnify God’s work through the monarch rather than to identify the king as being literally divine.

Third, Hebrew personal names and royal designations regularly incorporate divine elements without implying that their bearers are themselves God. Names such as Elijah (“My God is YHWH”), Elihu (“He is my God”), Elisha (“God is salvation”), and Isaiah (“YHWH saves”) all contain divine names or attributes while referring to entirely human individuals.

Consequently, the presence of exalted divine language alone does not establish that the Davidic king shares God’s essence.

Psalm 45

Another important text is Psalm 45, where the Davidic king is addressed with the words, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Psalm 45:6), according to one common translation.

Even if one accepts this rendering, the following verse is equally significant: “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” (Psalm 45:7). Whatever the precise force of verse 6 may be, verse 7 unmistakably distinguishes between the king and the God who anoints him.

Moreover, the Hebrew word elohim possesses a broader semantic range than the English word “God.” While it most commonly refers to the God of Israel, it is also applied in other contexts to heavenly beings (Psalm 8:5), judges or rulers (Exodus 21:6; 22:8–9), and other figures exercising delegated authority. Consequently, the appearance of the word elohim does not establish that the Davidic king is ontologically identical with YHWH.

Thus, even based on the strongest possible reading, Psalm 45 presents a king who is distinguished from and anointed by God.

Psalm 110

One of the strongest linguistic arguments concerns Psalm 110:1, which reads: “The LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool'” (Psalm 110:1).

The Hebrew text carefully distinguishes the two figures. The first term is the divine covenant name YHWH, whereas the second is adoni (“my lord”). This distinction is significant because adoni is the ordinary form used throughout the Hebrew Bible for human masters, kings, and persons of authority. It is distinct from Adonai, the reverential title commonly substituted when reading the divine name aloud.

The point is not that the Messiah is an ordinary ruler, for Psalm 110 clearly presents him as extraordinarily exalted. Rather, the Hebrew text itself distinguishes between YHWH, who grants authority; and the Messiah, who receives it. The Messiah’s exalted status derives from God’s sovereign appointment rather than from an explicit assertion that he is YHWH Himself.

Daniel 7

Christians likewise appeal to Daniel 7, where “one like a son of man” comes “with the clouds of heaven” before “the Ancient of Days” (Daniel 7:13) and is subsequently given “dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Daniel 7:14).

The vision undoubtedly portrays an exalted and universal ruler. Yet the narrative structure remains important. The Son of Man approaches the Ancient of Days. He does not appear as the Ancient of Days. He is presented before Him. He is not identified with Him. Most importantly, he receives dominion, glory, and kingship from the Ancient of Days.

Receiving authority presupposes a distinction between the giver and the recipient. Throughout Scripture, God may delegate universal authority to His chosen representative without erasing the distinction between Himself and the one He commissions. Accordingly, Daniel 7 clearly teaches the Messiah’s exaltation but does not explicitly teach that the Messiah is identical with God.

RELATED: Voting on Orthodoxy: How Councils Rewrote Christian Belief

Isaiah 7:14

Finally, Isaiah 7:14 declares, “Behold, the virgin [or young woman] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Since Immanuel means “God is with us,” many Christians understand the name as evidence that the Messiah is literally God dwelling among humanity.

Yet this conclusion does not necessarily follow from Hebrew naming conventions. As mentioned earlier, Biblical names frequently express theological affirmations concerning God’s activity rather than the ontology of the individual who bears the name. Examples include Isaiah (“YHWH saves”), Elijah (“My God is YHWH”), Elisha (“God is salvation”), Jehoshaphat (“YHWH has judged”), and many others. No one supposes that these individuals are themselves YHWH because their names contain the divine name or proclaim a theological truth.

Within this linguistic and cultural framework, Immanuel naturally signifies that God is present with His people through His saving intervention, not necessarily that the child himself is literally God incarnate.

None of these passages should be dismissed lightly. Each occupies an important place within the Old Testament’s messianic expectation. Nevertheless, none of them explicitly articulates the central metaphysical affirmations of classical Christian Christology, i.e., that the Messiah is the eternal, uncreated Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, and one divine person subsisting in two natures after the Incarnation.

Rather, each passage is capable of being understood coherently within the broader Old Testament pattern already established throughout this study, a pattern in which the Messiah is God’s chosen Davidic king, exalted above all other rulers, empowered by God’s Spirit, entrusted with universal authority, yet consistently distinguished from the God who appoints, anoints, exalts, and sends him.

Consequently, the burden remains on those who claim that the Old Testament itself teaches Nicene Christology, to demonstrate that these texts require such a conclusion rather than merely being compatible with a later Christian theological interpretation.

On the other hand, the Qur’an describes Jesus (peace be upon him) as the Messiah, born miraculously by God’s command, supported by the Holy Spirit, and sent as a prophet to the Children of Israel. He performs miracles only “by Allah’s permission,” emphasizing that his extraordinary works testify to God’s power rather than his own divinity. Thus, the Messiah is God’s greatest servant, not God Himself.

The language of the Old Testament consistently reflects this relationship. The Messiah is God’s servant, God’s anointed, God’s king, and God’s righteous representative. He prays to God, depends upon God, and fulfills God’s mission. These are precisely the characteristics one would expect of a prophet and divinely appointed ruler. They are considerably more difficult to reconcile with the claim that the Messiah is himself the one true God.

Moreover, the Old Testament never states that Israel should worship the coming Messiah. It never commands that sacrifices be offered to him, that prayers be directed to him, or that he should be regarded as sharing God’s unique divine identity. Instead, the Messiah repeatedly directs attention toward God, whose authority he represents. This pattern is entirely consistent with the Islamic doctrine of prophethood, in which every messenger calls people to worship God alone.

Christians may argue that the New Testament later reveals the Messiah’s divine nature and that these Old Testament passages should therefore be read retrospectively. However, it also acknowledges an important point: the divinity of the Messiah is not explicitly taught by the Old Testament itself. The Hebrew Scriptures present the Messiah as God’s chosen king, while the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity depends upon later revelation and theological interpretation.

From an Islamic perspective, therefore, there is no contradiction between accepting the Old Testament’s messianic prophecies and rejecting the belief that the Messiah is God. The Old Testament anticipates a divinely appointed Davidic Messiah, and Islam affirms exactly such a Messiah in Jesus.

Where Islam differs with later Christian doctrine is not over the existence of the Messiah but, rather, over his nature. The Hebrew Bible consistently portrays him as God’s anointed servant and representative, an image that aligns naturally with the Islamic understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, prophet, and servant of God.

Ultimately, the issue is one of consistency. If Christians wish to argue that the Old Testament predicts the Messiah, they stand on solid ground. However, if they insist that the same texts explicitly reveal a divine Messiah or the Trinity, they would be asking those texts to attest to far more than they actually do.

RELATED: Isaiah 42 and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: A Cumulative Case from Geography, Genealogy, Prophecy