ۖ ۗ
And indeed We gave Moses the Book and caused messengers to follow after him; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, the clear signs and strengthened him with Spirit of The Holy. Was it that whenever a messenger brought you something your selves did not desire, you acted arrogantly? So a group you called liars, and a group you kill.
After recalling the covenant, its violation, killing one another, expulsion from homes, and selective treatment of the Book, the Qur’an now closes off another excuse: guidance had not come to them just once and ended when Moses departed. Moses was given the Book, and after him messengers came one after another. The problem was not a shortage of messages or messengers; it lay in how people responded to a truth that did not always speak according to their wishes.
The expression “We caused messengers to follow after him” beautifully conveys this continuity. Causing to follow (qaffaynā), from the root Q F W, is associated with following and going after. The Arabic word for the back or back of the head (qafā) belongs to this same linguistic field, making the image of one thing coming after another tangible. The messengers after Moses came in succession, as though each followed in another’s footsteps so that the thread of guidance would not be broken.
Within this succession, Jesus is then singled out by name: “And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, the clear signs.” In the order of the Qur’anic text, this is the first place where Jesus is mentioned by name. The Qur’an introduces him as “Jesus, son of Mary”: his lineage is traced to Mary, rather than a divine relationship of descent later asserted for him in much of Christian theology. Yet this same verse does not diminish his special standing: he was given clear signs and strengthened with Spirit of The Holy.
Clear signs (bayyināt) come from the root B Y N, associated with becoming distinct and manifest. They are clear signs and proofs that bring truth out of ambiguity. This verse does not enumerate their details, but elsewhere, when speaking of Jesus, the Qur’an recalls signs that were given to him. What follows in the verse therefore cannot simply be attributed to a lack of evidence. Sometimes the evidence is clear, but the problem lies elsewhere.
It then says: “And We strengthened him with Spirit of The Holy.” Strengthening (ayyadnāhu), from the root A Y D, is associated with force and strength. Here, it means more than mere agreement or verbal affirmation: Jesus received strength and support through Spirit of The Holy.
In Forqan’s translation, we render the Arabic expression as “Spirit of The Holy.” The Arabic construction is possessive: spirit (rūḥ) is related to the definite second term, The Holy (al-qudus). This expression must not be equated with the divine epithet “The All-Holy” (al-quddūs). The latter is another form from the same root family, used by the Qur’an to describe the one true God; here, however, the form is al-qudus within “Spirit of The Holy.” Sharing a root does not authorize us to assume, without evidence, that the referents of these two expressions are identical in nature.
The Qur’an itself does not give a detailed explanation of the nature of Spirit of The Holy in this verse. In An-Nahl 16:102, it says: “Spirit of The Holy has brought it down from your Lord in truth.” At least this much is clear: in this statement, Spirit of The Holy performs a mission from the Lord and Nurturing Master (Rabb). It should therefore not be identified, without explanation, with the very essence of the one true God.
Elsewhere, when asked about the spirit, the Qur’an recalls the limits of human knowledge rather than unfolding its nature: “Say: the spirit is of the command of my Lord, and you have been given only a little knowledge” (Al-Isra 17:85). Faithfulness therefore requires us to stop where the Qur’an itself stops. Jesus was strengthened with Spirit of The Holy; but concerning the full reality of spirit and the precise nature of The Holy in this expression, we must not fill the gaps in our knowledge with theory.
After recalling the Book of Moses, the succession of messengers, Jesus’ clear signs, and his strengthening, the verse suddenly reaches the source of the problem: “Was it that whenever a messenger came to you with what your selves did not desire, you acted arrogantly?”
This is what is striking about the verse. It does not look for the problem only at the level of information; it traces it to the desires of the self. A messenger comes, brings a message, and may even be accompanied by clear signs, yet that message confronts something the human self already wants.
Desire (hawā), from the root H W Y, here means the inclination and pull of the self. This is not limited to bodily appetite. A person can also construct a set of wishes and assumptions about The God, religion, and their own position. They may imagine a god who always favors their people, regards their language and culture as superior, counts their enemies as his own, loves their friends, and confirms their inherited beliefs just as they are.
As long as religious speech agrees with this image, accepting it is not difficult. The test begins when The God’s message speaks against something we would like to be true.
At such a moment, a person must break with one of two things: either humble themselves and their assumptions before truth, or push truth away in order to preserve themselves. The verse calls the second path arrogant self-exaltation (istikbār).
Arrogant self-exaltation comes from the root K B R, but it is not merely an inward feeling of greatness. An arrogant person makes themselves so much the standard that they are unwilling to humble themselves before a truth that conflicts with their desires. Truth must conform to them, rather than they to truth. For this reason, arrogance can arise in someone who still believes in The God and even considers themselves a defender of religion.
This sickness appears with particular clarity in the story of Iblis. Iblis did not deny The God’s existence, and he had understood the command. Yet when The God’s command confronted his own standard of superiority, he did not set that standard aside. Instead of submitting to truth, he said that he was better than the other. His problem was not a lack of information; he had made himself the standard. This sickness is examined in detail in the article Arrogance and Istikbar; Taghut and the Character of Satan.
The connection between desire and arrogant self-exaltation in this verse is profound. First, truth confronts the self’s desire. If a person is humble, they may hear something they dislike yet correct themselves. If they respond arrogantly, they shift the problem from themselves to the message. They no longer say, “Perhaps I was mistaken”; they say, “This message cannot be right.”
From here, the response to the messenger also begins: “So a group you called liars.” Calling someone a liar is more than refusing an opinion; the messenger is declared untruthful. If we discredit the message, we no longer have to change anything within ourselves. Sometimes it is easier to break the credibility of the person speaking truth than to accept the truth they speak.
Yet resistance can go beyond calling someone a liar: “And a group you kill.” Notice that the Qur’an first says “you called liars,” using a past-tense verb, but for killing says “you kill,” using an imperfect verb. This shift places the second action before the addressees as something vivid and ongoing. The imperfect form alone cannot support a theory of an unchangeable ethnic characteristic, but its selection does not allow the killing of prophets to be heard merely as a closed event unrelated to the present.
This ending shows how far arrogance can carry a person. First, truth does not suit their desire; then they call the messenger a liar; and if resistance to truth is joined by power and hostility, even the messenger’s existence may become intolerable. Someone unwilling to break with their own belief may ultimately seek to break the bearer of truth.
The presence of Jesus’ name in this same verse gives the warning greater weight. He came with clear signs and was strengthened with Spirit of The Holy, yet a person’s response to a messenger does not depend solely on the force of the evidence. When truth confronts the desires of the self, even clear signs can encounter arrogance. Nevertheless, this verse does not say that Jesus was one of the prophets who were killed; his fate and the question of killing and crucifixion are discussed elsewhere. We must therefore not apply “and a group you kill” directly to Jesus without evidence.
For today’s reader too, this verse is more than a report of earlier people’s errors. We may defend Moses and Jesus today and condemn those who called the prophets liars; but the real test is what we do with a truth that confronts our cherished beliefs today. If a sound statement comes from someone outside our preferred people, religious community, class, age group, or social standing, do we assess the statement itself or its speaker?
Arrogance does not always begin with declaring hostility toward The God. Sometimes a person believes in The God, defends religion, and raises slogans for truth—but only as long as truth agrees with their own image of religion. The danger begins when, instead of allowing The God to correct their beliefs, a person wants a god who will confirm them.
Possessing the Book, receiving messengers, and even seeing clear signs do not, by themselves, make a person immune to misguidance. When truth confronts the desires of the self, humility determines whether a person corrects themselves or responds to truth with arrogance.