the whole of God’s speech, or only a part of it? Is it the eternal, pre-existent meaning that inheres in the Divine Essence, as Ibn Kullab maintained? Or are they primordial, beginningless letters and sounds, as some people claim? Or is it the very Essence that speaks?

If you say it is the speaking Essence itself, then it is the Father, the Lord—the One characterized by life. In that case there would be no speech that is begotten, no Word that is sent, and nothing else of what you have mentioned. This runs counter to everything they themselves affirm, for the Word united with the Messiah, in their view, is not the Father.

If, instead, they say, “Rather, it is the entirety of God’s speech,” we reply: Then the Messiah would be the Torah, the Gospel, the Quran, and every other utterance of God. This they do not concede; in fact, no one has ever said such a thing, nor would any rational person.

And if they say, “It is the single, eternal, beginningless meaning,” or “It is the eternal, beginningless letters and sounds,” we reply: Though both claims are false, if you hold either one you are bound to accept that the Messiah is the whole of God’s speech, for according to those who espouse these views, that meaning—or those letters and sounds—constitutes all of God’s speech.

Thus the Torah, the Gospel, and the rest of God’s words are, for those who hold these two opinions, merely expressions of that meaning subsisting in the Essence of God—namely, the eternal letters and sounds inherent in the Divine Essence.