How Many Angels Visited Mary?

Mr. Jochen Katz, in one of his articles titled: “How many angels were talking to Mary?” has stated that the two narratives in the Qur’an regarding the incident when the angels of Allah visited Mary to give her the news of the birth of Jesus — the Christ — are in contradiction with one another. In the first instance, the Qur’an says that “angels” (i.e. the word in its plural form, implying, in Arabic language, that there were at least three) visited Mary. While in the second instance, it says that there was only one.

Writes Mr. Katz:

There are (at least) two passages in the Qur’an relating the annunciation of Jesus’ birth to Mary.

Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah has chosen thee …

Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah gives thee glad tidings …

— Sura 3:42 & 45

Then we sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before he as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (Come not near) If thou dost fear Allah.”

— Sura 19:17-18

How many angels came to Mary? One or three or more? [Correct me if the word for “angel” is in the dual, but if it is plural then there have to be at least three.]

The object of this article is to give answers to the objections raised by Mr. Katz in this respect.

Let us first of all consider the related verses of the Qur’an. In Surah Aal Imraan, the Qur’an says:

And bring to mind when the angels said: “Mary, God has chosen you; He has purified you and has exalted you above all other women of the world”. “Mary, be obedient to your Lord, bow down and submit [to Him] with those that submit”. This is an account of a hidden event. We reveal it to you. You were not present when they cast lots to see which of them shall have charge of Mary; nor were you present when they argued about her.

Bring to mind when the angels said: “Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a “word” from Him; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary; he shall be noble in this world as well as in the hereafter; and he shall be amongst those who are close [to God]; he shall preach to people, while in his cradle and while in the prime of manhood; and he shall be a righteous man.” She said: “Lord, how can I bear a child, when no man has [even] touched me?” He replied: “Even so it shall happen as told. God creates what He wills; when He decides a thing, He needs only say ‘Be’, and it is.” (3: 43 – 47)

In Surah Maryam, the Qur’an says:

And recount in the book, the story of Mary. [The time] when she left her people and took for herself a place to the eastern side and hid herself from them. We sent to her Our spirit, which appeared to her as a perfect man. She said: “I give myself to the protection of the All Mercy (i.e. Al-Rahmaan) from you, if you fear Him.” He replied: “I am but a messenger of your Lord and have come to gift you a boy, pure [from sin]”. She asked: “How can I bear a child, when a man has never even touched me and neither have I ever been unchaste?” He said: “Thus shall it happen; your Lord says: It is easy for me.” (19: 16 – 21)

Before explaining my point of view regarding these verses, I would first like to clarify that we can call two phenomena “contradictory” when there is no possible explanation that can, in any way resolve or remove the apparent contradiction. If, on the other hand, an explanation can be given for the apparently contradicting phenomenon, then these phenomena cannot be called “contradictory”. I do submit that everyone has a right to criticize the explanation given. In such a case, if the explanation cannot face the criticism, it may then be rejected, and subsequently, due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the apparently contradictory phenomena may then be termed as a proven “contradiction”. But, on the other hand, if the explanation adequately explains the phenomena, then unless the explanation is logically and convincingly rejected, the phenomena cannot be termed as “contradictory”.

By close examination of the stated verses of the Qur’an, I think there can be two very acceptable explanations for the objections raised by Mr. Katz. Either of these two explanations, if acceptable, remove the objection raised by Mr. Katz in this respect. In case Mr. Katz or anyone of my readers believes that neither of the explanations is acceptable, he should then present his criticism on these explanations. Without rejecting both the explanations given, I really do not think that the referred verses of the Qur’an can in any way be called “contradictory”.

The First Explanation

A close look at Surah Aal Imraan shows that the Surah from verse 33 to 63 presents, in a summarized form, some important events from the time immediately preceding the birth of Jesus to that of his death. It is within the narration of these events that the prayer of Mary’s mother and her feelings at her birth are mentioned; Zacharias’ custody of Mary is mentioned; Zacharias’ prayer for a son is mentioned; John’s birth is mentioned; Angels’ visits to Mary is mentioned; the birth of Jesus is mentioned; and some (major) events from the life of Jesus are mentioned. In mentioning all these events, the Qur’an, following its normal style, has only referred to some of the more important events and that too in a very brief and summarized form. As should have been, events that are not as important from the perspective of the point that the Qur’an wants to make are not even mentioned; repetitions in the referred events are ignored; and to make the whole narration effective, some explanations and comments are also given.

It is in the above context that the verses of Surah Aal Imraan, referred to by Mr. Katz were revealed and placed.

Verse 37, 42 and 43 reveal that it was quite often that angels visited Mary. It is not necessary that the two statements, given in 42 and in 43 relate to the same visit of the angels — although there is no reason to believe that they were not. Then a third statement in verse 45 and 46 is given. Again, it is not necessary that the third statement was given during the same visit in which the first or the second or both the statements were given. The third statement may or may not have been given in the same visit¹. Moreover, the “glad tidings” of a son, given to a woman, even if she is not married, is not something very strange. There are many instances, in our everyday life that we hear a statement from someone that relates to our (relatively) far off future. For instance, while doing his high school, an intelligent student may hear from his tutor that ‘You shall soon be treating sick people‘. The student is not surprised. He knows that what his teacher implies is that after going through all the steps involved in becoming a doctor, you shall become a successful doctor. Likewise, it should not have been strange for a woman who is not even married to hear from an angel or a true prophet of God that she shall mother a male child. Obviously, she could easily have assumed that in due course of time she would get married and later she would bear a male child. But, on the other hand, when the angel comes and tells a virgin that she has conceived a child, or that a child grows in her belly, this should be some surprise. Now she is likely to ask the question that Mary asked the angel.

In my opinion, one explanation may be thus: Angels of God visit Mary and give her messages from her Lord; in one of these visits, they declare that she shall mother a boy child; Mary is not surprised, as she presumes that she shall bear the child after she gets married; some time later, the Spirit visits Mary and declares that it has come to deliver her with the male child; hearing this, Mary is quite surprised; she expresses her surprise and gets the mentioned answer from the Spirit.

This explanation implies that angels (plural) visited Mary a number of times, but in the particular instance that she was given the news that she shall now deliver the child, it was not angels but the “Spirit“. Thus, in Surah Aal Imraan, where the life of Mary has been presented in a very brief and summarized form, some of the important events of her life that took place at different times have been covered without giving details of any particular incident. While in Surah Maryam, the particular incident of Jesus’ birth has been narrated in detail, thereby clarifying some aspects that had remained vague in the first narration.

The basic premises for the above explanation are:

• In Surah Aal Imraan, the angels (plural) have used the word “yubashiroke” i.e. God gives you the good news of giving birth to a boy child. We know that the words “glad tidings” or “good news” may or may not relate to an immediate happening. Thus, Mary could have perceived the “good news” to relate to an event that would take place at some future date, after her marriage. On the other hand, in Surah Maryam, the Spirit uses the word: “le ahaba lake’ ” (to deliver you with; to present you with). These words, under the circumstances, imply that the referred gift was being presented at that particular instance, and this is what surprised Mary.

• In Surah Aal Imraan, when Mary expresses her surprise at getting the good news, she is given a reply by a person, who is referred to in the Qur’an by a third person singular pronoun (qa’la, that is ‘he said’, in place of qa’lat al-Mala’ikah or qa’lu’, that is ‘the angels said’). The reply does not come from the angels, that have been referred to previously. So it seems that she expressed her surprise not in front of the angels (plural) but to one angel (or as is clarified in Surah Maryam, the Spirit). It seems that the surprise expressed by Mary and the response that she received, does not relate to the same visit in which she initially received the “good news”, but to a later visit by the Spirit. If Mr. Katz and all those who have the stated objection in their mind only knew the Arabic language, they would have known that the Qur’an by changing the pronouns has given a clear hint in the narration of Surah Aal Imraan that the whole event does not refer to one incident only.

To summarize, the narrative given in Surah Aal Imraan does not refer to one incident only. It is a collection of various important incidents that took place at different times, relating to the life of Jesus. While, in Surah Maryam, the circumstances of Jesus’ birth have been given in some detail. If looked at the narratives of Aal  Imraan and Maryam in this perspective, there is absolutely no contradiction in the two narratives.

In case Mr. Katz or anyone else thinks that the above explanation is not acceptable, he must take the pains of correcting me by informing me of the reasons that hinder the acceptance of this explanation. I shall be obliged.

The Second Explanation

The two verses may also be explained in a different way:

To fully understand this explanation, let us first consider an everyday example from our lives: Suppose the President sends a delegation headed by the Foreign Secretary and consisting of three Junior Secretaries to Russia. Later on, while talking about one of the meetings of the delegation, the President says: “My Secretaries reiterated the importance of open market economy; the Russians were found to be quite interested in understanding and implementing it in their country.” The press while reporting the incident writes: “The Foreign Secretary succeeds in convincing Russia to bring about changes in its economic structure and policies.” The Russian President, while talking about the same incident says: “My Secretaries are forced to consider the American proposal.” The Russian press writes: “The Chief Secretary was found to be interested in the idea presented by the Americans.” And the Press of a third country writes: “America influences Russia in economic matters.”

Look at the words used for the two delegations in the various statements: Secretaries, the Foreign Secretary, Americans and America; likewise, the Russian group has also been called by various titles: the Russians, Russia, Secretaries, the Chief Secretary. The reader must note that all these different words have been used to narrate the same event, and none of these can be termed a contradiction of the other.

Let us now consider the referred verses in the light of the same literary principle. The event referred to in these verses happens thus: God sends a group of His angels, headed by the arch-angel Gabriel² to Mary. Now, suppose while reporting this incident, we say: “The angels said to Mary…”, at another time, we say: “Gabriel said to Mary…” and at yet another time we say: “God said to Mary…”. Any one who has no objection  to the American/Russian example above, should not have any objection here. If some one believes that the American/Russian example is not fully compatible with the problem under consideration, I shall be most obliged if I am informed of the reasons for its incompatibility. But if there is no objection on the compatibility of the example with the problem in question then the explanation given above has to be accepted.

One question raised by Mr. Katz in this regard is: Why does Mary only seek refuge from one of the angels as she only addresses one in Sura 19:18? Were the others not like men and threatening to her?

Although I do not think that this question has anything to do with the real problem under consideration, but still, just to answer the question, I think the question raised by Mr. Katz himself, i.e. “Were the others not like men and threatening to her?” itself is a plausible explanation to the above question. As I see it, a group of angels, headed by the arch-angel Gabriel came to Mary. From among these angels, Gabriel appeared as a man. It was only Gabriel that spoke to Mary. In Aal Imraan, according to the general principle common in about all languages (as explained in the American/Russian example above), the speech of their leader is attributed to all the angels, while in Maryam, the speech is attributed   only to the speaker among them.

A Comment on Mr. Katz’s Explanation Regarding an Apparent Contradiction in the Gospels

Mr Jochen Katz in his referred article has also given his comments on an apparent contradiction in the Gospels, which is somewhat related in its nature with that mentioned above from the Qur’an. He writes:

Since the resurrection of Jesus is the main proof for his claims in regard to his deity, many have tried to disprove this account by pointing to contradictions in it. Since Muslims deny the crucifixion they obviously also have to deny the resurrection. One of the favorite items on the list of Bible contradictions, presented by atheists and Muslims alike, is therefore that in the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 16 [also Matthew 28], the women encounter at the grave on Jesus a man [angel] which is read to mean one and only one angel, while according to Luke, chapter 24 [also John 20], it is explicitely stated that they encountered two angels.

and then:

Incidentally, this problem in the Qur’an is much harder to resolve for Muslims than the Biblical one for Christians, since in the Qur’an Mary addresses this one angel and it is clear she only speaks to one angel which would be strange if there are three or more around her. In the Bible the angels are not directly addressed by the women. Hence nothing establishes that there is only one. Mark and Matthew might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is the one talking while Luke and John make clear there were actually two of them.

The reader must note the words: Mark and Matthew might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is the one talking while Luke and John make clear there were actually two of them. I have no objection in accepting the explanation given by Mr. Katz, if this explanation is literally accepted by the words of the four Gospels. I would therefore like all my readers to have a look at the related portion of the four Gospels and see if the explanation given by Mr. Katz is acceptable or not. Matthew has narrated the event thus:

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earth quake; for an angel of the Lord descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. (28: 1 – 4)

Mark says:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. (16: 1 – 5)

Luke’s words are as under:

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? (24: 1 – 5)

John’s narration follows:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes. But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. (20: 1 – 13)

The reader is requested to have a close look at these excerpts from the four Gospels³ and see for himself if the explanation given by Mr. Katz (Mark and Matthew might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is the one talking while Luke and John make clear there were actually two of them) is acceptable or not.

My reservations in accepting the explanation given by Mr. Katz are:

• What are the words used by Mark and Matthew that allow this explanation to be acceptable? If Mark and Matthew had really intended to imply the prominent angel then, at least the word “angel” should have been preceded by a definite article rather than the indefinite one. It should then have read: the angel, rather than: an angel. If the readers would notice the words of the Qur’an, they shall see that the Qur’an has clearly distinguished between the plural and the singular entities. It has used angels in one place and “roohana” (our spirit) in the other. Thus, the explanation given by Mr. Katz can be acceptable for the Qur’an but not for the referred part of the Gospels.

• Mr. Katz also says that Mark and Matthew have only mentioned the angel that is talking, while the words in Luke: “but the men said to them…” do not allow us to accept this explanation either.

Mr. Katz has also given an example to clarify his point of view. He writes:

After meeting the President and [the] Vice-President on the street somewhere, I might come home and only say, I saw the President today. Nothing in such a statement precludes that I also met the second in command and maybe more people too.

I fully agree with this example. But unfortunately, this example can be given as an explanation for the words of the Qur’an but not for those of the Gospels. When someone says: “I saw the President today”, this sentence, as Mr. Katz has rightly stated, does not negate that the person giving such statement had seen the Vice President and a crowd of other officials. I would further add that if the statement given was: “I saw a number of high officials today”, even then it would not negate that the person had seen the President. But, on the other hand, if some one says: “I saw an officer of the state today”, and later on says: “I saw two/three/four officers of the state today” now, at least to me, these statements seem to be contradictory.

If you look at the words of the Qur’an, they are of the same nature as: “I saw the President today”, which according to Mr. Katz does not preclude that the person might have seen a number of other officials too. The Qur’an at one instance says: “We sent our spirit (the President), and at another instance, it says: “We sent our angels (a number of other officials). Are the two statements cotradictory?

On the other hand, the four statements of the Gospels are of the same nature as: “I saw an officer of the state today”. According to Matthew: “an angel of the Lord descending from heaven…” (an officer); according to Mark: “As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man…” (a gentleman, maybe accepted as “an officer“); according to Luke: “suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them” (two gentlemen, may be accepted as “two officers“); according to John: “and saw two angels in white… ” (two officers). Are these statements not contradictory?

I request Mr. Katz and all my other readers to have a look at these statements of the Qur’an and those of the Gospels and give a just judgment on them. I remind all my friends and brethren that the important thing is not to prove what we want to believe, but to search for and submit to the truth even if it is against our personal likings.

© Copyright April 1998. All Rights Reserved with the Author

1- The reason for keeping the number of visits vague is that the Qur’an is not interested in clarifying it. The Qur’an wants to concentrate on the real message that it wants to deliver — that Jesus is not God or His son; that his birth is not much different from that of John; and he or his mother were no different from the rest of mankind as far as human physical and emotional feelings are concerned. The only difference is that he and his mother were true servants of their Lord.

2- The word Al-Rooh has been used in the Qur’an for the arch-angel Gabriel.

3- I am sure Mr. Katz and all others can also see the various differences in the narrations of the particular event in the four Gospels; I wonder what exactly is a contradiction, and what is not?