In a Facebook Reel (https://www.facebook.com/reel/4298947423723161), the late Sikh preacher Sant Maskeen Singh expresses surprise at seeing posters in Nagpur declaring that Isa (Jesus) is God’s one and only Son. He objects that if Isa were truly God’s unique Son, the implication would be that everyone else must be “sons of Shaitan (Satan).” On this basis, he concludes that Isa may be called God’s nek beta (righteous son), pavitar beta (holy son), bhagat beta (saintly son), or premi beta (beloved son), but not God’s one and only Son. Like Muslims, he refers to Jesus as hazrat Isa—meaning a revered prophet—explicitly denying that Jesus is God incarnate or the Son of God in any unique sense.
Table Of Content
Maskeen further claims that all human beings are God’s sons because all are His makhlook (creation). God, he argues, is the Creator of everyone; therefore, everyone must equally be God’s child.
RESPONSE
At first glance, this sounds like a reductio ad absurdum. In reality, it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of biblical categories.
Where Maskeen Is Accidentally Correct
Maskeen asks a provocative question: If Jesus is the unique Son of God, then who are the rest of us—sons of Shaitan?
The biblical answer is unambiguous: yes—by nature, apart from redemption, that is precisely the case.
Jesus Himself stated this explicitly, not to pagans or criminals, but to the Pharisees, the most religious people of His day:
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.”
(John 8:44)
Elsewhere, Jesus addressed the same leaders as:
“You brood of vipers.”
(Matthew 12:34)
The New Testament consistently affirms this moral and spiritual reality:
- Humanity is not born as children of God, but as children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1–3).
- Sonship to God is not automatic by creation, but granted by adoption through Christ (John 1:12–13; Romans 8:15).
- There are only two spiritual families: those who belong to God through Christ, and those who remain under the dominion of sin and Satan (1 John 3:8–10).
Thus, when Maskeen rhetorically suggests that denying Christ’s unique Sonship would imply that others are sons of Shaitan, he inadvertently echoes the very teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
Where Maskeen Is Fundamentally Wrong
Maskeen’s core error is that he collapses ontological Sonship into moral or metaphorical language.
In Scripture, Jesus is not called the Son of God merely because He is righteous, holy, beloved, or saintly. He is called the only-begotten Son because He shares the very nature and essence of God.
The biblical distinctions are precise and non-negotiable:
- Jesus is Son by nature.
- Believers become sons by adoption.
- Creation does not make one a child of God; new birth does.
To say, “we are all God’s sons because we are His creation,” is a basic category error and is not biblical teaching. By that logic, animals, demons, and inanimate matter would all qualify as “sons of God.” Scripture teaches no such thing. Creation establishes dependence; it does not confer shared essence or filial status.
The Irony Maskeen Missed
Maskeen appears to be defending human dignity and universal divine fatherhood. Instead, he unintentionally affirms the Bible’s diagnosis of the human condition while rejecting the only solution the Bible offers.
Christianity does not teach that Jesus is God’s Son instead of us. It teaches that only because Jesus is the unique Son can rebels and sinners—those Scripture itself describes as sons of Shaitan—be rescued and adopted.
Without the unique Son, there are no adopted sons.
Without the Son by nature, there is no sonship by grace.
Maskeen was right to ask the question.
He was wrong to reject the answer Jesus Himself gave.
Creation vs. Sonship by Nature: A Concise Rebuttal
Sant Maskeen Singh’s response is theologically naïve and textually uninformed, particularly with respect to the Bible he presumes to critique. He is entitled to hold private, personal beliefs about Jesus, but such beliefs do not constitute argumentation when they disregard the primary historical documents that record Jesus’ own claims and the reaction of His contemporaries.
Christianity does not rest on devotional preference or inherited reverence. It rests on public, testable claims grounded in history.
Christian doctrine makes a clear distinction between creation (makhlook) and Sonship by nature. All human beings are created by God and ontologically dependent upon Him. But to be created is to be made; to be Son is to share being. These are categorically different claims.
Jesus Christ is called the Son of God not by creation, adoption, moral excellence, or poetic metaphor, but by nature. Scripture explicitly teaches that the Son is “begotten, not made”—eternal, uncreated, and sharing the very being of God (John 1:1–3, 14; Hebrews 1:3). To collapse Sonship into creation is therefore a category error that empties the Christian claim of all meaning.
Christianity does not teach that Jesus is one righteous makhlook among many. It teaches that He alone is the eternal Son, while believers become children of God only by grace and adoption, not by nature (John 1:12; Galatians 4:4–7).
Jesus’ Own Claims: Sonship, Deity, and Blasphemy
This distinction is not a later theological invention. It arises directly from Jesus’ own words and the reaction of first-century Jewish monotheists.
At His trial before the Sanhedrin, the high priest asked Jesus a direct question—not about ethics, but about divine identity:
“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (God)?”
“I AM,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
(Mark 14:61–62)
Jesus simultaneously affirmed His Sonship, identified Himself with the divine Son of Man of Daniel 7, and used the divine self-designation “I AM.” The response was immediate:
“You have heard the blasphemy.”
(Mark 14:63)
The high priest tore his garments—an act reserved exclusively for direct blasphemy. A mere claim to be a prophet, moral teacher, or even Messiah would not have warranted this reaction. The charge only makes sense if Jesus was clearly understood to be claiming equality with God.
This understanding is confirmed repeatedly:
“He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
(John 5:18)
“You, a mere man, claim to be God.”
(John 10:33)
“According to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
(John 19:7)
Jesus was not condemned for teaching ethics. He was condemned for claiming divine Sonship by nature – God in the flesh (incarnate).
Final Validation: Resurrection as Public, Objective Confirmation
The decisive issue is not merely what Jesus claimed, but whether God the Father publicly validated those claims. Christianity rests on the bodily resurrection of Jesus, an event He explicitly predicted in advance. Because His enemies understood those predictions, they posted a Roman guard and sealed the tomb with a massive stone to prevent interference. Yet the tomb was found empty, and Jesus was seen alive by multiple eyewitnesses on multiple occasions over a period of forty days (1 Corinthians 15:3–8).
The resurrection was not a private mystical experience or subjective vision. It was a public historical event that functioned as divine authentication of Jesus’ claims to divine Sonship. (Romans 1:4).
In light of this, no later reinterpretation, devotional reframing, or theological demotion of Jesus to mere hazrat Isa can overturn the verdict rendered by God Himself.
No Comment! Be the first one.