John 17:3-5 - Implications For Jesus And The Dawah Propagandists

INTRODUCTION

It is a favorite tactic of the dawah propagandists to quote part of John 17:3 where Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God” to disprove the deity of Christ. They always ignore or try to explain away v5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” They also ignore the general context and nature of the chapter. This paper explains why the dawah propagandists attempt to utilize the text, why they fail in so-doing, and what the chapter actually teaches us about the Person of Christ.

1. The Trinity and Person of Christ in Islam

To understand why the dawah propagandists frequently quote (or rather, misquote) John 17:3, we must consider what Islam teaches about the Trinity and the Person of Christ. To begin with the Trinity:

Surah An-Nisa 4:171

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God.

The contrast between “Allah is only One God” and the call to “say not ‘Three’” indicates that the Qur’an is accusing the Christians of professing Tritheism – belief in three separate deities. This is emphasized by the next verse:

Surah Al-Maida 5:73

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

It is clear from Surah 5:75 that the two other gods in view are Jesus and Mary; “The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” This is reinforced by this verse: Surah Al-Maida 5:116: “And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right.” So, the Qur’an accuses Christian of professing three distinct gods – Jesus, Mary and God. Note that the Arabic word qul means “Say”.

It need hardly be stated that Christians never professed or said any such thing. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three Persons – Father Son and Holy Spirit (e.g. Matthew 28:19), One Ousia, three Hypostases. The Three Persons are not separable – the doctrine of Perichorēsis - co-inherence, circumincession, the idea that all Three Persons of the Trinity ‘inter-penetrate’, mutually sharing in the life of the others. The Father is in the Son, and vice versa (John 10:38, 14:10, 23, 17:21, cf. 1 Corinthians 2:10-11; Colossians 2:9), and the Spirit is the Spirit of both. They share one essence.

It follows that there are not three separable “parts” of God, any more than there are three distinct deities. Hence, he who receives the Spirit receives also the Son and Father. While each of the Persons is designated one, they cannot be added together. The reason for this is that the divine nature which they share is simple and indivisible. It is wrong to imagine that by “Triunity” Christians mean that God is composite. This would imply that the Persons, and thus the divine essence, was separable. We should avoid “ignorant arithmetic” (1+1+1=3). Because the Persons co-inhere, we always arrive at the fact that God is numerically one. God is a unique Being, not comparable to any finite creature, and only comprehensible through His own self-revelation.

The Qur’an is either ignorant, or willfully ignores what Christians have always said, and makes a false accusation against them. Whether it be the Scriptures, the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, the Creed of Nicaea, the Chalcedonian Definition, etc., it is clear that do not go around saying that there are three gods. It is this misrepresentation of Christian doctrine that prejudices the minds of the dawah propagandists. Despite the constant denials of Christians, carefully instructing them in what the Bible and Christian doctrine teaches, the Qur’an prejudices their intellects by making the false claim that Christians say there are three gods. Hence, they grab on to John 17:3 (“the only true God”) because they imagine it disproves the deity of Christ – who the Qur’an teaches – wrongly – that Christians say He is a god (note; not God).

This is tied to what the Qur’an teaches about Jesus:

Surah 5 Al-Maida

72. They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O children of Israel! worship Allah my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins Other gods with Allah Allah will forbid him the garden and the Fire will be his abode...

75. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.

Surah Mumineen 23:91

No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him...

The impression one gets from the Qur’an is that Christians go around saying that Jesus is a god, but do not affirm His humanity. Yet the various creeds as well as the teaching of the New Testament is that Jesus is True God (not a god) and True Man. The Qur’an never addresses the Christian doctrines of the Hypostatic Union, the Two Natures and Unipersonality of Christ. It merely sets up a straw man – the false accusation that Christians say that Jesus is a god. This failure to address the Christian profession that Jesus has two natures is fatal to the abuse of John 17:3 by the dawah propagandists.

1. The context of John 17

The chapter consists of prayer by Jesus to the Father during the Last Supper. It is often called “The High Priestly Prayer”, as it precedes the event in the garden (Gethsemane) where Jesus is arrested, leading to His crucifixion – His self-sacrifice. Before going any further, contra the claims of the dawah propagandists that Jesus always prayed like a Muslim, consider how the prayer begins (v1): “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you…” Raising one’s eyes in prayer is actually forbidden in Islam, as demonstrated by these ahadith (from www.sunnah.com):

Jabir b. Samura reported:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: The people who lift their eyes towards the sky in Prayer should avoid it or they would lose their eyesight.

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، عَنْ تَمِيمِ بْنِ طَرَفَةَ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ لَيَنْتَهِيَنَّ أَقْوَامٌ يَرْفَعُونَ أَبْصَارَهُمْ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ فِي الصَّلاَةِ أَوْ لاَ تَرْجِعُ إِلَيْهِمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Reference

Sahih Muslim 428

In-book reference

Book 4, Hadith 128

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Book 4, Hadith 862

(deprecated numbering scheme)

Abu Huraira reported:

People should avoid lifting their eyes towards the sky while supplicating in prayer, otherwise their eyes would be snatched away.

حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الطَّاهِرِ، وَعَمْرُو بْنُ سَوَّادٍ، قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ رَبِيعَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ لَيَنْتَهِيَنَّ أَقْوَامٌ عَنْ رَفْعِهِمْ أَبْصَارَهُمْ عِنْدَ الدُّعَاءِ فِي الصَّلاَةِ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ أَوْ لَتُخْطَفَنَّ أَبْصَارُهُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Reference

Sahih Muslim 429

In-book reference

Book 4, Hadith 129

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Book 4, Hadith 863

(deprecated numbering scheme)

By glorification, Jesus is talking about the imminent crucifixion, which, paradoxically, involves Jesus being glorified – specifically, what lay beyond this event – His return to the Father. That is, Jesus is talking about His death and what was occur immediately afterwards. Again, this is problematic for the dawah propagandists, since they deny the true crucifixion of Jesus! Before leaving this point, we should observe the basic error the dawah propagandists makes, led as they are by the misrepresentation of Christian belief in the Qur’an: they ignore that this passage is evidence of the two natures of Jesus. Prayer is a human act, and here Jesus prays. The human Jesus prays to God the Father. Therefore, we should expect that He would address the Father – in terms of YHWH in Heaven – as the only true God. Jesus is effectively denying to future pagan hearers that there is more than one god – and we should remember that Roman paganism was similar to Hinduism, in that it was syncretistic. Christianity, however, in keeping with its Old Testament roots, was exclusivist – i.e., monotheistic.

In terms of the Old Testament, in 2 Chronicles 15:3 we find “For a long time Israel was without the true God…”, and Jeremiah 10:10: “But YHWH is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King.” In historical context, this description is set over against the false gods of the pagan nations. This understanding is found in 1 Thessalonians 1:9: “…you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” So, clearly, the import is that YHWH, rather than any pagan gods, such as Zeus or Jupiter at the time Jesus was speaking, is the only true God.

The significance of this becomes clearer at verses 18-20: “18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…” Clearly, the Apostolic Commission would bring the Gospel to the pagan world, so Jesus’ prayer at v3 would look forward to His statement in these verses, and indeed, what is stated in v2 – “since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” Jesus’ authority is not geographically or ethnically limited, but applies to all humanity, with the offer of eternal life to people of all backgrounds. The syntax between v2 here Jesus has “authority over all flesh” and the reference to eternal life coming through knowledge of “the only true God, and Jesus Christ” suggests at least a major reason for Jesus referring to the uniqueness of God. We should note what Lindars states about the character of the Gospel of John (Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 1981, 1986, p. 7): “…it is pre-eminently an evangelistic work.”

1. Eternal Life and Truth in the Gospel of John

It is in the light of this prayer about His imminent glorification that we should consider these verses:

2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

The dawah propagandists neglect to give the full sentence in v3 - that Jesus is speaking about eternal life, which is in His gift (v2). What is eternal life, and how does one receive it? In the original Greek, v3 reads: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. There are two Greek words for life – bios βιος (from where we get the word biology), i.e., natural life, and zoē ζωὴ - which denotes quality of life, specifically, in the Bible, eternal life, the Life of the Age to Come, the Resurrection Age. Ladd (George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, Revised Edition, Edited by Donald A. Hagner, 1993, p. 291) states: “The exact phrase occurs in the LXX only at Daniel 12:2, where it translates hayyȇ ‘ôlam, “the life of the age,” designating the life of the future age after the resurrection of the dead.” One receives this by “knowing” the Father and the Son – Jesus, sent by the Father. In fact, one can only know the Father through the Son – John 17:26: “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

It need hardly be said that no Old Testament prophet nor New Testament Apostle ever made such a claim that eternal life came through knowing God the Father and him. We should recall John 5:21 at this point, where Jesus claims to have the prerogative of granting (eternal/Resurrection) life:

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ.

It follows that in 17:3, Jesus is actually claiming to have the same standing as God the Father – to be the object of Faith and the means of salvation, through the grant of eternal life. The dawah propagandists’(mis)use of this verse actually undermines them! However, what are we to make of the reference to “the only true God”? Guthrie comments about eternal life here (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester/Downers Grove: IVP, 1981, p. 878).

It is in fact defined as follows: ‘This is eternal life, that they may know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent’ (17:3). Knowing God and knowing Jesus Christ is the main aim of heavenly living. Naturally this process begins in this life, but can reach its goal only in eternal life.

In the beginning of his prayer in John 17:1 Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven (i.e. to God). This fits in with John the Baptist’s description of the Spirit descending from heaven (1:32), and with the reference to a voice from heaven in response to a prayer of Jesus to the Father (12:28). The direction indicates the source, i.e. God.

Truth is a major issue in the Gospel of John. For example, John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”; 1:17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”; 4:23-24: “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” More specifically, Jesus states of Himself in 14:6: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Note that Jesus states not only is He the truth, but also He is the life – zoē, so eternal life comes through Him. Concerning the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls Him in 14:17: “the Spirit of truth”. Specifically, in 17:17, Jesus states: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”.

We should look at the reference to “the only true God” in this light. The Son is truth, the Spirit is truth, the Father is truth. At this point, we are brought back to the evangelistic and missionary aspect of the prayer – that the Apostles, for whom Jesus is praying, will bring the Gospel message to people of all backgrounds, not just Jews. They will face people who believe in a multiplicity of gods, where the Christian message is that there is only one true God – the source of truth and giver of eternal life. That being so, since Jesus is “the truth” and “the life”, it follows that He is divine.

1. Textual variants and the Dawah propagandists’ eisegesis

The obvious rejoinder to the assertions of the dawah propagandists that John 17:3 effectively denies the deity of Jesus is what He says in v5:

And now, Father, [you] glorify me with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.

The inventiveness of the dawah propagandists at this point excites our admiration, even if their attempts at exegesis miserably fail. At times, this has included the idea of the pre-existence of human souls, a concept wholly alien to the Bible. Another of their suggestions is that of divine prescience, of God having in His mind from all eternity to honor the Messiah, an exegesis that wins a prize for desperation. Finally, when all else fails, the dawah propagandists run to the works of the liberal Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, their “go-to guy” for exegesis, just as the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman is their constant reference for textual criticism.

It need hardly be said that whatever Brown’s credentials, he was not the infallible exegete that they seem to imagine, and his writings are not like Papal ex cathedra statements for the faithful. However, we should examine what Brown says on the matter (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), London/Dublin/Melbourne: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971, p. 743). Ironically, it is not to his exegesis that the dawah propagandists turn, but to his reference to textual variants in v5. This is what he writes:

which l had with you. Seemingly some of the Greek textual witnesses once read ēn, a form of the verb “to be,” in place of eichon, a form of the verb “to have.” Among the Latin Fathers and in some Ethiopic mss. there is support for the reading: “that glory which was with you” or “that glory by which I was with you.” Boismard, RB 57 (1950), 396 q, followed by Mollat in SB, suggests the originality of a text without any connecting verb (“that glory with you”), a reading for which there is some evidence in other Ethiopic mss. and in the Diatessaron.

before the world existed. Instead of “existed” (einai), some Western witnesses read “came into existence” (ginesthai). This may be under the influence of viii 58, “Before Abraham even came into existence [ginesthai], I AM.” If einai is the correct reading, this is the only example in the NT of the preposition pro with a present infinitive (BDF, §403). The verb “to be” is characteristically used of the Son in this Gospel; he is, while all other things come into existence.

Of course, the dawah propagandists never elaborate on the textual variants as delineated by Brown. The reason for this is obvious – these variants are hardly earth-shattering. Brown shows that the renderings that flow from the first variant “that glory which was with you” or “that glory by which I was with you” do not alter the meaning of the standard reading. The same is true of the second variant, which would read “And now, Father, [you] glorify me with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world came into existence.” In neither case would it change the meaning of the verse – that Jesus, as the Son, existed with the Father before Creation, and shared His glory. Significantly, the dawah propagandists never mention any of this.

It is also significant that Brown exegetes the text on the basis of the standard reading, indicating that he did not find the variants of convincing weight (pp. 753-754): “In xvii 5 the glory that Jesus requests is identified with the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world existed. Later in 24 this glory will be said to stem from the love that the Father had for Jesus before the creation of the world… The relation that xvii 5 established between the ultimate glory of Jesus and his pre-creational glory helps to explain why the first action of the glorified Jesus is that of a new creation in imitation of Genesis…” So, Brown sees the standard reading as normative. The same is true for commentators in general. Bruce Metzger’s famous Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) does not address it – presumably because the variants were of no consequence.

We turn now to the issue of the variant manuscripts themselves. Our colleague Mazkir comments:

τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον – Here the relative pronoun [ᾗ] (as often happens) has been attracted into the case of the antecedent noun to which it refers (τῇ δόξῃ). Strictly, grammatically, it should be in the case appropriate to the function it serves in the relative clause (drawing only its gender and number from its antecedent). In this sentence, grammatically-speaking, it should be in the accusative case [ἣν] as the direct object of the verb in the relative clause [εἶχον].

The only manuscript evidence which Nestlé-Aland offers in support of the reading ἣν, however, is its being the original reading in Codex Sinaiticus, which is clearly a grammatical correction of the otherwise widely-attested reading ᾗ. (The reading ᾗ is also, as deficilior lectio, most likely original — for why would a scribe change perfectly grammatical ἣν to ungrammatical ᾗ?).

Uncial manuscripts having been written without breathings, this obviously ‘grammatically correcting’ reading ἣν of Codex Sinaiticus [although it may not, of course, have originated with this ms] has then been misconstrued as the 3rd person sg. imperfect of the verb ‘to be’ [which would have a smooth breathing, of course], and this misconstrual of a ‘grammatical correction’ is most likely what is behind the Latin Fathers and Ethiopic mss. to which Brown refers.

As for Boismard’s article [‘Critique Textuelle et Citations Patristiques,’ Revue Biblique Vol. 57, No. 3 (Juillet 1950) 388-408], to which Brown refers, page 396, the relevant point is footnote (1) on that page. Mazkir continues:

Brown writes “Among the Latin Fathers…” — Novatian and Augustine, in fact, are the only Latin Fathers Boismard mentions as offering, in place of the glory which I had, what he calls “a quite curious variant”, viz., the glory which was. Boismard adds, “which, truth to say, does not offer great sense.” It is a grammatical correction which has been misconstrued as a verb.

Boismard goes on to suggest that there are good reasons (which he doesn’t go into) for thinking that the Diatessaron may have had no verb here — the glory with you — as also apparently found in some Ethiopian mss. And he then queries, “Would it be rash then to think that in Jn. 17:5 the primitive text also did not carry any verb …?”

This ‘correction plus subsequent misconstrual’ by Novatian and Augustine leaves εἶχον in the sentence redundant. Boismard and Mollat’s suggested solution of omitting the verb entirely (which the ancients may have come up with in the Diatessaron, if Boismard is right in that regard, and in the Ethiopan mss. to which he refers) looks like a counsel of despair, a cutting of the Gordian knot, solving drastically the dilemma of choosing between was and had!

The Nestlé-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28th edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012, p. 359) states in its Apparatus that the variant ginesthai is attested in D* (D2; Irlat Epiph), which denotes the original reading of the fifth century Codex Bezae (D), along with the second (later) corrector of this ms, a Latin rendering of Irenaeus (c. 395 according to the edition) and Epiphanius (fourth century). All of this is surely late – especially the Ethiopic material to which Brown makes reference, which cannot be older than the sixth century (Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 4th edition, pp. 119-120, observe: “…none of the extant manuscripts of the version is older than perhaps the tenth century and most of them date from the fifteenth and later centuries…”). We should also note Codex Bezae (D; 05; MS Nn. 2.41), which contains the four Gospels in the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke and Mark) with several omissions, and is a Greek-Latin diglot. An important book on textual criticism is that by Kurt and Barbara Aland (Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edition 1989, 1995, pp. 109, 110), which indicates that Codex Bezae was probably written by someone whose first language was Latin, and this may have influenced the rendering in John 17, and the Alands are definite that earlier renderings than that of Codex Bezae are to be preferred. They describe Codex Bezae as:

A Greek-Latin diglot (Greek text on verso), written in sense lines (for convenience in liturgical reading), this has been the most controversial of the New Testament uncials, the principal witness of the text called “Western,” although it was written in either Egypt or North Africa, probably by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. The Latin text is related to the accompanying Greek text, standing independently of the main Latin tradition, and probably representing a secondary product…

When D supports the early tradition the manuscript has a genuine significance, but it (as well as its precursors and followers) should be examined most carefully when it opposes the early tradition.

Mazkir comments on the textual matters directly relating to John 17:

Note in John 1:15 (30), the Baptist uses the verb ginesthai of the one coming after him having been before him. The two verbs, although not identical, are frequently used interchangeably — or, I should say, ginesthai is often used without the idea of process or of coming into being. (Cyril of Jerusalem quotes using εἶναι but comments using ginesthai). The only evidence which Nestlé-Aland gives in support of ginesthai is D* (denoting the original reading of Codex Bezae in the 5th century), along with D2 (the second corrector of the ms, who reverses the first corrector’s emendation of the original reading in the ms), the Latin rendering of Irenaeus (from c. AD 380), and Epiphanius (d. 403). The implication is that all the other standard witnesses read εἶναι. Boismard, in the article mentioned above, lists Irenaeus’ Latin text of his Adv. Haer., Novatian (d. 251), Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus (d. 411), Vigilius Tapsitanus (d. 484), Avitus of Vienne (d. 525?), and (probably) Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) as preserving this reading, but Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Severus of Antioch, Ephraem, Denys bar-Salibi, Irenaeus’ Armenian text, Eusebius of Caesarea, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria (14 times!), John of Damascus, Gaudens of Brescia (d. 410) and Hilary all have einai.

In the light of this, we can understand why commentators pay the variant readings scant attention. They do not even reach the scale of the proverbial storm in a teacup, but rather approximate to the level of a droplet of drizzle in the Pacific Ocean. One can only speculate about the reasons the dawah propagandists refer to this.

1. The Glory that the Son had with the Father before the world existed

We turn now to the actual exegesis of 17:5. What did Jesus mean by “glory” there? Brown (op.cit., p. 751) writes:

…it is a visible manifestation of majesty through acts of power. The glory that Jesus asks for is not distinct from the glory of the Father, for the sayings in viii 50 and xii 43 rule out ambition for any glory except the glory of God. “The hour” will bring Jesus back to the Father, and then the fact that he and the Father possess the same divine glory will be visible to all believers. The particular act of power that will make visible the unity of Jesus and the Father will be the gift of eternal life to believes; (vs. 2, “to all that you have given him”). The giving of eternal life is intimately related to the work that Jesus has been doing on earth (vs. 4) and brings that work to a completion, for his works on earth were signs of his power to give eternal life…

This explains why we should read that Jesus possesses glory but asks for it, as Brown continues:

Jesus’ request for glory may seem strange since John has made it clear that Jesus possessed and manifested glory throughout his ministry. The “We have seen his glory” of the Prologue immediately follows the reference to the Word’s becoming flesh (i 14). At Cana (ii 11) Jesus revealed his glory to his disciples; see also xi 4, 40, xii 28. Yet the glory of Jesus during the ministry was seen by way of sign, even as his life-giving power was exercised by way of sign. In “the hour” we have passed from sign to reality, so that “the hour” is the time for “the Son of Man to be glorified” (xii 23). When “the hour” is complete, eternal life can truly be granted in the gift of the Spirit (xx 22).

To understand further, we quote Hurtado (pp. 374-375):

One of the recurrent themes in GJohn is divine “glory”; it is attributed both to God and to Jesus. One of the most extraordinary references is in 12:37-43. After describing the unbelief of Jesus’ contemporaries in 12:37-38 as fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53:1, the author (in 12:39-40) cites Isaiah 6:10 as further explanation of this unbelief. Then we are told in 12:41 that Isaiah “saw his glory and spoke about him.” In the immediate context, the antecedent of “his” and “him” has to be Jesus… Thus 12:41 seems to claim baldly that Jesus was the glorious figure seen in the prophetic vision described in Isaiah 6:1-5!

It is helpful to quote Isaiah 6 to comprehend the significance of “glory” here:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train[a] of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!”

4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts!”

So, when Isaiah saw the Glory of YHWH, he actually saw the Glory of the pre-Incarnate Jesus! It is helpful to explore further the concept of Glory in the Old Testament. Jacob explains this in some detail (Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1955, 1958, 1971, pp. 79-81):

The fundamental idea expressed by the root kbd is that of weightiness. Kabod designates whatever had weight... Since anything weighty inspires respect and honour, kabod not only denotes the obvious objective reality but the feeling which is experienced towards what inspires respect. This double meaning is particularly evoked where the glory of God is concerned. God reveals his glory, but his creatures must also give glory to him, as in Ps. 29.1; Jos. 7.19; Is. 42.8; 48.11. This glory is what God possesses in his own right, it is a kind of totality of qualities which make up his divine power; it has close affinity with the holiness which is of the nature of deity and it is a visible extension for the purpose of manifesting holiness to men…

Kabod is always conceived as something concrete… Kabod is always intended to be seen… The glory appeared to the children of Israel in the form of devouring fire at the top of the mount. Ex. 29.43: God meets with the children of Israel in the tent and he will be sanctified by his glory.

Ex. 40.34ff: When Moses had completed the construction of the tent, the cloud covered the tent and the glory of Yahweh filled the place…

According to Ezekiel the kabod is not merely the manifestation of God is concrete form, it is identical with him…

The kabod is very closely linked with the Temple; by it God consecrates the temple as the place of his presence… the temple is the normal place of his residence, as is brought out by 43.2ff…

Another Old Testament scholar, Eichrodt essentially concurs with Jacob’s presentation, notably the concept of Glory as a position of honor, and the visibility of the divine Glory (Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume Two, trans. J. A. Baker, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967, p. 30): “Kābōd denotes that which is ‘heavy’, ‘weight’; and when used of something ‘weighty’, that which distinguishes a man and wins him respect, primarily suggests the outwardly visible, whether it be wealth, for which kābōd can actually be used as a synonym, or an outward position of honour, power and success. Hence even God’s kābōd, his glory or majesty, includes an element of appearance, of that which catches the eye.” Anderson confirms this, and enables us to understand the paradox of humans being unable to look upon God’s essence and the fact that His Glory is indeed visible (Bernhard W. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press: 1999, p. 110):

… “glory,” a term that pervades the Old Testament and the New (Hebrew.. kabod, e.g., Isa, 6:3; 40:5; Greek doxa, John 1:14; 15:8). Hebrew kabod has various meanings. It basically means “weight” and thus applies to a person of weight or importance. When applied to God, it refers to God’s visible manifestation. usually as radiance or resplendent light (later, the Shekinah). Only in this symbolic sense is God visible, otherwise no human being may see God (Exod. 33:20).

The twofold aspects of glory as outlined by Jacob confirms what Brown suggests about the dual nature of glory in the Gospel of John – it is the “totality of qualities which make up his divine power” and something His creatures must give to Him. Two other aspects are especially relevant. First, “it is a visible extension for the purpose of manifesting holiness to men”, which ties-in with John 17:4 where Jesus states: “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.” Second, in John 1:14 we read: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the Unique [One] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Greek is: “Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.”·

Note how the Glory of God was tangibly present and visible in the Tabernacle and Temple. Now, in Jesus, the same is true. The word ἐσκήνωσεν eskēnōsen, usually translated “dwelt” is probably bettered rendered as “tabernacle”. So, the Word came as flesh and tabernacled among us, and we saw His Glory, the Glory of the Unique [One] of the Father. The unique Glory of the Unique One of the Father was visible in the Word (who was with God, and was Himself God) who came as flesh and tabernacled among us. Kaiser comments (Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1978, 1991, p. 119):

The single most important fact in the experience of this new nation of Israel was that God had come to “tabernacle” (sdkan), or “dwell,” in her midst. Nowhere was this stated more clearly than in Exodus 29:43-46 where in connection with the tabernacle it was announced:

There [at the entrance] I will meet with the sons of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by My glory. I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar... I will dwell (“tabernacle”) among the sons of Israel, and I will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.

…One of the most frequently repeated formulas of the promise would be:

I will be your [their] God;
You [they] shall be My people.
And I will dwell in the midst of you [them].

In its very first announcement, the dwelling of God was connected with the tabernacle. In fact, one of the names of the tent-sanctuary of God was miškān, which clearly was related to the verb šakān, “to tent, dwell, tabernacle.”

We can see now what Jesus meant in John 17:5 when He prayed that His pre-existent Glory which He enjoyed with the Father prior to Creation be restored to Him – via the Cross. His Glory was manifested on the Earth by His miraculous signs – John 2:11: “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” Again, and related to the visibility of divine Glory, note what Jesus says to Martha at the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11:40: “Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?’” However, the Glory that Jesus experienced from all eternity in Heaven was clearly of a greater magnitude to this limited experience of Glory on the Earth. This is underscored by Jesus request “glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world was” – obviously, the Glory Jesus had on Earth was not comparable to the greater glory in Heaven previously experienced with the Father.

Having examined what the Glory of God, meant in the Old Testament, we should consider its import in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of John. Guthrie comments (op. cit., pp. 90-91):

There is a strong OT background to the frequent references to the glory of God. Whereas the Hebrew word for ‘glory’ (kābôd) was used of anything which possessed splendour, honour, conspicuousness, it soon came to have a special significance when applied to God. It came in fact to stand for the revelation of God, as when the psalmist maintained that the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1). OT history is seen as a record of God’s revelation of his glory in his activities on behalf of his people. A more developed sense of the same idea is the use of ‘glory’ to denote the presence of God in a theophany, which was later to become known in Jewish theology as the Shekinah (šekînâ). But it is the translation of the Hebrew kābôd into the Greek doxa which provides the key for understanding the NT idea of the glory of God. We shall note that in the NT there are two senses in which doxa is used, as visible glory (in the sense of seeing the glory of God) and as uttered praise (in the sense of ascribing glory to God)…

John makes clear in his account that the glory which he and others had observed in the ministry of Jesus had a divine source (Jn. 5:41 ff.). Indeed the glory of Jesus Christ is again inextricably bound up with the glory of God (Jn. 1:14; 11:4, 40; 13:31). Whatever glorifies the Son of man is said to glorify God (13:31 f.). The essential point to notice is that God is not only assumed to be glorious, but is the pattern for the measuring of glory in others, even in the case of his Son (cf. Jn. 17:5). No glory can be greater than God’s.

It follows that Jacob’s outline of the nature of Glory in the Old Testament does indeed carry on into the New. In relation to the Gospel of John, the Gospel has a particular emphasis on Jesus as both the revelation and revealer of God, 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the Unique [One] [Himself] God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε·μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.” Remember our earlier point about the invisibility of God yet the visibility of His Glory. Jesus, the embodiment of divine Glory, reveals the Father, which should be linked to what Guthrie states about the Glory of God in the Old Testament coming “to stand for the revelation of God”. The Glory is the Revealer, and in the Gospel of John, the Revelation embodied. Observe how this echoes 17:4: “…this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ…”, and v26: “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

One problem for the dawah activists misusing John 17:3 while evading the full force of v5 is that Isaiah 42:8 states: “I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” Why would Jesus, if not divine, ask for something that would be frankly blasphemous as to share in the unique, pre-existent, pre-mundane Glory of God – in effect, to be deified? Hurtado (op. cit., p. 380) comments in regard to Isaiah and the Gospel of John: “It is difficult to think that the author of GJohn somehow missed these emphatic statements. Even if he had missed or chosen to ignore them, we can be sure that the Jewish critics of Johannine christological claims, who are commonly seen as reflected in the objections voiced to Jesus' claims in GJohn, would have pointed to these statements in Isaiah.” We have seen that John refers to Isaiah 6 in relation to the Glory of YHWH and applies it to Jesus (12:41: “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.”). Yet John in his comments applies these attributes to Jesus. By asking for the restoration of pre-mundane Glory, Jesus effectively claims deity for Himself.

This must be emphasized - what existed before Creation is obviously God, and Jesus claimed to have participated in the Glory of God prior to Creation. This brings us back to the beginning of the Gospel of John - 1:1-3, 9-10:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…

9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν…

9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

10 Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

The Logos, the Word, was with God and was God, and created all things. So, Jesus as the Word was the Creator. There is a consensus among scholars of all theological hue that John 1:1 reflects Genesis 1:1, e.g. Lindars (p. 82): “In the beginning: a deliberate allusion to Gen. 1.1…” Evans elaborates further (Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Sheffield: JSOT press, 1993, pp. 77-78.): “Even a casual reader of Scripture cannot help but hear the echo of Genesis 1-2 in the opening verses of the Johannine Prologue. Although there are not many verbal agreements, the conceptual parallels are obvious and quite significant.” Culpepper agrees with this, and points to its implications as Scripture: (R. Alan Culpepper, “The Prologue as Theological Prolegomenon to the Gospel of John”, Jan G. van der Watt, R. Alan Culpepper, and Udo Schnelle [Eds.], The Prologue of the Gospel of John Its Literary, Theological, and Philosophical Contexts. Papers read at the Colloquium Ioanneum 2013, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, p. 5)

John is unique among the Gospels in connecting Jesus with God’s work in creation. Raymond Brown observed that “the fact that the Word creates means that creation is an act of revelation.” By beginning with the words, “In the beginning,” John creates a clear echo of the opening words of the Book of Genesis, and perhaps suggests that this Gospel should be regarded as scripture – a continuation of the record of the mighty acts of God in creation, in history, and in the people of Israel.

This being so, we should consider the nature of the Genesis Creation account. Genesis is partly an anti-pagan polemic, and an apologetic work for monotheism. Whoever Creates is God, and there is only One God. God in His prescience inspired Moses to write the Genesis account as, in part, a monotheistic polemic against the views of the surrounding peoples in Egypt, Canaan and Mesoptamia. We encounter no theogonies (births of gods), no sexual activity between deities, no battle of the gods and no slaying of deities, as in their cosmogonies (creation accounts). In fact, there could be no sexual activity between the deities, nor any combat or killing of other deities either, for the simple reason, quite apart from ethical or ontological concerns, there is only one God! Creation was purely an act of the unique God. Consider Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

His creation is not brought into effect by sexual activity or by shedding the blood of some other deity, but simply through His word – note the recurring statement “God said”. Unlike some of the pagan cosmogonies, there is no indication in Genesis of pre-existing matter of any form. Before God created, there was nothing – and God created out of nothing. Above all, creation was uniquely an act of God. There were no other deities, and even heavenly beings such as the angels did not create or even aid in creation. Therefore, unlike the cosmogonies of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Canaanites, in Genesis (and the Tanakh in general), the office of Creator and the Being of God point to the same deity – the terms Creator and God are therefore synonymous – cf. Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember also your Creator”. Whoever creates is God, and only God creates. The Biblical God is the God whose first recorded act is to create.

This brings us back to the evangelistic nature of the Gospel of John, and Jesus’ prayer referring to those who will believe because of the witness of the Apostles. In John 10:16, Jesus indicates the global reach of His evangelistic work: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” Initially, this meant the Gospel would go out into the Graeco-Roman world, whose chief god was Zeus/Jupiter, son of Cronus/Saturn, son of Uranus/Caelus. The Greeks had no sacred Scriptures as such, but Hesiod’s Theogony records their legends (Hesiod, Theogony; Works and Days, trans. by Catherine M. Schlegel and Henry Weinfield, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2006, pp. 27-28) :

105 That I may hymn the sacred race of those who never die,
They who were born of Gaia (Earth), Ouranos (starry Sky),
And Nux (the dusky Night) as well as Pontos (the salt Sea).
Say firstly how the first ones, gods and Earth, first came to be,
And rivers and unbounded ocean with its furious swell,
110 And the shining stars and broad firmament over all,
112 And how they shared the riches and the honors that then followed,
113 And how they took possession of Olympos many-hollowed.
114 Speak all these things, Muses, from your high Olympian home:
115 From the beginning, tell me which of these was first to come.
Chasm it was, in truth, who was the very first; she soon
Was followed by broad-breasted Earth, the eternal ground of all
The deathless ones, who on Olympos’s snowy summits dwell,
And murky Tartaros hidden deep from Earth’s wide-open roads,
120 And Eros, the most beautiful among the deathless gods Limb-
loosener he is of all the gods and of all men:
Thought in the breast he overwhelms and prudent planning; then
Out of Chasm Erebos and black Night both were born,
And then from Night came Ether and came Day as well in turn;
125 For Night conceived them, having joined with Erebos in love.
Now Earth first brought forth Ouranos, the starry Sky above,
An equal to herself, so he could cover her around,
And she might serve the deathless gods as firm, eternal ground.
She bore the hills, the gracious haunts of mountain goddesses then-
130 The Nymphs, who range the wooded hills and up and down each glen;
And without sweet desiring love, she bore the barren Sea,
Pontos, the raging salt-sea swell; and when she had lain with Sky,
She bore deep-eddying Ocean and Koios and Kreios too,
Hyperion, father of the Sun, Iapetos also,
135 And Thea and Rhea and Themis and, in turn, Mnemosyne,
Phoebe the golden-crowned one, Tethys lovely to see;
And after these the youngest came, Kronos, crooked and sly,
The cleverest of all her children and his father’s enemy.

Note how the initial Creation was by more than one deity, and involved sexual intercourse between Gaia (Mother Earth) and Ouranos (Sky) in an incestuous sexual act, rather than being the work of one, unique deity by His Word. According to the Library of Apollodorus Book I:VIII, Men not Women) were created by the Titan Prometheus (Apollodorus, The Library, Volume I, trans. by Sir James George Frazer, London: William Heinemann/New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921, p. 51): “Prometheus moulded men out of water and earth and gave them also fire, which, unknown to Zeus, he had hidden in a stalk of fennel.” According to Hesiod (op. cit., Works and Days, tp. 59) the first woman, Pandora, was created by Zeus through Hephaistos and other deities as a punishment for Men:

55 “Now you rejoice at having stolen fire, outwitting me:
Much misery both for yourself, yourself and men to be.
To them in recompense for fire, I shall bequeath a woe,
Which they will cherish in their hearts, although it lays them low.”
So spoke the father of gods and men, and laughed out loud; then bade
60 Hephaistos, the famed artisan, at once to mix and knead
Water and earth, and put in strength and speech distinctly human,
Make it in aspect like a deathless goddess, but a woman,
A lovely maiden and in her form desirable to men…
80 And called this woman the All-Gifted one, Pandora, because the divine
Olympians all gave her a gift and as a gift did give
Her as a woe to mortal men, who must earn their bread to live.

It can be seen how vastly different the cosmogonies of the Bible and Hellenistic mythology were, and we should remember that the Gospel of John was written in the Hellenistic city of Ephesus in Asia Minor in the 90s. The impact of the message of the Gospel there can be imagined – Creation was the work of a unique God, not a pantheon, and Jesus was the Creator. Unlike Prometheus, who was powerless to prevent Zeus from punishing him for giving fire to Man, Jesus was returning via the Cross to His pre-mundane glory. Jesus was the Creator of all things – the Cosmos, Men, women, everything. Further, John 17 tells us that He had authority over all flesh. Nor was He, in terms of His deity, born – He existed before Creation, since He was the Creator, and He was returning to His position of eternal Glory which He had enjoyed before the Creation.

The various commentators are agreed on this – He returns to His pre-existing glory, as Lindars comments on 17:5 (p. 520): “…the glorifying for which Jesus prays is conceived of as the restoration of a pre-existing glory. The phrases in thy own presence and with thee are almost identical, and are certainly identical in meaning. Jesus does not simply pray for vindication as the Son of Man, but for …the descent and return of the Revealer from the heavenly realm.” Barrett (p. 504) concurs: “παρὰ σεαυτῷ, that is, by causing me to return to the position I enjoyed before the incarnation; cf. παρὰ σοί, and with both cf. 1.1, πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The glory, that is, is the heavenly glory of Christ; the prayer is a prayer for exaltation and ascension. After the crucifixion the Son of man will ascend where he was before (6.62). With πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι cf. 8.58.” Carson (p. 557) comments:

What is clear is that Jesus is asking to be returned to the glory that he shared with the Father before the world began, i.e. before creation… Haenchen (2. 502) rightly observes that this means the incarnation entailed a forfeiture of glory… This does not mean that Jesus is asking for what might be called a ‘de-incarnation’ in order to be returned to the glory he once enjoyed. When the Word became flesh (1:14), this new condition was not designed to be temporary. When Jesus is glorified, he does not leave his body behind in a grave, but rises with a transformed, glorified body (to use a Pauline category; cf. notes on ch. 20) which returns to the Father (cf. 20:17) and thus to the glory the Son had with the Father ‘before the world began’.

Morris (Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, pp. 638-639) also agrees with the idea that Jesus was returning to pre-incarnate Glory:

Now Jesus prays God to glorify him. He looks for glory in the last place that people would look for it, namely in the cross. And he sees this glory for which he prays as linked with his preincarnate glory with the Father. There is a clear assertion of Christ’s preexistence here (we have already seen such a claim, 1:1; 8:58; 16:28). There is also the claim that he had enjoyed a unique glory with the Father in that preexistent state. And now, as evil men are about to do their worst to him, he looks for the Father to glorify him again in the same way.

We need hardly quote anyone else, given the unanimity of thought on the issue. It is clear that Jesus was claiming divine pre-existence, on parity with the Father. This is linked to what has been termed the “Descent-Ascent Schema”. That is, Jesus descended from Heaven – from the Father – and would return thence by the Cross. In 3:13 Jesus tells Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”, and in 6:62: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In 16:28, Jesus states; “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father”. Jesus was going to be restored to His pre-mudane position of Glory – which means He is God.

CONCLUSION

The dawah propagandists have to engage in severe theological and exegetical gymnastics to manipulate John 17:3-5 to mean something other than its obvious, plain interpretation. They also have to ignore the general tenor of the Gospel - the “Descent-Ascent Schema”, the evangelistic character of the book, its display not only of the deity of Jesus but also His two natures, supremely displayed in John 17. They latch on to minor textual variant issues mentioned by Brown, but ignore how late and unimportant they are, as well as ignoring that Brown himself pays them no heed in his exegesis of the passage. It is the Qur’an that has misled them in this, with its false accusation that Christians say that there are three gods, and its deliberate ignoring of the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Unfortunately, their misdirection by the Qur’an leads them to grossly misinterpret this passage in John 17, which actually proves the opposite of what they claim.

“The Father Is Greater Than I”: What Did Jesus Mean?

INTRODUCTION

It is a feature of Islamic dawah polemics to quote part of John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”) to suggest that Jesus is not really divine. Note what we have just stated – Islamic polemicists are not quoting the entire verse, but only part of it. They are in company with groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses and way back, the Arians. Always, there is a conscious, deliberate ignoring of the full verse and the wider context in the chapter and the Gospel of John as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to examine the verse in its context and determine what Jesus meant by this.

1. The complete verse – John 14:28

The point to recognize is that the full verse indicates more than just what dawah activists claim: “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Note that the dawah propagandists always ignores that the statement does not stand alone, unlike John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Rather, the quote from 14:28 is not a complete sentence, but rather a clause, specifically a Causal clause (adverbial clause of reason). Wallace observes that the clause structure involves a Genitive of Comparison, and states: “In this context, it is obvious that Jesus is speaking with reference to his office, not his person.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, p. 111). The nature of the clause as causal is clear given that the clause starts with “for”. The Greek reads as follows:

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· Ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἄν, ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than me.

Note that the dawah propagandists always omit the conjunction ὅτι – hoti – “because” or “for”. Immediately, this tells us that the statement “for the Father is greater than I” looks back to what preceded it. The immediate predecessor of the clause is “because I am going to the Father”, which obviously does not stand alone, but itself looks back to the preceding statement “you would have rejoiced”. So, if we were to begin the sentence there, it would read: “you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Therefore, the import of the sentence is that the disciples should rejoice, because Jesus is going to the Father. It follows that the focus of the sentence is not a Christological statement about the essence of deity and the relations of Father and Son, but rather on the future motion of Jesus, and specifically His destination – to leave the disciples and to go to the Father. Naturally speaking, the departure of Jesus would be cause for sorrow, but Jesus reveals that paradoxically, it would be cause for rejoicing, because He is going to the Father.

1. The context of the verse

The chapter is part of the Last Supper discourse, and begins with the news that Jesus is going to the Father, for the purpose of preparing dwelling-places for the disciples:

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

These statements look back to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in the preceding chapter where He indicates the means by which He will initially return to the Father:

31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’

This refers to the departure of Judas Iscariot, to betray Jesus, and so Jesus is talking about the imminent crucifixion, which, paradoxically, involves Jesus being glorified – specifically, what lay beyond this event – His return to the Father. That is, Jesus is talking about His death and what was occur immediately afterwards. Again, the natural emotion the disciples would feel about this is grief and sorrow, but Jesus instead tells them to rejoice, since He is going – via the cross – to the Father. What would naturally be a time of pain (emotional for the disciples, physical for Jesus) and loss is actually a time for rejoicing and gain, since Jesus will go to the Father to prepare Heaven for the disciples. Therefore, His departure is especially gain for the disciples.

This is also true because of two accompanying consequences. Firstly, in 14:12 Jesus states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” So, the disciples will do greater works than Jesus because of His departure to the Father. We will come back to this. Secondly, in v16, Jesus promises them the reception of the Spirit: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” This is developed in 16:5-11:

5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Note what v7 states – that it is to the advantage of the disciples that Jesus departs in order that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, can come to them. So, the conviction of the world and the spread of the Gospel is dependent upon Jesus departing to the Father. It follows that Jesus – in His State of Humiliation, present on the Earth – cannot dispense the Spirit unless He departs to Father in Heaven to send the Spirit. This indicates that Jesus, on Earth, is necessarily self-restricted in some ways, but that this does not apply when He returns to the Father.

1. Motion and Destination in the Gospel of John

Fundamental to any interpretation of the Gospel of John is what has been termed the “Descent-Ascent Schema”. That is, Jesus descended from Heaven – from the Father – and would return thence by the Cross. So, the inter-related concepts of motion and destination previously mentioned are central to the Gospel. The Gospel begins (1:1) with the revelation that “the Word was with God” – at the Beginning (i.e. of Creation). Then, in v14, we read “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the Unique [One] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Greek is: “Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.”·It would be better to translate this as “And the Word came as flesh…” We immediately observe motion and destination – the Word moved from Heaven to Earth, i.e., from the Father to Humanity, and did so as flesh. In 3:13 Jesus tells Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”, and in 6:62: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In 16:28, Jesus states; “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father”.

So, Jesus has descended from Heaven – from the Father, and was returning to the Father in Heaven. Meeks writes (Wayne A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, In search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2002, p. 55): “The uniqueness of the Fourth Gospel in early Christian literature consists above all in the special patterns of language which it uses to describe Jesus Christ. Fundamental among these patterns is the description of Jesus as the one who has descended from heaven and, at the end of his mission which constitutes a krisis for the whole world, reascends to the Father.” This being the case, we should note the statement by Keener (Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003, p. 983):

Jesus would be in a more pleasant state with his Father, he says, “because the Father is greater than I” (14:28). Elsewhere he speaks of the Father’s greatness (5:36; 10:29); as Jesus is greater than those he sends (13:16; 15:20), so is the Father greater than Jesus as his sender... Those who suggest, on the basis of texts such as 14:28, that John denies Jesus’ deity read them outside the broader context of John’s theological framework. In the whole of his Gospel, John plainly affirms Jesus’ deity (1:1; 8:58; 20:28) but distinguishes Jesus from the Father (1:1b, 2)… The issue is not Jesus’ nondeity, or even his distinction from the Father (which is assumed), but his subordination to the Father, which portrays Jesus as the Father’s obedient agent and therefore appeals to those who honor the Father to honor him.

At this point we should consider 17:5: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” This is part of the “High Priestly” prayer of Jesus, so obviously offered in the State of Humiliation – while He was on Earth, as indicated by v4: “I glorified you on earth…” So, again, we see the distinction between the Father in Heaven, the place and position of eternal glory, and Jesus on the Earth – obviously, not in the same place and position of eternal glory. Yet that same place and position of eternal glory had indeed been the experience of the pre-existent Son before Creation. Now, via the Cross, Jesus would return to that same place and position of eternal glory He had enjoyed before His descent from Heaven. This enables us to understand what Jesus meant in 14:28 about the Father being “greater” – He, unlike the Son on Earth at that point – was in a greater position – that of eternal glory. Guthrie makes a very pertinent comment on 14:28: “It is not surprising that some see in this the inferiority of the Son to the Father, but it must be recognized that Jesus is contrasting the heavenly state with the earthly.” (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester/Downers Grove: IVP, 1981, p. 314).

It is worth noting the comments of other scholars on 14:28. Barrett states: “Jesus will return to the glory of the Father through death… the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient. John’s thought here is focused on the humiliation of the Son in his earthly life, a humiliation which now, in his death, reached both its climax and its end.” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John An Introduction with Commentary and notes on the Greek text, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, Second Edition 1978, p. 468). Essentially, this confirms our point about Jesus being in the State of Humiliation on Earth but returning to His eternal glory with the Father. Carson helpfully shows an analogy between this verse and the Queen to demonstrate that Jesus is not affirming that the Father is of differing and superior essence (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1991, p. 507):

At a popular level, this clause is often cited, out of context, by modern Arians who renew the controversy from the early centuries that is connected with the name of Arius… In the clause before us, the Father is greater than I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God: the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant. If the writer of this commentary were to say, ‘Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is greater than I’, no-one would take this to mean that she is more of a human being than I. The greater than category cannot legitimately be presumed to refer to ontology, apart from the controls imposed by context. The Queen is greater than I in wealth, authority, majesty, influence, renown and doubtless many more ways: only the surrounding discussion could clarify just what type of greatness may be in view.

Carson then proceeds to suggest what the clause actually means (Ibid., p. 508):

The only interpretation that makes adequate sense of the context connects for the Father is greater than I with the main verb (as does the preceding option), but understands the logic of the for or because rather differently: If Jesus’ disciples truly loved him, they would be glad that he is returning to his Father, for he is returning to the sphere where he belongs, to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (17:5), to the place where the Father is undiminished in glory, unquestionably greater than the Son in his incarnate state.

Again, this supports our interpretation of the text. Lindars also agrees about divine ontology in the verse: “It does not mean that Jesus is a lesser kind of being, not truly divine.” (Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 1981, 1986, p. 485). Morris states: “John is not asserting, as the Arians maintained, that Jesus was a created being. He is talking about the departure of the human Jesus from this earth to be with the Father. In the light of this Jesus sees it as a matter for rejoicing that He returns to the Father.” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 659). comments: “Jesus is on the way to the Father who will glorify him. During his mission on earth he is less than the One who sent him, but his departure signifies that the work that the Father has given him to do is completed. Now he will be glorified with that glory that he had with the Father before the world existed.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), London/Dublin/Melbourne: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971, p. 655).

1. The word “greater” in the Gospels

The argument of the dawah propagandists is that when Jesus refers to the Father as “greater” in John 14:28, the word indicates superiority of essence. Clearly, in the light of John 10:30, 8:58, 1:1, etc., that cannot be the case. However, let us consider what “great” and more specifically “greater” means. In English, it involves a comparison of magnitude. Sometimes this means size or scale, or extension. Examples of this include the largest island in the British Isles, Great Britain. The island is not so-called because the natives had a high opinion of themselves, but because in French, Brittany – formerly Armorica – is Bretagne, and its larger island neighbor is Le Grande Bretagne. In America, there are The Misery Islands in Massachusetts, which include Great Misery and Little Misery. In this context, “great” obviously means “bigger”, and refers to the comparative size of the islands, and not the amount of negative emotion any visitor might experience.

Another possibility is the result of expansion, notably the metropolitanization of traditional cities, such as “Greater” Los Angeles, Toronto, Berlin, Sydney, etc. An instructive case is that of London. The City of London is ancient, has its own Lord Mayor (e.g., the famous Dick Whittington) and even its own police service. During the nineteenth century, its suburbs grew in terms of population as industrialization and metropolitanization advanced. This gave birth to “Greater London”, which is now officially recognized as “The Greater London Authority”, with its own executive Mayor and the Metropolitan Police, distinct from the City of London. The meaning of “Greater” here is obviously “bigger” by virtue of expansion – it does not reflect a qualitative difference from the City of London, or any other British city.

Another meaning is that of magnitude of accomplishment, as applied to persons. For example, we talk of Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great. In each case, it refers to their accomplishments in the political and especially military field – Alexander establishing a great empire, Alfred beginning the process of establishing the English nation and fighting the Vikings, Peter modernizing Russia and extending its borders at the expense of Sweden, Catherine doing much the same at the expense of Poland and the Ottoman empire. Although Alexander – and perhaps some of his followers – considered himself to be a god, the others did not so-regard themselves, and at any rate, the designation is given to these individuals by others. None of those awarding this designation considered the persons here to be different in essence from any other human beings. They simply had, and gained, more power than others, and accomplished more.

At this point we turn to the Gospels. The Greek word for “greater” in John 14:28 is μείζων meizōn. There is also the word μεῖζόν meizon, used in Matthew 12:6, 41-42, 23:17, 19. It can be either an Adjective, Adverb, or Comparative, the root word being μέγα mega – “great”. Below are some the examples:

Matthew 11:11

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ· ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 12:6

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε.

I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.

John 1:50

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς πιστεύεις; μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ.

Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”

John 4:12

μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;

Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.

John 5:20

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.

John 5:36

ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου, τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα [c]ἃ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν,

But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.

John 8:53

μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ, ὅστις ἀπέθανεν; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον· τίνα σεαυτὸν ποιεῖς;

Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”

John 10:29

ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζων ἐστιν, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

John 13:16

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.

Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

John 14:12

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι·

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

John 14:28

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· Ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἄν, ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.

ou heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

The first example, from Matthew 11:11 contrasts the eschatological position of John the Baptist with ‘the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven’, as France observes (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, pp. 428-29):

The argument of vv. 7-10 is brought to a resounding conclusion with a solemn “Amen” saying: John is the greatest of all human beings so far. In this context the focus has been on his role as a prophet, but this saying surprisingly declares him not simply the greatest of prophets but the greatest of all people (even Abraham, Moses, David?), so important is his pivotal role in the eschatological drama. After such a declaration the second half of the verse is the more striking, as it contrasts those hitherto “born of women” and the members of the kingdom of heaven. The contrast is between two eras, that of preparation, culminating in John, and that of fulfillment, the arrival of the kingdom of heaven which Jesus has now inaugurated. John had proclaimed it (3:2), but he apparently remains outside while even the less important (cf. 5:19 for “least” and “great” in the kingdom of heaven) of those whom Jesus has now welcomed into the kingdom of heaven enjoys a privilege beyond that even of John himself.

Clearly, there was no difference in human essence between John and previous prophets, as there was none between him and anyone born supernaturally under the New Covenant. It is obvious, therefore, that “greater” is a matter of position, not essence here. This is also true of Matthew 12:6, where Jesus declares His superiority to the Temple. Obviously as a living being, rather than something inanimate like the Temple, Jesus was of different essence to it, but that is not the import. The Temple was the place of sacrifice, of divine-human reconciliation, and the dwelling-place of God. To again quote France (pp. 460-461):

…why does Jesus speak in the neuter of “something greater”? Here in v. 6 this might be explained formally by the fact that the immediate point of comparison is an institution, the temple, not a person. But when a very similar formula is used again in vv. 41 and 42, the point of comparison will be individual people of the OT, Jonah and Solomon, yet the neuter is found there as well. Both here and there it is the authority of Jesus himself which is immediately at issue, but not so much Jesus in his own person as in his role, as now (in comparison with priest, prophet, and king in the OT) the true mediator between God and his people; such a role is something new. Here in v. 6, where the contrast is with the temple rather than with a person, the neuter is perhaps also intended to point beyond Jesus himself to the new principle of God’s relationship with his people which will result from Jesus’ ministry, a principle which will remain embodied in the community of his disciples even when Jesus himself is no longer present.

As with John the Baptist, the arrival of Age of Fulfilment, the New Covenant, produces a radical change. The functions of the Temple are now realized in the Person and Work of Jesus as Messiah. That is, Jesus has a greater role, a greater position.

If we turn now to the Gospel of John, in 1:50 Jesus promises Nathanael that he will see greater things than Jesus’ revelation at that point. To understand this, we must know why Nathanael was so shocked at Jesus:

45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Carson (op. cit., p. 161) observes concerning the fig tree: “occasionally in rabbinic literature its shade is associated with a place for meditation and prayer…” Lindars (op. cit. p. 118) concurs, stating: “According to the Midrash Rabba on Eccles. 5.11, some rabbis taught the Law under a fig tree (cf. SB 1.858; 11.371).” That is, Nathanael was reading the Scriptures under the tree, and meditating on a particular event therein. What event was it? Obviously, the narrative of Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:12. The name “Jacob”, ya’aqōb, means “he seizes by the heel.” His name prophetically worked itself out in his history, in his striking a twister’s bargain with his brother over the birthright and then deceiving his father in the matter of the blessing (not to mention his dodgy dealings with Uncle Laban later on, of course). Carson observes that Esau’s comment in Genesis 27:36 on Isaac’s words in 27:35 is a punning allusion to Jacob’s name, meaning something like “he has seized me by the heel” [with the sense, we might say, “he has got the better of me (by devious means)”]. It carries with it overtones of his being something of a cheat, a twister (how else could he have grabbed hold of his brother’s heel?!), a deceiver, (op. cit., pp. 160-161):

The encomium achieves extra depth in the light of the explicit reference to the Jacob story in the following verses. Doubtless Esau despised his birthright, but in Isaac’s view that did not make Jacob innocent. Isaac informs Esau, ‘Your brother came deceitfully (LXX ‘with deceit [dolos]’) and took your blessing’, to which Esau replies, ‘Isn’t he rightly named Jacob (Heb. ya‘aqōb)? He has deceived me (ya‘aqebēnî) these two times’ (Gn. 27:35–36). But Jacob came to be called Israel, after receiving a vision of God that transformed his character (Gn. 28:10ff.; 32:24–30). Nathanael, then, was an Israelite without deceit, an ‘Israel’ and not a ‘Jacob’…

The passage in Genesis 28 follows Jacob’s flight from Esau’s wrath. The actual dream he had was of particular significance for Nathanael, pace Lindars (p. 122): “It is possible that he is making use of rabbinic exegesis at this point, which is first attested in Targum Neofiti at Gen. 28.12. Thus Gen. Rabba lxviii.18; lxix.3 take ‘on it’ and ‘above it’ of Gen. 28.12 and 13 respectively to be ‘on him’ - i.e., on Jacob. One of the explanations given for this… interpretation is that the ‘image’ of Jacob is in heaven while his body sleeps on earth, and the angels maintain contact between them.” This explains both Nathanael’s shock and Jesus’ statement about the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Odeberg comments (Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.- B., 1929, p. 36):

On the background of these mystical interpretations of the ascent and descent of the angels on man, some light may be thrown upon the meaning of Joh. 151: the disciples of Jesus will see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man i.e. they will see the connexion being brought about between the celestial appearance, the Glory, δόξα [doxa] of Christ, and his appearance in the flesh; it implies the manifestation (φανέρωσις [phanerōsis]) of his δόξα (211) on earth.

At this point, we can understand Nathanael’s shock and sudden confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah – somehow, Jesus was supernaturally aware of the subject about which Nathanael had been meditating, as evidenced by Jesus’ comment “Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael would have been thinking about Jacob, Ya‘aqōb, the one who “deceived (ya‘aqebēnî)”, but whose Heavenly “image”, the true Israel, is the one upon whom angels ascend and descend. Hence Nathanael’s shocked response of acknowledgement of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.

Yet Jesus promises Nathanael something “greater” – an insight into His Glory - as Lindars comments (p. 120), this applies “to the unfolding of Jesus’ glory throughout the Gospel.” Nathanael had only recognized Jesus as the Royal Messiah, but Jesus, by manifesting His glory as the celestial Son of Man of Daniel 7, will show Nathanael that He is more than just an earthly figure like David – He is indeed literally Heavenly, having come from Heaven (we can thus see the link with the Heavenly Image of Israel in Jacob’s dream). However, both revelations are, obviously, equally supernatural – it is the spiritual insight that Nathanael will gain from His experience of who Jesus really is that is “greater” in quality.

The encounter of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4:12 begins with Him asking her for a drink, which surprises her, as “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”, only for Him to state (v10): “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” This leads her to reply: “11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” It is important at this point to note that she was not aware of who Jesus was, nor of His supernatural powers or standing as Messiah (or as the Samaritans termed him, the Taheb, who was not of Davidic ancestry, but rather a prophet like Moses – a teacher or lawgiver, who brought about the resurrection of the dead, among other matters). Clearly, therefore, she did not mean to ask if Jesus was “greater” in essence than Jacob. Rather, her comment refers to the well itself (Lindars, p. 182):

The thought that Jesus might know of a superior source of fresh water has occurred to the woman, but it is an affront to her Samaritan pride in possession of the patriarch’s well. If G. A. Smith is correct in saying that she used it because of the superiority of its water, no difficulty is caused by the fact that many other sources of supply are available in the vicinity, for she knows that none is better. So, for Jesus to claim that he has a better source, is to claim that he is a greater man than Jacob himself.

That is, in her mind, Jesus could only be “greater” than Jacob if He could show her a superior well – perhaps deeper, able to quench the thirst not only of Jacob himself, but also his family and cattle. Barrett (p. 234) essentially concurs with Lindars but emphasizes Jacob’s position as a Patriarch: “That Jacob himself drank of the well lends it distinction - even he needed no better water; that his cattle did so indicates the copiousness of the supply, also that Jacob’s well provided no more than material water, appropriate only to the animal life of man.” Clearly, Jacob as one of the Patriarchs could only be “greater” than someone who is not, but again, this indicates position, not essence. Of course, we know that Jesus, in terms of His divine nature, was indeed of greater essence than Jacob, but the woman did not know that, nor did it influence her question.

The next verse to consider is John 5:20: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” It is best to put this into context – Jesus is responding to objections that He healed on the Sabbath, and His claim to unique divine paternity and thus deity: “7 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” The verse in question is part of Jesus’ response:

19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Jesus denies that the Son can act independently of the Father. Obviously, ordinary human beings can and do act independently of the Father – they sin, for example. However, the unity of essence between Father and Son precludes such independent action, as Carson (p. 251) comments:

The Greek text of verses 19–23 is structured around four gar (‘for’ or ‘because’) statements. The first introduces the last clause of v. 19. The thought runs like this: It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and coextensive with all that the Father does. ‘Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action with the Father’ (Westcott, 1. 189). It follows that separate, self-determined action would be a denial of his sonship. But if this last clause of v. 19 takes the impossibility of the Son operating independently and grounds it in the perfection of Jesus’ sonship, it also constitutes another oblique claim to deity; for the only one who could conceivably do whatever the Father does must be as great as the Father, as divine as the Father.

On that basis, we proceed to v20 – that the Father shows the Son “all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” Morris comments (pp. 313-314):

Thus the Father shows (again the tense is present denoting continuous action) the Son all the things He does. This carries the implication that the Son does the things He is shown. Jesus’ actions do not proceed from merely human motivation. He acts only in accordance with the divine revelation. Thus He looks forward to doing greater works, for He will be shown greater works. The result will be that His hearers will be astonished. The following verses show that these “greater works” are the Son’s activities in giving life and in judging.

There is thus an identity of action between Father and Son – the latter acts completely in accordance with the will of the former. Beasley-Murray (George Beasley-Murray, John, Waco: Word, 1987, p. 76) comments: “The “seeing” of the Son in v 19 has its counterpart in the “showing” by the Father in v 20. It is an image of the perpetual communion of the Son with the Father in his day-by-day life (not in his pre-existence). The source of that communion, and its illumination and direction, is the Father’s love for the Son.” Barrett (p. 259) aptly comments: “The activity of Jesus is not merely a reflection of God's activity but a complete reflection, since the Father shows the Son all that he does.” Lindars (p. 222) comments on the “greater” works: “These greater works will be described in the next two verses. They will cause men to marvel, because what they have so far seen is only a faint shadow of the full scale of the eschatological task which Jesus will perform when he is glorified; cf. verse 28.”

The “greater” works are thus those of eschatological Resurrection and Judgment. It is true that in the Old Testament, we see resurrections performed by divine mandate through Elijah and Elisha, and in the New Testament later by the Apostles, but there is a qualitative difference between what is envisaged in v25 here - “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” All resurrections in the Bible, save that of Jesus, were temporary revivifications – the person was simply restored to his/her natural life, and eventually the grave would re-claim that individual. However, the Resurrection of Jesus was different – He had a resurrection body, being the first fruits of the General Resurrection, and so the tomb would never re-claim its victim. Note that it is not the Father, but the Son whose voice would cause the General Resurrection.

This should be linked to v21: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will”. None of the resurrections performed by the Prophets or Apostles could have been realized apart from the will and power of God, however much the divine servants involved could have wished for such inherent power. Yet Jesus, as the Son, will give eternal life to whomsoever He (not the Father) wills, and by His own inherent power. Of course, there is no cleavage between the will and power of the Father and the Son, by virtue of their possessing the same essence.

In one sense, there is not gradation between Jesus miraculously healing someone, and later resurrecting the dead for the Judgment – divine power in miracles is obviously common to both. However, both Jesus and the works He will perform at the End of the Age will be a different position than during the healing in John 5:8-9 – obviously, Jesus will face no opposition – He will be the Divine Judge, and the miracle of Resurrection He will perform will be eternal in nature. In that sense, the works Jesus will perform will greater. However, in terms of divine power in miracle, it will be the same. The power that caused the invalid to walk is the same as resurrects people.

In John 5:36, Jesus declares that His testimony is greater than that of John the Baptist. What did He mean by this? The reference is the second clause in the verse indicate an answer: “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.” In one sense, this could refer to the fact that the ministry of Jesus, unlike that of John, was accompanied by miracles (10:41: “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true”). However, that is only part of the meaning. Unlike John, Jesus is the Messiah, and indeed, the Son, looking back to what Jesus says earlier in the chapter. Carson writes (pp. 261-262):

These ‘works’ include all of Jesus’ ministry, including the ‘signs’… which point to the climactic work, the work of redemption achieved in the cross and exaltation of the Lamb of God. Anyone who has followed John’s Gospel this far will know that these works are not some mere demonstration that Jesus is a notable human being, perhaps a prophet, following the conclusion of Nicodemus (3:2). The argument in this verse turns on the exposition of the Father/Son relationship found in 5:19–30. All that Jesus does is nothing more and nothing less than what the Father gives him to do. The works he does are thus peculiarly divine: they are the works of God. Once this Father/Son relationship is grasped, everything Jesus does simultaneously attests who he is and who the Father is.

Morris comments (p. 328):

The works which He does are no ordinary works. They are “the works which none other did” (15:24). They are the Father's works, and, indeed, it is the Father abiding in Him who does them (14:10). These works bear upon them the hallmark of their divine origin. They show that Jesus is not of human origin, but that the Father has sent Hm (for “sent” see on 3: 7). Jesus' words have particular force, set as they are in the context of the healing of the lame man.

John’s testimony did not have the force that the witness of Jesus enjoys, since it was not miraculously validated by the Father in the same way. After all, John himself saw the descent of the Spirit upon us and recognized what position He held (1:30ff):

30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Again, it comes down to position and role. The reference in John 8:53 resembles the encounter with the Samaritan woman: “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” Although in v58 Jesus effectively answers this by pointing out that there is indeed a difference of essence between Him and Abraham – i.e., He is YHWH – that obviously was not in the minds of His questioners/accusers. The actual “question” is really a rebuke – “who do you think you are!” Or, to use another colloquialism, “You’re giving yourself airs!” It looks back to the accusations in verse 51-52: “51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’” The initial answer Jesus gives indicates that He understood the nature of their question as an accusation that He was giving Himself airs – v54 “Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’” Jesus denies giving Himself airs – rather, the Father has appointed Him to the position He now has as Messiah. However, this is not actually pertinent to our point. What matters is the force of the accusation against Jesus – that He made Himself to be “greater” than Abraham, the Patriarch, and also the prophets. It is as if someone in the UK were to rebuke a person by saying: “who do you think you are – the King?” The point is, the accusers of Jesus make is that Jesus – whom they believe to be nothing more than human – cannot be in a higher position than the Patriarch.

When we come to John 10:27-29, we find Jesus making what at first glance might seem a trite statement – “27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Obviously, God is greater than humans or demons in terms of His power. Yet that is the point for our consideration – by virtue of His position as the Cosmic Ruler, His power is greater than any adversary. Again, what is contrasted is not essence, but position. The Creator is obviously more powerful than anything in His creation. His power come with the territory of being God.

The statement in John 13:16 “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” clearly relates to position, rather than essence, since human masters and servants, and messengers and senders are of the common essence of humanity, though existing separately. We need not spend any time on this, as it is obvious. That brings us to John 14:12: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” This is especially interesting, being in the same chapter and discourse as the verse this paper considers. Given all that Jesus has said about the nature of His works, how can it be true that mere humans could do greater works than the Son? Barrett comments (p. 460): “The greater works therefore are the gathering of many converts into the church through the activity of the disciples (cf. 17. 20; 20. 29), which however is effective only through the continuing power of Jesus’ word and the work of the Holy Spirit (15.26f.).” Morris (p. 646) concurs:

What Jesus means we may see in the narratives of the Acts. There are a few miracles of healing, but the emphasis is on the mighty works of conversion. 31 On the day of Pentecost alone more believers were added to the little band of believers than throughout Christ’s entire earthly life. There we see a literal fulfilment of “greater works than these shall he do”. During His lifetime the Son of God was confined in His influence to a comparatively small sector of Palestine. After His departure His followers were able to work in widely scattered places and influence much larger numbers of men. But they did it all on the basis of Christ’s return to the Father. They were in no sense acting independently of Him. On the contrary in doing their “greater works” they were but His agents.

Likewise, Lindars (p. 475): “As their works are the works of Jesus, they will be just as much the activity of God in the world as his own acts were. Moreover they will be greater. This does not, of course, mean better than those of Jesus, but more extensive, for it is through the mission of the disciples that the work of Jesus is to be extended through the world and down the ages; the phrase is an unmistakable allusion to 5.20.” Obviously, there is no gradation in the essential nature of the works of the Apostles and those of Jesus, it is simply because of the change in Jesus’ position – being exalted to Heaven – that the works can proceed on a great scale.

CONCLUSION

It can be seen from all we have surveyed that the use of part of John 14:28 – indeed, a truncated portion of the clause therein – by the dawah propagandists to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father is wholly illegitimate. Neither the context nor the use of “greater” by Jesus (especially in the Gospel of John) allow for such an interpretation. The text simply refers to the fact that the Father – on His throne in Heaven - was in a greater position than Jesus on Earth, in the State of Humiliation. Jesus stated that He was going to the Father, who was in a greater position, and since this would lead to the Apostles receiving the Spirit, Who will enable them to do “greater” works than those of Jesu during His earthly sojourn.

It should also be noted that the chapter begins with Jesus making a statement about Himself that indicates His deity:

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Beasley-Murray (pp. 253-254) aptly comments on this as follows:

This so-called formula of reciprocal immanence is, as Schnackenburg puts it, “a linguistic way of describing... the complete unity between Jesus and the Father” (3:69). Significantly it was earlier stated to Jewish opponents of Jesus in justification of a statement closely related to hat in v 9, namely, “1 and the Father are one” (10:30, 37-38). The reality is greater than human language can express, but that to which it points is sufficiently clear: in the depths of the being of God there exists a koinonia, a “fellowship,” between the Father and the Son that is beyond all compare, a unity whereby the speech and action of the Son are. that of the Father in him, and the Father’s speech and action come to finality in him.

We should therefore look at v28 in the light of what Jesus has stated about Himself earlier in the chapter: He is indeed God, as well as being true Man.

Evidence for the Resurrection

99 Truth Papers
Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith

April 1997

---

Introduction

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead has always been a contentious area of discussion with the world. It is this event which has drawn the most criticism from the skeptics; and for very good reason. For the authority of Jesus’s teachings was based on His claim that He was the unique Son of God. Yet, Jesus was dependant on the resurrection from the dead to prove that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22, and John 2:19-21). It is, therefore, imperative that we go to the event of the resurrection to ascertain whether or not Jesus is who He says He is, and furthermore to ascertain whether the scriptures can be believed as the true Word of God. A key Scripture which points this out is 1 Corinthians 15:14-19:

“If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith…you are still in your sins…[you] are to be pitied more than all men.”

Thus, in order to have true faith in the scriptures, which maintain not only that Jesus is the Son of God, but that He is our saviour, we must believe in his BODILY RESURRECTION, because Christ’s bodily resurrection proves what Jesus claims for Himself, and proves the scriptures to be accurate, and therefore, authoritative!

We then come to the question of how we can know the authenticity of the resurrection? Is it only by faith? For if the resurrection proves who Jesus is, and by so doing also gives credibility to the scriptures, it is imperative that it can be shown to be historically trustworthy. And it is. Let me share with you eight reasons why:

1: The Prophets Spoke of it in the Old Testament

There are numerous places where the prophets spoke of the Messiah who would come first to suffer and then to triumph over that suffering, pointing to the death and resurrection. There are three passages in particular which speak of the Messiah’s death, followed by his victory:

1. Psalm 22: we read about agony and desolation in verses 1-21, followed by deliverance and faithfulness in verses 22-31.

2. Psalm 69: we read of a suffering man and death in verses 1-29, but then find praise and triumph in verses 30-36.

3. Isaiah 53: probably the most well-known chapter in the Old Testament which refers to the death and resurrection.Here in verses 1-9 we find some of the most vivid descriptions of a suffering and sacrificial servant. Yet, this is followed in verses 10-11 by the promise that the servant would see His offspring, that His days would be prolonged, and that He will see the fruit of His labours, all inferring a resolution to the misery and death which He would suffer.

All three point to the coming death and resurrection.

2: Jesus Foretold it in the New Testament

A number of times Jesus spoke of His impending death and resurrection prior to His death. He mentioned it:

1. To the Pharisees at the Temple, in John 2:19-21

2. On His way to Jerusalem He talked about it in Matthew 16:21, and Luke 9:22.

3. After Peter’s confession He referred to it in Mark 8:31.

4. At the Mount of Olives He prayed about it, in Mark 14:28.

3: The Historical Record Implies It

We also have Jewish and Roman Historians who refer to the crucifixion of Jesus:

• Thallus, a Greek writer from around 50 AD talks of the Crucifixion, and even mentions the darkness and earthquakes which followed it.

• Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in Rome around 93 A.D., mentioned not only Jesus’s death but the work of John the Baptist and Jesus’s brother, James.

• Tacitus, a Roman historian in 115 A.D., speaks of the Crucifixion of Jesus, as does the author of a fifth century document named the Toledoth Jeshu.

As for the resurrection, we know it was referred to by first and second century Jews because of the writings of the early church father, Justin Martyr. He details how the Jews in the diaspora were fomenting the story that the empty tomb was caused by the disciples of Jesus who stole the body. They wouldn’t need the story if the tomb hadn’t been empty.

4: The Empty Tomb Provides Us With Evidence

This then leads us to the greatest evidence which we can point to: the empty tomb itself. What is as clear today as it has been for almost two thousand years, is that NO BODY HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED! Only some empty clothes. There has never been any dispute by the Jews, or the Romans or the Christians over the fact that the tomb was empty. Everyone is agreed on this point. The alternative would have been too difficult to prove. What is so amazing about this simple fact are the implications behind the empty tomb. In order to understand these implications, it might be good to remind ourselves of the scenario surrounding the tomb. Consider the following:

1. According to archaeological evidence a two-ton STONE would have been used as a doorway for the tomb. This would have been wedged into a slanted groove above and to the left of the entrance to the tomb. Once the body had been placed inside the tomb, the wedge would have been removed and the stone would have been rolled over the doorway to block any potential grave robbers. Yet this enormous stone was found laying up and away from the entrance of the tomb (see Mark 16, and John 20). It has been suggested that it would have taken almost twenty men to have accomplished such a feat.

2. A Roman SEAL (made up of a rope slung across the surface of the stone, and attached to the sides of the tomb wall) would have been fastened, to warn away robbers (Matthew 27:66). The punishment for defacing a Roman Seal was death, carried out by being crucified upside-down. This seal was missing when the empty tomb was discovered.

3. Sixteen GUARDS would have been stationed at the sepulchre (Matthew 27:66). Four immediately in front of the tomb, and the remaining twelve in groups of four fanning out in a semi-circle. These were not Jewish temple guards, but Roman legionnaires; the most disciplined fighting force of their era; the “creme-de-la-creme!” They would have all known that the penalty for sleeping on the job was execution, by being burned to death with their own clothes. The scriptures tell us that these guards, upon realizing that the tomb was empty, did not go back to their barracks, but went to the Jewish priests. Why? Because they knew they would not be believed by their own superiors, and would have been executed for sleeping on the job. They went to the temple priests to have them plead their case for them. And we know that the temple priests bribed the soldiers to tell the people that the disciples stole the body (refer to Matthew 28:11-15).

4. Recently in the town of Nazareth, a MARBLE SLAB was discovered, written in the name of Caesar (thus dating it to around the time of Jesus). On it was inscribed the penalty of death for anyone robbing or defacing a tomb. Yet, we know that prior to this time the crime for grave robbery only warranted a fine. It seems a stiffer penalty was suddenly imposed in the 1st century, due possibly to the embarrassment of Christ’s empty tomb.

* So we have an empty tomb, in which lay some empty grave garments. We have a two-ton stone moved up and away from the entrance, and the seal broken. On top of that we have sixteen of the best soldiers in the world befuddled as to how the stone, the seal, and the body could have been moved while they were standing on guard just a few feet away. On these points not too many people dispute.

There are however a few theories which are being bandied about by those trying to come up with excuses for the empty tomb. Some of them are quite comical. Let me just list them below:

1. The tomb was unknown to the disciples. Yet, Joseph of Arimathea must have known; as it was his tomb. The authorities and others must have known.

2. The women found the wrong tomb. If that were so, then did the whole world also find the wrong tomb? Because till this day no alternative has ever been produced.

3. The disciples and the women were only hallucinating. Why then did the Roman guards have to make such a fast retreat to the Jewish priests? Were they hallucinating too, at risk to their lives?

4. The body was stolen by the disciples. What then about the guards, and their witness? Can anyone imagine the timid disciples overpowering the Roman guards, moving the two-ton stone, and reviving a dead Jesus?

5. The Swoon theory is the favourite among some skeptics. Jesus, once in the cool cave, came to, with no wounds, and no garments. He then moved the two-ton stone, overpowered the guards and went about preaching a new religion!

6. The newest theory is called the Passover plot. Jesus, who knew he would be killed had himself drugged, and like the swoon theory, though wounded, came to, moved the stone, overpowered the guard, and changed the world?

5: The Many Post-Resurrection Appearances (15)

Along with this evidence are the many post-resurrection appearances. In all there were fifteen, over a period of forty days, and at different times of the day:

• Mary Magdalene in the morning,

• the Emmaus travellers in the afternoon, and

• amongst the 11 apostles in the evening.

According to Paul, Jesus even appeared to 500 witnesses at one time (1 Corinthians 15). If each of them were to give six minutes of testimony, we would have 50 hours of testimony. Some of the witnesses were even hostile witnesses, such as Thomas, James and Saul (who later became Paul).

6: It Changed Their Lives

A further evidence is the change which came over the disciples. One may ask why should these disciples speak up about the resurrection? They were not sophisticated. They had no prestige, no wealth, and no social status. These disciples, who had fled when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, had denied him and hid in the upper room over the next few day, were now being beaten, stoned, thrown to the lions, tortured, and crucified for what they now knew. They were giving their lives to preach Christ’s resurrection. They certainly would not have changed so dramatically for a lie. Certainly this movement had something unique about it that other movements did not have.

We know of about a dozen other movements that arose in Palestine within a hundred years before and after the time of Jesus. One of the best known was an uprising led by a man called Judas the Galilean at about the time of the birth of Jesus. He along with hundreds of his followers were picked up by the authorities and crucified (Josephus, Antiquities, 17:271-298). About a hundred years after the death of Jesus another charasmatic individual, Simeon ben-Kosiba, led a revolution which attracted hundreds of followers, all believing he was the promised Messiah. They too were hunted down by the authorities and killed. In all these movements, the death of the leader signalled the death of the movement.

The rule was, that if your messiah’ was killed then obviously he was not the true messiah, and the best solution was to give up the cause or choose another from his family. Like the movements of that time, they could have chosen James the brother of Jesus as their new Messiah, since he was a leader at the centre of the early Jerusalem church for thirty years, until his death; but the early Christians refused to give him that status. That was the rule, yet the followers of Jesus continued to follow Jesus long after his death for one simple reason; their Messiah had not been defeated by death but had risen from the dead (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; and John 20-21). It was this fact alone which seperated Jesus from all those who came before or since, and for whom the disciples were willing to die. In fact all of the apostles except one died for this man who no longer lived, yet whose message had so changed their lives.

Yet it wasn’t only the apostles who were changed, for we find that even hostile Jewish witnesses believed. Take the many Jewish priests who became Christians, according to Acts 6:7, as well as the thousands of early converts who were all Jerusalem Jews. They were right there where the tomb was situated. They could easily have looked for the tomb themselves, and could have talked to the witnesses who had claimed to have seen Jesus, as I’m sure many did. Yet, they too chose to be persecuted for what they knew was true.

7: It Was the Foundation for a New Faith

This resurrection became the foundation for our faith today. That is why we worship on Sundays and not on Fridays (like the Muslims), nor on Saturdays (like the Jews). That is why we participate in the ritual of baptism (symbolizing the dying/living of Christ). And that is why we celebrate communion, to commemorate not only the death on the cross but the joy of resurrection from the grave.

8: Today, Learned Men Believe It

And finally, the resurrection can be believed because learned men, who have studied and researched it believe in it. Take for example:

• Brooke Foss Wescott (a textual critic) who says: “There is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ.”

• Dr. Paul L. Maier (professor of ancient history) maintains: “No shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the 1st Easter.”

• Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: “According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.”

• Dr. Frank Morrison (a rationalistic lawyer) decided to take three years off from his practice to disprove the resurrection. After three years of study, he found that the sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. As a consequence he wrote the book: Who Moved the Stone?

• C.S.Lewis (a literary genius) was also interested in the accuracy of the resurrection. After evaluating the basis and evidence for Christianity, Lewis concluded that in other religions there was ‘no such historical claim as in Christianity.’ He was too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospel as myth. He had no other choice but to accept the resurrection as fact.

Conclusion

So what, then can we say concerning the resurrection? Can it be believed? If we add the testimony of the Old Testament prophets with those of Jesus, as well as all the historical data which we possess on the death and resurrection of Christ, and if we contemplate all the ramifications of the empty tomb, the many post-resurrection appearances, the changed lives of the disciples and the opinions of learned men today, we come away with a hugely well supported case for the validity of the resurrection.

Consequently, the evidence for the resurrection overwhelmingly supports the contention that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. This fact alone gives us substantial confirmation that the validity for our scriptures is likewise sound, which in turn encourages us in our preaching, knowing that what we say has and can be supported with evidence. It is this which undergirds not only our faith, but moves us on and out to share “Christ crucified and resurrected” with those who have yet to hear.

Does God Exist?

99 Truth Papers, Hyde Park Christian Fellowship

Jay Smith, April 1997

---

As I was going up the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d stay away.
(Hughes Mearns)

This little poem by Hughes Mearns provides an example of what the world is faced with today. Part of us wants to believe in God, because it would be a lot simpler, as it would make sense for that which we see around us. Yet another part of us does not accept a belief in God, partly because the world has told us so (school, media, friends…), and partly because if we did believe in God, we would have to define Him and then have to acquiesce to Him, and this would take away our autonomy (commitment). At one moment we want to find God, and then the next we want to flee from Him.

We protest violently that we want to be left alone, and yet the very thing we most fear is the dread possibility of being left alone (Watson 1979:12).

Life without God becomes pretty bleak, and meaningless. There is a loss of purpose, and a realization that we are the final and end to everything there is. After this life, there is simply nothing. That can be difficult to digest, let alone accept. It is much like the description of life in Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot:

Life has no reasons; A struggling through the gloom and the senseless end of it is the insult of the tomb.

Is it no wonder that so much of the world, who take their cue from themselves and their own finite existence, end up with such apathy?

On the other hand, if there is a God the scenario changes dramatically. We no longer are faced with our own finiteness, our own limitations, but suddenly we are offered the possibility that He is real, that He does exist, and furthermore, that we can be introduced to the creator Himself. What this means is that then we will have a purpose for living, because then we will know that we were made for a purpose, that there is a beginning and a conclusion to our existence, and that there are possibly answers to the questions of life and death.

If everyone were perfectly honest with themselves, they would admit that there is in all of us a need to know God; that we all had a spiritual hunger for the God Who is There. Why is this? The reason is that God has made us with a spiritual appetite which cannot be satisfied with anything less than Himself. It is much like food, which though we may deny its existence will not take away the hunger for food. Physical hunger will not prove that a man will get food, but it will prove that food exists. In the same way spiritual hunger will not mean that a man will find God, but it will strongly suggest that God exists (Watson 1979:16).

It is this hunger that brings us here today, and asks the question of whether we can truly know if God exists, and if so, Who He is? It is the same sentiment expressed by Jules Renard who said,

I am afraid I shall not find Him, but I shall still look for Him. If He exists, He may be appreciative of my efforts.

So how can we know that God exists? Can we prove His existence? The obvious answer is “No!” But likewise, neither can we prove that He doesn’t exist. The question which is always asked is “Show me God, and I will believe.” Yet to ask me to prove God’s existence is much like the medical students who killed a man and dissected the body to find where life was located. I cannot hope to prove His existence through empirical means any more than those foolish medical students could hope to locate the man’s life, but I can point you in the direction of where you can locate Him, so that you can decide for yourself whether He exists or not.

I believe there are five areas which will help us discover who or where God is:

Five Ways to delineate the existence of God:

1: General Revelation: Nature

The first way of knowing whether God exists is by looking at His handiwork, His creation. One can assume there is a potter if at first they come upon a pot.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God (Romans 1:20):

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.” God’s existence is seen in the sophistication of His handiwork.

Take, for example, something as seemingly insignificant as the Bumble-bee: Queen bee, workers, and drones, who live in a complex community, building the hive, foraging for food (through sophisticated wing-beat signals by the scouts), and pollinating the flowers.

There are many examples of the sophistication of nature. Take for instance the spiders web which are intricate concentric circles of sticky silk constructed in an hour and repeated each day; or the Monarch butterfly who flies 1,800 miles from the U.S. to an exact spot in Mexico during winter and returns to lay an egg and die, so the next generation can continue the voyage, having never been there themselves. Or what about the human body: with 24,000 strings in the ear, 137 million elements in the eye, and 10 billion neurons, each with 200 communicating pathways in the brain; the probability of its coming together as it is would be the same as the unabridged Oxford Dictionary forming after an explosion in a printing factory.

These complex examples of nature give doubt to the notion that it could have all happened by chance. The author is known by His handiwork, and these illustrations of handiwork speak clearly of a master designer.

2: Special Revelation: The Bible

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.”

Why did He have to do this? If you wanted to know me, I would have to tell you something about myself. There would have to be an exchange of information, otherwise all you would know was my name and the fact that I lived in the latter half of the 20th century. The same can be said of God. We can see His handiwork, and surmise that He exists, but we would not know anything more than that. In order for us to know Him better, He would have to send us something about Himself which we could understand.

Yet before God could communicate in any detail with His creation, He had to prepare a nation, so that His words and actions would be understood in a specific cultural context. Otherwise He would be speaking in a vacuum and there would be no communication. This He did by sending specific prophets, with specific words for a specific time, to a specific place, and for a specific people.

And where can this specific communication be found? In His revelation to Mankind…The Bible. Remember that childhood song we sang in Sunday School? “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so…” It is in the Bible that we find out about God. It is here that we find out who He is, what He is like, and what His plan is not only for the world, but for you and me. In fact, there is enough in the Bible about God for us to come to a position of faith that He exists.

Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable capacity to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

3: Incarnate Revelation: Jesus

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken with humanity at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden (with Adam and Eve). This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity (Isaiah 7:14). He took upon Himself the form of a human (Philippians 2:6-8), spoke our language, used our patterns of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we who are finite and human would better understand Him who is infinite and divine and beyond all human understanding.

As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2,

God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified! (i.e. missionaries going overseas.)

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. It is, for all practical purposes, a secondary revelation. It is simply the witness to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us about His life, mentioning what He said and did, and then expounds these teachings for the world today. It is merely a book which points to a person. Consequently, we can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself to truly understand who God is.

Yet, you may ask justifiably, that happened almost two thousands years ago. What He said and did then may have been relevant for those people then, and possibly even has relevancy for us now, but is it not too distant in time and open to interpretation, to say nothing concerning whether that which those writers wrote is really authentic? And you are correct. For we don’t simply rely on the testimonies of those who went before, because the revelation of God is not dependent simply on a book. It was never meant to be static, but ongoing and dynamic. Christ knew this when He promised that after He left He would send another form of revelation.

4: Ongoing Revelation: The Holy Spirit

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the “comforter,” convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the true revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us. We know God exists, not just because of events which happened 2,000 years ago, but because of events which continue to happen today. God continues to enter time and space and interact with His creation, with many of us sitting right here, and this is a final area of proof for His existence.

5: Personal Revelation: My Testimony

To really know if someone exists it would help to find eyewitnesses and ask them what they knew about that person. In fact the only way we can ever really know if a person exists is if we met that person and had a relationship with him or her. I can never prove’ a person. It is only when I experience a person through a relationship that I can begin to say that I know’ that person. Why should it be any different when it comes to knowing God?

I have a faith that God exists because of my personal relationship with Him. Now you may say that my faith is not proof, as it is only relevant to myself, and no-one else. And I will answer, that we are all in this dilemma together, for everyone has faith. Even the atheist has faith, faith that God does not exist. He can not prove God’s nonexistence any more than I can prove His existence.

What I can say, however, is that my faith is not a blind faith, that it is not something I clutch on to for the sake of explaining my experience, or an “opiate” to which I turn to for security. My faith is built on a personal relationship with the God who is there. I have seen Him work in my own life. There are answered prayers, miracles which I have personally witnessed that can only be explained by the supernatural presence of a supernatural God. And it is as I continue to pray and communicate with Him daily that that relationship is strengthened and broadened and deepened, which increases my confidence in His existence.

True it is only my personal experience to which I can point. Yet it is that personal experience coupled with the knowledge of the previous four areas of revelation:

1. the sophistication that I see in His creation,

2. the wisdom that I glean from His word,

3. the example that I aspire to in the life of Jesus Christ, and

4. the ongoing relationship which I experience with the Holy Spirit, which strengthens and undergirds my understanding of Him.

This experience with God no-one can take away from me, and it is this area which stumps and threatens the atheist more than any other. For no-one can argue against my personal testimony, that which I have felt and heard, and continue to enjoy daily. Yet, because it parallels that which I read in God’s word, and because it echoes that which I see in His creation, I can truly say that He does exist, and that His existence can just as easily be understood by any person who truly searches with an open heart,

for anyone who hears [His] voice and opens the door, [He] will come in… (Revelation 3:20).

Miracles

Jay Smith

---

[A] “How can we believe in miracles in this modern age of science?”

If people were really honest, they too would admit in the supernatural. If they accept that God is up there, then why should they have a problem believing that He works down here? (i.e. footballers crossing themselves, keeping talismans (crosses), praying etc…)

Miracles are defined in two different ways:

1. A miracle is: a natural but unusual event which occurs at the time it is required.

   1. Ravens feeding Elijah (1Kings 17:4-6)

   2. Jesus commanding the storm to cease (Mark 4:39)

   3. Fishermen catching fish after previous failures (John 21:4-6)

   • Coincidences? Seen as miracles because of the time when they happened.

   • They are unusual, but not contrary to the Laws of Nature’ (maybe we will soon explain natural reasons behind the first nine plagues in Exodus)

1. A miracle is: an event which contradicts our laws of science.

   1. The virgin birth of Jesus

   2. The feeding of the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.

   • People say that miracles cannot happen because they go against Scientific Laws: Scientific Laws defined = generalizations about causes and effects, by means of observation. That which normally happens (i.e. apple falling = gravity)

   • They say that it will normally follow this pattern, not that it will always follow this pattern (i.e. “man is a biped”, but what about an amputee?)

Thus scientific laws only describe how things normally behave. They cannot explain the ultimate cause behind that which happens. That, we believe, rests with God. He is the ultimate WHY of all forces.

One cannot deny miracles today because they go against scientific laws, against that which can be observed today. Miracles are by definition unique and without precedent. Once we believe in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” then everything else falls into place. Ironically deep down most people believe in Gen. 1:1.

Christians believe that matter operates according to scientific laws because God maintains the universe in this way, so that usually the effects of physical actions are predictable. That does not mean God may not at some venture vary the pattern. It is at these times that we find miracles. God is not capricious, or unpredictable, as this would make life chaotic (i.e. game of chess). He may choose to alter it. Yet there is always a purpose behind His action.

We define scientific laws to describe God’s predictable patterns: “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” If He chooses to vary them, this neither destroys the law, but should force us to ask what is the purpose He has in mind. Focus not on the How’ but on the Why’.

Thus, the fact that even in the 20th century things happen beyond our control, which can only be attributed to God, points to the existance of miracles. Humanists say time will provide the answers (yet they can be the most superstitious among us). We say God has already provided the answer, so there is no confusion nor fear:

[B] “People believed in miracles then because they were more simple.”

• Were babies born from virgins 2,000 year ago and not now?

• Could 5,000 people be fed with 5 loaves & 2 fishes 2,000 years ago and not now?

• Were blind men given sight 2,000 years ago and not now?

• Did people walk on water 2,000 years ago but not now?

In every case the witnesses showed surprise, because these events were not normal then, just as they are not normal now.

In Luke 1:34 Mary questioned the logic of the virgin birth. The angel did not answer that this was normal, but said “The Holy One will come upon you” (vs.35)…for “nothing is impossible with God” (vs.37). The same happened to Joseph in Matthew 1:20. The angel explained it as a miracle. Thomas did not believe Christ resurrected and demanded proof (John 20:25). When he saw first-hand he believed, but there are many who still will not believe.

There are miracles today, which people cannot understand or explain. While they see the miracle, they do not necessarily accept its authorship. To believe in a miracle does not mean belief in God.

[C] Doesn’t the Bible contain unscientific explanations, legends, of natural processes?

People assume the Bible is full of absurd statements about scientific things; that they come from legends and folklore. Much folklore is absurd and bizarre, but don’t assume Biblical miracles are likewise. This is guilt by association.

Two qualitative differences between Biblical miracles and folklore:

1. Supernatural power in folklore is used to show-off, or to defeat an opponent. Jesus, however, only did miracles as a sign to give Himself authority (i.e. Matt.11:4-5 telling John’s disciples of His works), or out of a need, or due to compassion (i.e. Lk.9:12-17 feeding 5,000; Jn.2:1-11 wine at wedding).

2. Folklore or legends are recording second-hand, or by oral traditions, whereas the miracles of Jesus were recorded by the eyewitnesses, who could corroborate the account.

Do any Biblical statements go against scientific principles? There are two ways in which a statement can be unscientific:

1. it can describe a repeatable event which we now know is not repeatable. (i.e. the Babylonians cooked eggs by swinging them around in a sling)

2. it can describe a causal relationship which modern science now discounts. (i.e. bad humour causes sickness, and needs to be bled out)

   • Ancient literature abounds in these sort of unscientific statements, but we know of no example in the Bible. (i.e. Joshua 10:9-14= sun standing still is translated “silent”, so that the sun is muted, by a storm shadowed by clouds for the whole of the day)

   • The Bible doesn’t claim to be a scientific textbook; it is merely an explanation of God’s relationship with His creation, Man (i.e.computer manuals tell us how to run it, not how it works). Yet it is not absurd when it talks about science, and even surprises us with accuracy of certain unobservable phenomena (i.e. the debate with Islam over whether water or smoke existed in the primordial state; or the examples of the water cycle found in both the Qur’an and the Bible – yet only the Bible mentions all five stages of the cycle, and particularly the stage not observable by the naked eye = evaporation, found in Job36:26-28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:9-11; and Amos 5:8).

   • Thus the Bible does not contain unscientific statements, but contains everyday descriptions in nonscientific terms, as it was never intended to be a scientific textbook. One would expect an ancient piece of literature, such as the Bible, to be full of legends or folklore as well as unscientific data, yet we don’t find either with the Bible.

[D] Should the Bible be taken literally in all areas?

As in all forms of literature, the Bible uses pictures to describe ideas (allegory, metaphor) (i.e. the arm of God in Isaiah 53:1 is not His arm literally since
God’s form is unknown Deut.4:15-19 – could be referring figuratively to Jesus).

We take the Bible literally when it intends us to do so:

• “mountains skipped like rams”(Ps.114:4) “the floods clap their hands”(Ps.98:8)=figurative

• the empty tomb, grave clothes, and no body are to be taken literally.

[E] Why are miracles rejected then?

1. They don’t fit people’s world-view (only believe that which can be explained)

2. They don’t fit people’s experience (only believe that which I have felt and seen). They have never witnessed a miracle, and thus don’t accept them as valid. “I make it a rule only to believe what I understand” Benjamin Disraeli. “He that will believe only what he can fully comprehend must have a very long head or a very short creed” Charles Caleb Colton.

3. They don’t fit people’s commitment. If people were to accept miracles, then they would have to accept God, and His revelation. They would have to make a commitment to Him. It has little to do with being clever or intelligent, but more to do with loosing one’s identity; having an authority higher then themselves. The tragedy is that in “refusing to accept the possibility of God breaking into history in a supernatural way, that person is destroying his only hope of understanding what life is all about.”Where do we stand?

Why Is There Suffering?

Introduction

The question constantly asked by non-Christians is:

“How can a God of love let all this suffering go on in his world? Either he doesn’t exist at all or he is a vicious tyrant who enjoys seeing people in pain.”

Before I attempt to answer this question, I think it helpful to turn the question around so those who are asking can see that the premise which they take is equally illogical. If we assume that God does not exist because there is evil in the world, then how are we going to explain that there is joy and happiness as well? Who are we going to blame that on? Does that then prove God’s existence? Of course not. It points out the fact that suffering can not be explained so simply, and that the whole reality of suffering is much more complex than simply blaming it all on God, as so many people are prone to do.

The fact is that there is simply no slick or easy answer to the problem of suffering. It might be helpful to ask those who decry God’s existence to explain why they believe there is suffering. They would be the first to admit that the blame rests on none other than ourselves, a view which ironically is close to our own. It is from this premise then that we should start the discussion. Because, while the humanists like to think they have disproved God because of the suffering we find in the world, they fail to understand that the very existence of suffering presupposes the existence of goodness and happiness as well, yet whose source, I feel, only we who believe in the existence of God can adequately explain and offer to the world. Let’s then take the questions one by one.

Question 1: Who is to blame for the suffering?

So who is to blame for all the suffering in the world? Obviously, as humans we want to apportion blame, and just like everyone before us we assume the blame rests with someone else. Yet the answer to who is to blame has already been intimated in the introduction, and is one area which we find in common with our interlocutors. We only have ourselves to blame. It’s no good pointing our finger at God for the suffering. We need to look in the mirror, and point the finger at the real culprit: the human race.

To a greater or lesser degree, we all contribute to the suffering in the world. The papers are full of it, statistics on murders, rapes and muggings fill the pages, and we all know who the culprits are, or have a good idea who they are. But that kind of suffering we don’t blame on God, because it is obvious where the source comes from. What we are concerned about is the suffering which we have no control over: such as earthquakes, famine, volcanoes, and other natural disasters? Would a just God allow them to continue?

I would like to posit the notion that while natural disasters do bring about much destruction and pain, much of the suffering for these natural disasters can also possibly be blamed on ourselves. Consider:

Earthquakes

While we cannot control them, we can control their damage to humanity, which is really where the suffering comes in. Yet, most suffering from earthquakes can be prevented. Consider:

• 1906 San Francisco earthquake: thousands of people died. Dr. T. Nakamura, sent by the Japanese government went to investigate the earthquake. His prognosis: “Dishonest mortar was responsible for nearly all the earthquake damage”. (Gaukroger 1995:22)

• 1935 Quetta, Pakistan earthquake: where many again died. The reason similarly was the poor constructional quality of the buildings. Those buildings which survived all had good cement, so that their chimneys still remained intact (Gaukroger 1995:23)!

• 1985 Mexico City earthquake: again culpability was put on second-rate workmanship and the skimping on construction materials.

So for 80 years we knew how to minimize earthquake damage, yet we still had not learned the lesson. While many people shook their fist at God, they chose to ignore the guilt which was lurking in their own back yard.

Now let’s take the example of Kobe, Japan, in 1995. There was billions of œs in damage, but little loss of life because of the lessons learned from San Francisco, Quetta and Mexico. Only the older buildings, which had not applied this new technology were destroyed. Would those who had earlier blamed God for the former earthquakes, have credited Him for the few who were killed in the Kobe earthquake? Certainly not! It was the engineers who had learned from past experience and applied what they knew who were credited with the success at Kobe; and any good humanist would agree. Then, to be consistent, these same humanists shouldn’t have been so quick to blame God for the deaths in San Francisco, Quetta and Mexico. Let’s put blame where blame is due.

Famines

Interestingly, most famines can be avoided, and are not the result of natural occurances, but are primarily caused by man.

• 1985 Ethiopian famine was devastating, yet two years earlier relief agencies working in Ethiopia had warned the government that it was coming. Instead of alleviating the problem, the government spent $200 million on celebrating the independence of the communist takeover.

• Deforestation in Senegal: All our neighbours used firewood rather than gas, though everyone knew (by TV adverts) that wood-burning caused deforestation, and heats up the atmosphere dissipating clouds, which retards rain. Knowing the devastation they were causing they continued to use wood, because “it was what they had used since they were children”.

Should God be blamed for the resulting famines?

Volcanoes

While no-one can control volcanoes, today the suffering which they cause is now at a minimum. Most are carefully watched by scientists, and there is enough forewarning from technology to get humans out of dangers way (i.e. Mt. St. Helens, and the 12 who disregarded the warnings). Thus, except for lost property which can be replaced, there are few who suffer from volcanoes anymore.

What about that which is beyond our control to resist? Natural disasters, such as landslides, typhoons, sudden violent storms and floods etc…

If there was anything which we could possibly blame God for, these are they. Yet, while humanists can only wring their hands in anger and frustration, Christians are the only ones who have an answer to this question:

Only we have the solution

In order to find that answer we need to go back to Genesis 3:17-19. In this chapter we find that God made a perfect world. Yet man turned his back on God, and rebelled, and this affected not only his relationship with God, but all of creations relationship with God. Here we find that the curse given to Adam and Eve also affected the earth. A perfect world became imperfect. Adam found himself in a world which was now infected with sickness and disease, and also, natural disasters.

These disasters will continue, and we will be caught up in them and suffer as a result. It seems hopeless, yet it isn’t. Here is where we can offer a solution which the humanist cannot. We know that it will not continue indefinitely. In Genesis 3:15 God promised that the error of the sin in Eden would be rectified later on by a “son of Eve,” whom we know as God Himself, Jesus, and that this would be done by “crushing the head of Satan,” which was done on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago. Because of that act, we now know that we will be reunited with God, walking and talking with Him as we saw Adam and Eve doing in the garden (see Genesis 3:8-9). It won’t be in this life, but the life to come, where there will be no suffering and no pain, no disasters or injustices; where life will continue as it was intended from the very beginning.

Question 2: Why does God not get rid of suffering?

The follow on to the first question is why God allows suffering to continue? Why does He simply not get rid of it? The simple answer is that it is no good asking God to get rid of all suffering, because in doing so, knowing that we are to blame for most of it, He would have to get rid of all of us, and we would then be demanding our own demise.

It’s much too simplistic to assume that since suffering hurts it is therefore bad and must be done away with. There is another side to it. The fact that we do suffer demonstrates that there are consequences, which means that we have choice, which implies a freedom of will. This proves that we are not robots who are programmed to act only one certain way. It is the Bible which tells us that we have been made in God’s image (Genesis 2:27), and because God has a free will to choose so do we. But it doesn’t come without a cost, as it presupposes that there will be consequences for the choices we make, which often involves happiness, but also can involve suffering.

It is much like a game of chess: There are rules in the game which must be applied consistently throughout. Certainly we make mistakes and pieces are taken from us, so that in the end we will win or lose the game depending on how many pieces are left. We enjoy it when the opponent loses a piece, and this brings us happiness, yet we do not carry the same sentiment when on the next move our own piece is eliminated. While we could say that losing a piece is horrible and painful and therefore is not just, we would not change the rules so that no-one would lose a piece, because then it would no longer be the game of chess.

Life is much the same way. There are rules which we must play by, rules which involve consequences. Yet though we get hurt in life it does not mean that we should throw it away. We learn from our mistakes so that the next time we won’t make them (much like getting back up on the horse, once you have fallen). The great thing is that we have been given a book on how best to play the game; the Bible. If we refuse to read it, and then make mistakes, we should not then blame God. Read what He has said in His book, and try not to make that mistake again (i.e. family and divorce).

Question 3: Why does God not stop the bad actions of men?

The third question concerns why, if there is a loving God, does He not intervene and stop the bad actions of bad men? Certainly the innocent should not have to suffer at the hands of those who are evil? Where is the justice in that?

To begin with, we need to look at what the humanist is demanding. In order to fulfill this obligation God would have to intervene all the time, and thus alter the laws of nature: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when used as a weapon, or a knife blade became putty in the hands of an aggressor, or the bullet of the assassin disintegrated in mid-flight. It would be impossible to imagine a world like this. Life would be a mass of confusion, as there would be no longer any rules which we would be held accountable to. Like the chess game, the fact that there are rules and consequences to our actions gives the game its relevance and makes it worth playing.

In order to create persons with free will there had to be a predictable universe, which included both evil and good. Thus the possibility of evil is inherent in the very existence of freedom. Yet because of man’s rebellion one of the inescapable consequences of this was suffering, whether mental or physical, whether self-inflicted or by another. While we love freedom, we tend not to like the consequences which go with it; yet we cannot have one without the other.

Question 4: Why is there pain?

Many people ask why there must be pain in our suffering? Genesis 3:16 speaks of pain entering into the world, specifically pointing to the pain of childbirth. Before that time there was no pain. Thus pain is a result of the rebellion of man. Yet that is not all.

We need pain

This question does not take into consideration that we really need pain. If God removed pain completely it would be disastrous for us all.

Examples: our appendix bursting, or the loss of fingers by leprosy. How would we know when our body was being damaged if there was no pain? Pain is an early warning system which tells us that something is wrong with our body.

But what do we do with a disfigured baby, or someone who is handicapped from birth or by an accident? Did they deserve this suffering?

No, of course not. But like the scenario which we discussed earlier, if we can agree that creation was perverted by the sin of Eden, and we can agree that disasters are a consequence of that sin, then we should also agree that disfigurement and being handicapped will also fall into those same categories. In an imperfect world we should expect to see these handicaps.

But are we not all handicapped to a certain degree? We all have physical problems and difficulties. I wear glasses, and am hopeless driving at night without them. Does this upset my view of reality, and should I blame God for my shortsightedness? No, because of all people He can understand my infirmities, possibly better than myself, because He has experienced it all before!

We are not alone

Unlike all other religions, the Biblical view of God is not one of an uninvolved deity, just sitting back and watching us suffer. He came Himself to earth to suffer like His creation.

A piece called The Long Silence sums this up perfectly:

“At the end of time, billions of people were scattered on a great plain before God’s throne. Most shrank back from the brilliant light before them. But some groups near the front talked heatedly – not with cringing shame but with belligerence, saying, “Can God judge us? How can He know about suffering?” snapped a pert young brunette. She ripped open a sleeve to reveal a tattooed number from a Nazi concentration camp. “We endured terror, beating, torture, and death!” In another group a Negro boy lowered his collar. “What about this?” he demanded, showing an ugly rope burn. “Lynched for no crime but being black!” In another crowd, a pregnant school girl with sullen eyes said, “Why should I suffer? It wasn’t my fault.” Far out across the plain were hundreds of such groups. Each had a complaint against God for the evil and suffering He permitted in His world. How lucky God was to live in heaven where all was sweetness and light, where there was no weeping or fear, no hunger or hatred. What did God know of all that men had been forced to endure in this world? For God leads a pretty sheltered life, they said.

“So each of these groups sent forth their leader, chosen because he had suffered the most. A Jew, a Negro, a person from Hiroshima, a horribly deformed arthritic, a thalidomide child. In the centre of the plain they consulted with each other. At last they were ready to present their case. It was rather clever. Before God could be qualified to be their judge, He must endure what they had endured. Their verdict was that God should be sentenced to live on earth – as a man! Let him be born a Jew. Let the legitimacy of His birth be doubted. Give Him a work so difficult that even His family will think Him out of His mind when He tries to do it. Let Him be betrayed by His closest friends. Let Him face false charges, be tried by a prejudiced jury and convicted by a cowardly judge. Let Him be tortured. At last, let Him see what it means to be terribly alone. Then let Him die. Let Him die so that there can be no doubt He died. Let there be a whole host of witnesses to verify it. As each leader announced his portion of the sentence, loud murmurs of approval went up from the throng of people assembled. When the last had finished pronouncing sentence there was a long silence. No one uttered another word. No one moved. For suddenly all knew that God had already served His sentence.”

Indeed God has already felt our pain and He therefore understands us. He has been where we are, and this provides great comfort for those who are going through pain now.

Question 5: Will suffering ever end?

But even more than that, God’s sojourn on earth was not simply to understand our needs; it had an even greater purpose. He came that we might have life, and that more abundantly. He came to break the power of sin, which had first entered the world at Eden. And by breaking the power of sin, by His death on the cross, He broke the power of suffering. The world threw everything they could at Him, but He still emerged the outright winner. The proof of this is that He rose again on the third day. Since that time death has no more sting.

But why then is there still suffering and evil in the world if Jesus has already defeated it? Will it ever end? The game of chess can help us here again. When two grandmasters play, many times one or the other will resign the game long before the game is over. To an untrained observer this may seem curious, and even foolish, yet to the trained chess mind, the resignation is all but inevitable, and therefore quite logical. The game could continue on 20 or 30 moves, but the one player already has the upper hand, and will win irregardless of where the other player chooses to move.

This is similar to the scenario Satan has to live with. The Bible says that Christ’s death and resurrection are like that decisive move in the cosmic struggle against evil and all its consequences. Satan knows that the critical move was carried out 2,000 years ago, and that at that time he lost. Yet he plays on, trying to manipulate humanity to his whims, and it is his suffering which we see all around us. We now live in the closing stages of the game. It is just a matter of time now before God will call “check-mate.” That as well gives me great confidence, because I know that the days of evil and suffering are numbered.

For the humanist the alternative is rather bleak indeed. What can the humanist offer for those who are suffering out of no fault of their own? What hope is there for them? It is only because we know that God exists, and that He loves us, so much so that He came and suffered as we have suffered that we can possibly look at those who are in pain, in the face and say, be comforted, for it is only for a while; it will be soon over, and there is someone who can help; may I introduce Him to you? He is the one who set the rules, He is the one who plays the game to its conclusion, but He is also the one who has been where we have been, who helps us along the way, and keeps us from falling. Let me share with you the famous little story called Footprints:

“One night a man had a dream. He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the Lord and across the sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand; one belonging to him and the other to the Lord. When the last scene of his life flashed before him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of his life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in his life. This really bothered him and he questioned the Lord about it, Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you, you’d walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don’t understand why when I needed you most, you would leave me.’ The Lord replied, My precious child, I love you and I would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you'” (Anonymous).

This is the guarantee we all have if we are in relationship with Him. We now live in an imperfect world where there is suffering and pain. The rules demand suffering. But God promises that the pain will never be more than that which we can bear, and that “He will always provide a way out so that you can stand up under it” (See 1 Corinthians 10:13).

And it doesn’t end with this life; for we know that God has gone to prepare a place for us, a place where we can finally be with Him for eternity.

Conclusion

So what can we offer to those who believe that suffering proves there is no God? We can offer them the only alternative to a suffering we all experience, believer and unbeliever alike; that is an offer of help and support in this life for the suffering which is there, and the assurance of a complete absence of suffering in the life to come.

The alternative is much more bleak. For the humanist our present existence with all its pain and deprivation is all there is. He cannot explain where the pain and suffering really came from, other than to point to man. Nor can he explain how to alleviate it. But worst of all, he has no hope at all for its eradication. He is stuck with it for the duration of his existence. He may continue to try and blame it on God, but then he would have to admit God’s existence; and that he won’t do, because it would entail a response. So instead he continues playing the game with no idea of where he came from, where he is, or where he is going. That indeed is bad news.

The good news, however, is that while we may be in the midst of the game, and while we may be losing pieces here and there, we know that the game will end in victory and happiness. For we can see the dim light at the end of the tunnel, when we will not have to lose anymore. Then we will be with Christ in glory, where there is no pain, no suffering, and no sorrow; returning to the garden once again where God had intended us to be all along. Now with that kind of news, I can sustain the suffering I may have to shoulder while we sojourn for a while here on earth. So let’s play on!

References Used

Forster, Roger & Marston, Paul, That’s A Good Question, Eastbourne, Coverdale, 1977

Gaukroger, Stephen, It Makes Sense, London, Scripture Union, 1995

Lewis, C.S., The Problem of Pain, Collins/Fount, 1977

Watson, David, Is Anyone There?, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1979

Weston, Paul, Why We Can’t Believe, Are there any answers?, Leicester, Frameworks, 1991

101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible

By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

The Charge of Contradiction

Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi’s Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101 contradictions. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.

The Muslims quote from the Qur’an (4:82) which says “do they not consider the Qur’an (with care). Had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found there-in many a discrepancy.”

A Definition of Revelation:

In order to respond to this challenge it is important that we begin by recognizing and understanding clearly the presupposition and thinking that underlies such a challenge. The principle of non-contradiction has been elevated to the status of an absolute criterion, capable of being applied by human beings in judging the authenticity of God’s word. This is not a proposition to which Christians can or should give assent. The Christian will gladly admit that scripture is ultimately non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot agree that the principle of non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion by which they are to judge God’s word. It is this criterion which the Muslims have imposed upon the discussion of revelation.

This is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur’an. Their book, the Qur’an, is believed to have been ‘sent down’ (Nazil or Tanzil), from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this belief in scripture as a revelation which has been ‘sent down’ which they then impose upon the Bible as well. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur’an.

The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims claim for their Qur’an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author’s intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author’s contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.

A Definition of Inspiration:

In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means “God-breathed,” implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were “carried along” by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.

The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, “…you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God…” Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, “…Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters…” Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit.” And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, “…if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life…”

Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of inspiration brilliantly when he says, “The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration” (McDowell 1990:178).

How does God inspire the writers? Does He simply move the writers by challenging their heart to reach new heights, much like we find in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of which are human literary masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain the words of God-along with myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book in which portions of the Word of God can be found, along with those of finite and fallible men? Or are the scriptures the infallible Word of God in their entirety? In other words, how, Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried out? Does God use mechanical dictation, similar to that which we find claimed for the Qur’an, or does He use the writers own minds and experiences?

The simple answer is that God’s control was always with them in their writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than “The Word of God in the words of men” (McDowell 1990:176). This means that God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence. Thus history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called ‘phenomena’ of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper), will encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

This is not a blind hope. For instance, a century ago there were about 100 parts of the body whose function were mysterious to doctors, and people would say “This is proof of evolution as these are left over parts which we don’t need anymore”. However, because of on-going and diligent research we are now left with only one organ in the body which appears to be redundant. In time, perhaps we will find a use for that organ as well. This principle can also be seen with the Bible. So many ‘discrepancies’ have also been cleared up due to greater research and understanding. Had Shabbir been around a century or even 25 years ago his list could easily have been 1001 contradictions. As new data is uncovered, we are continually finding answers to many of the historical mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to believe that, in God’s time, the rest will be solved as well.

We are fully aware that the Christian criteria for revelation is not acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming conflict with their own. Yet, by simply measuring the Bible against the nazil or Tanzil (‘sent down’) concept which they claim for their Qur’an, Muslims condemn themselves of duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament that which they do not demand of the previous revelations, the Taurat and Zabuur, though both are revered as equally inspired revelations by all Muslims. Muslims believe that Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur. However, neither claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil (‘sent down’) transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, especially since the document makes no such claim itself?

The underlying reason perhaps lies in the belief by Muslims that the Qur’an, because it is the only revelation which came “unfettered” by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah’s word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for a nazil revelation for the Qur’an comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no external witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims, nor are there any known documents of such a Qur’an from the century in which it is claimed to have been revealed (see the paper on the historicity of the Qur’an versus the Bible.)

Even if we were to disregard the historical problems for early Qur’ans, a further problem concerns the numerous Muslim traditions which speak of the many differing copies of Qur’anic codices which were prevalent during the collating of the Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an in the mid-seventh century, and that the conflicting copies were all destroyed, so that we cannot know today whether the Qur’an in our possession was even similar to that which was first revealed.

What Muslims must understand is that Christians have always maintained that the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by men, but that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Whereas the Qur’an is alleged to be free of any human element, God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through individuals who were inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This the Qur’an cannot do if it has no human element, as is generally alleged.

There are other problems with the contention maintained by Muslims that the Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, what then will Muslims do with the authority which their own Qur’an gives towards the Bible?

The Qur’an gives authority to the Bible:

The Qur’an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives authority to the Bible, assuming its authenticity at least up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:

Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur’an, saying, “…the revelation given to us…and Jesus…we make no difference between one and another of them.” Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, “Allah…He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)…as a guide to mankind.” Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, “…Believe…and the scripture which He sent before him.” In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: “…We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel… Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel…” Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: “People of the Book!…Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD.”

To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament’s authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord.” And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, stating, “…the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message.”

Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, “And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you.”

If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur’an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. This coincides with what Christians believe, as well.

In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur’an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the Qur’an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur’an would have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.

There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), “…who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah…?” Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed “the testimony they have from Allah.” In other words the testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.

God does not change His Word

Furthermore, both the Christian scriptures and the Muslim Qur’an hold to the premise that God does not change His word. He does not change His revelation (despite the law of abrogation found in the Qur’an). Sura Yunus 10:64 says, “No change can there be in the words of Allah.” This is repeated in Sura Al An’am 6:34: “There is none that can alter the words of Allah,”found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29.

In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of the unchangeableness of God’s word; such as, Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.

If this is the recurring theme in both the Bible and the Qur’an, it is hardly likely that we would find a scripture with such a multiplicity of contradictions which Muslims claim are found in the Bible.

What then should we do with the contradictions which the Muslims claim are there?

Contradictions analyzed:

When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then copyist mistakes. The former can easily be explained, while the latter need a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.

Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early translations. In all we now have more than 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).

Christians readily admit, however, that there have been ‘scribal errors’ in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15)”

With that in mind let’s now take a look at the examples forwarded by Shabbir Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain whether or not the scriptures can stand the test of authority espoused above?

While answering the below challenges it has proven obvious to the four of us that Shabbir made a number of errors in his reasoning which could easily have been rectified had he simply looked at the context. This may offer us an idea as to why Muslims in general seem so fond of looking for, and apparently finding “contradictions” in the Bible – most of which are very easily explained by appealing to the context. When we look at the Qur’an we are struck with the reverse situation, for the Qur’an has very little context as such to refer to. There is little narration, and passages interject other passages with themes which have no connection. A similar theme is picked up and repeated in another Sura, though with variations and even at times contradictory material (i.e. the differing stories of Abraham and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and 6:74-83; 19:41-49). It stands to reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their Holy Book for other passages to derive a context. Is it no wonder that they decline to do the same with the Bible.

On the second page of his booklet “101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible”, Shabbir Ally states “Permission Granted! Please copy this booklet and spread the truth.”

We, the authors of this paper, have been delighted to fulfil this request of Mr. Ally. Although we have not directly copied all his words, we have reproduced his alleged contradictions in this booklet and replied to them. Therefore, through these rebuttals we are doing what Shabbir has asked, spreading the truth! Showing the firm foundation of the Bible, which is the truth.

Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against the rebuttals found herein.

You will note that a number of the questions contain more then one answer. This is done to show that there are different ways to understand a seeming problem in the Biblical text.

1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David’s reign, and David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab’s warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching testings and trials:

1. In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God’s purpose was to purify Job’s faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan’s purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.

2. Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God’s purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan’s purpose is to ‘devour’ them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.

3. Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God’s purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan’s purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic mission.

4. In the case of Peter’s three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.“

5. And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord’s reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.

Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan’s motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan’s success was limited and transient; while in the end God’s purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.

(Archer 1982:186-188)

2. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)

There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to the same census.

It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.

The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab’s report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the word ‘is hayil, which is translated as “mighty men”, or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of military age kept in the reserves, but not yet involved in field combat. The two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the Hebrew term ‘is hayil to describe them.

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)

3. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi’s either, due to the fact that David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David’s Chronicle.

The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.

Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three.

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, and misunderstood the wording)

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is “shell seven years of famine come to you?” In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, “take for yourself either three years of famine…” From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David’s earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for God’s third preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.

(Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)

5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers.

The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah’s father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father’s death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed.

(Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts)

(Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)

6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father’s death.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.

Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.

Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count.

(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204-205)

7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:8), or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

Here again, as we found in challenge number 2 and 4, the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.

8. Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)?

(Category:misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood the author’s intent)

It is quite possible that both authors may have described two different incidents, though by the same man, or one author may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentions in full.

(Light of Life II 1992:187)

9. Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text)

This is not really a problem. Shabbir Ally should have continued reading on further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David brought the Ark after defeating the Philistines. The reason for this is that the Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The first time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as we see in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel narrates David’s victory over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark was moved. However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the Ark was first moved from baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was moved from the House of Obed-Edom.

Therefore the two accounts are not contradictory at all. What we have here is simply one prophet choosing to give us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather than referring to it later) and another presenting the history in a different way. In both cases the timing of events is the same.

The same could be said of the Qur’an. In Sura 2 we are introduced to the fall of Adam, then God’s mercy is shown to the Israelites, followed by Pharaoh’s drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we are introduced to the account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read about Moses and Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about Solomon and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does Moses have to do with Jesus, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura should have begun with Adam’s fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of the Qur’an, then Shabbir would do well to explain it before criticizing what they deem to be an error in the Bible.

(Light of Life II 1992:176)

10. Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he to bring 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)?

(Category: misquoted the text)

This indeed is an odd question to raise. It is obvious that Shabbir Ally has misquoted the text in the 6th chapter of Genesis, which makes no mention of any ‘clean’ animals in its figure, while the 7th chapter specifically delineates between the clean and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals and 2 pairs of every kind of ‘unclean’ animal. Why did Shabbir not mention the second half of this verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his challenge? It is obvious that there is no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is the question itself.

Shabbir attempts to back his argument by mentioning that verses 8 and 9 of chapter 7 prove that only two pairs went into the ark. However, these verses say nothing about two pairs entering the ark. They simply say that it was pairs of clean and unclean animals or birds and creatures which entered the ark.

The reason for including seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice.

(Archer 1982:81-82)

11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?

(Category: copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for the parasim “cavalrymen”), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.

A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000.

(Archer 1982:184: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:360; Light of Life II 1992:182)

12. Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)?

(Category: copyist error, or misunderstood the historical context)

There are a number of ways to answer these puzzling differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found earlier in challenge numbers five and six above, where the decadal number has been rubbed out or distorted due to constant use.

Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.

Another commentator maintains that the number of stalls recorded in 1 Kings was the number at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, whereas the number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the end of his reign. We know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many changes occurred during this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the size of the military machine his father David had left him.

(Light of Life II 1992:191)

13. According to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel die in the 26th year of king Asa’s reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he still alive in the 36th year ( 2 Chronicles 16:1)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context, or copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, scholars who have looked at these passages have concluded that the 36th year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin which brought about the division of the country into Judah and Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th year of the divided monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary records, which follow this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this theory, see Archer, page 225-116).

Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to regard the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist’s error for 16 and 15, respectively. This problem is similar to question numbers five and six above. In this case, however, the numbers were written using Hebrew alphabetical type (rather than the Egyptian multiple stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5 and 6). It is therefore quite possible that the number 16 could quite easily be confused with 36. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical strokes. It required only a smudge from excessive wear on this scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a lamed. It is possible that this error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an original 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly on his copy.

(Archer 1982:226: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:366-367; Light of Life II 1992:194)

14. Did Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) for the work of building the temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not too great a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of any supervisors who would become ill or who had died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness and death certainly did occur, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose.

(Light of Life II 1992:192)

15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent, or copyist error)

The Hebrew verb rendered “contained” and “held” is different from that translated “received”; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this “contradiction” and added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since ‘pi’ dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).

Shabbir made the humorous comment “Find me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!” But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where you measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside for the vessel would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference.

In other words, Shabbir may well be getting baptized if someone can be bothered to make a replica!

(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)

16-21. Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra 2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 32)?

(note: because numbers 16-21 deal with the same census, I have included them as one)

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are about thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of Israelites returning from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen of the family units are identical, while fourteen show discrepancies in the number of members within the family units (though Shabbir only lists six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, two by 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by 100, another by 201, another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

How, then, are we to account for the 14 discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study into the history of these two accounts would never have bothered to waste his time in asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities and discrepancies side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as you who are reading this are probably even now concluding).

There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school-coach trip to the beach can understand how typical a scenario this really is.

A second and more important factor are the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra’s register was made up while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah’s register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.

Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.

The discrepancies between these two lists point to the fact that there were new factors which arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen into disagreement, others may have discovered business reasons to delay their departure until later, whereas in some cases there were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have been some last-minute recruits from those who first decided to remain in Babylon. Only clans or city-group’s came in with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100.

When we look at the names we find that certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as well as those living in the East), a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44).

When we take all these factors into consideration, the differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and attrition has featured every large migration in human history.

(Archer 1982:229-230 and Light of Life II 1992:219-220)

22. Both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals for the whole assembly was 42,360, yet when the totals are added, Ezra – 29,818 and Nehemiah – 31,089?

(Category: copyist error)

There are possibly two answers to this seeming dilemma. The first is that this is most likely a copyist’s error. The original texts must have had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would have been larger.

The other possibility is forwarded by the learned Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison, who suggests that at any rate the figure of 42,000 may be metaphorical, following “...the pattern of the Exodus and similar traditions, where the large numbers were employed as symbols of the magnitude of God, and in this particular instance indicating the triumphant deliverance that God achieved for His captive people” (Harrison 1970:1142-1143).

Such errors do not change the historicity of the account, since in such cases another portion of Scripture usually corrects the mistake (the added totals in this instance). As the well-known commentator, Matthew Henry once wrote, “Few books are not printed without mistakes; yet, authors do not disown them on account of this, nor are the errors by the press imputed to the author. The candid reader amends them by the context or by comparing them with some other part of the work.“

(Light of Life II 1992:201, 219)

23. Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67) accompany the assembly?

(Category: copyist error)

As in question number 7, this is a copyist error, where a scribe copying the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded off the figure of 245 to 200.

24. Was King Abijah’s mother’s name Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2 Samuel 13:27)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This apparent contradiction rests on the understanding of the Hebrew word bat, equivalent to the English daughter. Although usually used to denote a first generation female descendant, it can equally refer to more distant kinship. An example of this is 2 Samuel 1:24, which states: ‘O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul…’ As this is approximately 900 years after Israel (also called Jacob) actually lived, it is clear that this refers to the Israelite women, his distant female descendants.

When seen in this light, the ‘contradiction’ vanishes. 2 Chronicles 13:2 correctly states that Michaiah is a daughter of Uriel. We can assume that Uriel married Tamar, Absalom’s only immediate daughter. Together they had Michaiah who then married king Rehoboam and became the mother of Abijah. 2 Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings 15:2, in stating that Maachah was a daughter of Absalom, simply link her back to her more famous grandfather, instead of her lesser known father, to indicate her royal lineage. Abishalom is a variant of Absalom and Michaiah is a variant of Maachah. Therefore, the family tree looks like this:

       Absalom/Abishalom
               |
             Tamar-----Uriel
                    |
Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah
          |
        Abijah

25. Joshua and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did not (Joshua 15:63) capture Jerusalem?

(Category: misread the text)

The short answer is, not in this campaign. The verses given are in complete harmony and the confusion arises solely from misreading the passage concerned.

In Joshua 10, it is the king of Jerusalem that is killed: his city is not captured (verses 16-18 and 22-26). The five Amorite kings and their armies left their cities and went to attack Gibeon. Joshua and the Israelites routed them and the five kings fled to the cave at Makkedah, from which Joshua’s soldiers brought them to Joshua, who killed them all. Concerning their armies, verse 20 states: ‘the few who were left reached their fortified cities’, which clearly indicates that the cities were not captured. So it was the kings, not their cities, who were captured.

Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest of this particular military campaign. It states that several cities were captured and destroyed, these being: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All of these cities are south-west of Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and his army were defeated in the field whilst helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30 comparison is made to the earlier capture of Jericho, but neither of these last two cities were captured at this time. Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits of this campaign, all of which took place to the south and west of Jerusalem. Importantly, Gibeon, the eastern limit of this campaign, is still approximately 10 miles to the north-west of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is, therefore, not stated as captured in Joshua 10. This agrees completely with Joshua 15:63, which states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites in Jerusalem.

26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary’s point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband’s name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. ‘the’ Heli, ‘the’ Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to ‘contradiction’ 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan.

28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Jesus, those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19-20)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had different names.

It should not surprise us that there was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph’s father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison of Matthew and 1 Chronicles gives the following possible family tree:

Jehoiachin
    |
Shealtiel----Malkiram----Pedaiah----Shenazzar----Jekamiah----Hoshama----Nedabiah----...
    |                                   |
Zerubbabel                   Zerubbabel----Shimei----...
    |                            |
  Abiud                       7 sons
    |   (1 Ch. 3:19,20)
    |
  Joseph

30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Jesus is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Jesus’ ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of ‘son’. Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel are extant today, it is clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home with the Hebrew concept of son ship.

With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram – Ahaziah – Joash – Amaziah – Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).

Matthew’s telescoping of Joseph’s genealogy is quite acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of Jesus as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is given a value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to underline Jesus’ position as the son of David.

31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was Jeconiah’s father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from Matthew’s aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy, not from any error.

32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps the simplest way of resolving the problem is to suggest that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew has clearly telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is by no means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has been lost from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. Whatever the real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.

33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah’s grandfather).

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously “No, I am not Elijah.”

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John “he is the Elijah who was to come”? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying “he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers”. Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the “Elijah” whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, “Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as ‘Elijah’?” John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this “Elijah” suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; “the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist“. Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, John 1:29.

35. Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David’s throne?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph’s physical descendants were qualified to sit on David’s throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph’s genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how Jesus avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David’s throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Jesus’ true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: ‘the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David’. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful heir to David’s throne.

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)?

(Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)

The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event.

It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no “contradiction” as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.

Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says:

“Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey’.”

Matthew 21:5

By saying “a donkey” and then “on a colt, the foal of a donkey” Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as “parallelism”, simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” yet says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.

So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.

Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two.

Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur’an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is predicted time and time again.

37. Simon Peter finds out that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John 1:41)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it from someone else: God had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him being told by other people. Jesus’ point is that he was not simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Jesus and he was now clear in his mind that Jesus was none other than the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God.

Jesus did not ask, “Who have you heard that I am?” but, “Who do you say I am?” There is all the difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was no longer in any doubt.

38. Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42-43)?

(Category: misread the text)

The accusation is that one Gospel records Jesus meeting Simon Peter and Andrew by the sea of Galilee, while the other says he met them by the river Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its face as the different writers pick up the story in different places. Both are true.

John 1:35 onwards says Jesus met them by the river Jordan and that they spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably Peter too) were disciples of John the Baptist. They left this area and went to Galilee, in which region was the village of Cana where Jesus then performed his first recorded miracle. “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mothers and brothers and disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” John 2:12.

Peter and Andrew were originally from a town named Bethsaida (John 2:44) but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke 4:38-39), a few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade, so it was perfectly normal for them to fish when they were home during these few days (for at this time Jesus was only just beginning public teaching or healing).

This is where Matthew picks up the story. As Peter and Andrew fish in the Lake of Galilee, Jesus calls them to follow him – to leave all they have behind and become his permanent disciples. Before this took place, he had not asked them, but they had followed him because of John the Baptist’s testimony of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony, plus the miracle in Cana, as well as the things Jesus said (John 1:47-51), as well as the time spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived etc., it is perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow him. It would not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and follow a stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied piper! Jesus did not enchant anyone – they followed as they realized who he was – the one all the prophets spoke of, the Messiah the son of God.

39. When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter ‘had just died’ (Matthew 9:18), or was ‘at the point of death’ (Mark 5:23)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

When Jairus left his home, his daughter was very sick, and at the point of death, or he wouldn’t have gone to look for Jesus. When he met Jesus he certainly was not sure whether his daughter had already succumbed. Therefore, he could have uttered both statements; Matthew mentioning her death, while Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must be underlined that this is not a detail of any importance to the story, or to us. The crucial points are clear:

• Jairus’s daughter had a fatal illness.

• All that could have been done would already have been: she was as good as dead if not already dead.

• Jairus knew that Jesus could both heal her and bring her back from the dead. As far as he was concerned, there was no difference.

Therefore it is really of no significance whether the girl was actually dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached Jesus.’

40. Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)

It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict each other concerning whether Jesus allowed his disciples to take a staff on their journey or not. The problem is one of translation.

In Matthew we read the English translation of the Greek word “ktesthe”, which is rendered in the King James (Authorized) translation as “Provide neither gold, nor silver nor yet staves”. According to a Greek dictionary this word means “to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise” (Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Jesus is saying “Do not procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as you are.”

Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Jesus directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek, (“take“); but then, like Matthew adds “no staff, no bag, no bread, no money”. But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not necessarily involve discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Jesus.

However, this is not a definitive answer, only a possible explanation. This trivial difference does not effect the substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were, or is, a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is taught about the Qur’an. And if this is the pinnacle of Biblical contradictions when the Bible is said to be “full of contradictions” and “totally corrupted”, then such people are obviously deluded. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original Gospels, this “contradiction” would not have been here. It is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted.

41. Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9, Herod asks who this incredible person could be, as John was now dead. In Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 he gives his answer: after considering who Jesus could be, he concluded that he must be John the Baptist, raised from the dead. By the time Herod actually met Jesus, at his trial, he may not have still thought that it was John (Luke 23:8-11). If that were the case, he had most probably heard more about him and understood John’s claims about preparing for one who was to come (John 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Jesus had been baptised by John, obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same person.

42. John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

John’s statement in John 1:33 that he would not have known Jesus except for seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and remain, can be understood to mean that John would not have known for sure without this definite sign. John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15) and we have record of an amazing recognition of Jesus even while John was in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:41-44 relates that when Mary visited John’s mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary’s presence, as the mother of the Lord.

From this passage we can also see that John’s mother had some knowledge about who Jesus would be. It is very likely that she told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he was young).

In the light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy Spirit within John, it is most likely that this sign of the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus was simply a sure confirmation of what he already thought. God removed any doubt so that he could be sure that it was not his imagination or someone else’s mistake.

43. John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism?

(Category: misread the text)

In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is abundantly clear that John recognised Jesus. We should have no doubt at all about this.

Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many things have happened in the interum. John’s original knowledge of Jesus was limited and it seems that subsequent events had disillusioned him somewhat. He did not know exactly what form Jesus’ ministry would take. We are told from Matthew 3:11,12 some of what John knew: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah as the conquering king who would bring God’s judgement on all those who reject him, bringing peace and justice to those who follow him. John obviously understood this.

However, the Messiah was also portrayed in the scriptures as a suffering servant who would suffer on behalf of God’s people. This is shown clearly in Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: “For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”. John also understood this, as shown by his statement in John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

What was sometimes not so well understood was how the two portrayals of the Messiah interacted. Many thought that the Messiah would bring his terrible judgement as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur when he returns again (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example). Some were confused, therefore, by Jesus’ reluctance to act as a military leader and release the nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time.

This confusion is illustrated by Luke 24:13-33, where Jesus spoke with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. They were initially kept from recognising him (v.16). They told him how they “had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (v.21). They were correct in this hope, but failed to understand the first stage in God’s redemptive process. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding in v. 25,26: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (emphasis added)

It is most likely that a similar misunderstanding prompted John’s question in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been so sure of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah of Israel, further events had clouded his certainty. After expecting Jesus to oust the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel as in the days of king David, instead he had seen Jesus ‘teach and preach in the towns of Galilee’ (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military campaign. John surely wondered what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah’s role, or perhaps he had made a bigger mistake in thinking Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus’ answer in Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”

These activities were Messianic prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah 29:18; 35:5,6; 61:1-3. Although John’s disillusionment was a natural human reaction, he had been right the first time. Jesus ended his reply with an exhortation to John not to give up hope. The Messiah was here without a doubt and all would be revealed in its proper time.

44. When Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony not true (John 5:31) or is his testimony true (John 8:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid” (John 5:31) compared with “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” (John 8:14). It appears to be a contradiction, but only if the context is ignored.

In John 5 Jesus is speaking about how he cannot claim on his own to be the Messiah nor the Son of God, unless he is in line with God’s revealed word. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. But as Jesus did fulfil them and was proclaimed to be the Messiah by John the Baptist who the prophets also spoke of as heralding the way for the Messiah (see #34), then Jesus was indeed who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Jesus says of the Jewish scriptures which his listeners studied diligently, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me”.

We read of a somewhat different setting however in John 8. Jesus has just once again claimed to be the Messiah by quoting Old Testament Messianic prophecies and applying them to himself (John 8:12, Isaiah 9:2, Malachi 4:2). “Then some Pharisees challenged him, ‘Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid’.” Verse 13.

It is to this statement that Jesus responds “Yes it is”. Why? Because the Pharisees were using a law from Deuteronomy 19:15 which says “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand.”

Therefore they broadened the law to mean more that it does actually say. Indeed, the testimony of one man was valid – however not enough to convict, but enough when used in defense to bring an acquittal. This law is not speaking about anyone making a claim about himself, only in a court when accused of a crime.

So when Jesus says in reply to them “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” he is right to do so as what the law referred to did not directly apply. He also says that he knew exactly who he was, whereas they did not. He was not lying to them; he was the sinless Messiah of God. Therefore his word could be trusted.

However, it is a good principle not to believe just anyone who claims to be the Messiah. Any claimant must have proof. Therefore the second thing Jesus goes on to state in John 8 is that he has these witnesses too, the witnesses that the Pharisees were asking for. “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent me.” Verse 18. The same proclamation as in John 5 that he was fulfilling the prophecies that they knew (see just before this incident in John 7:42 for further proof of this point).

There is no contradiction, simply clarity and great depth which can be seen when Jesus’ is viewed in context, in his fertile Jewish culture and setting.

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark 11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next day?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The key to understanding may be found in Matthew’s use of narrative. At times he can be seen to arrange his material in topical order rather than strict chronological sequence. See the next question (#46) for more details.

With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew relates the cleansing of the temple along with the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing occurred the next day. Verse 12 states that ‘Jesus entered the temple’ but does not say clearly that it was immediately following the entry into Jerusalem.. Verse 17 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to Bethany, where he spent the night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany for the night, but this is something that he did each night of that week in Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:23 states: “Jesus entered the temple courts” in a similar fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1 says that the following incident occurred “one day”, indicating that it may not have been immediately after the fig tree incident.

According to this possible interpretation, Jesus entered the temple on the day of his triumphal entry, looked around and retired to Bethany. The next morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (at which time it started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he got there. Returning to Bethany that evening, probably as it was getting dark, the withered fig tree may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only the following morning in the full light of day that they saw what had happened to it.

(Archer 1994:334.335)

46. Matthew 21:19 says that the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered overnight.

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of Matthew in general, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke.

For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew’s tendency was to group his material in themes according to a logical sequence. We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.

When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark’s account we find that Jesus went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14).

To conclude then, Matthew felt it suited his topical approach more effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday afternoon initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a different style in arrangement by each author.

(Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III 1992:96-97)

47. In Matthew 26:48-50 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3-12 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him.

(Category: misquoted the text)

This is rather an odd seeming discrepancy by Shabbir, for nowhere in the John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly maintains) that Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. Not being able to get close to him had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he kissed him or not. It seems that Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so imposes it onto the text. The fact that John does not mention a kiss does not mean Judas did not use a kiss. Many times we have seen where one of the gospel writers includes a piece of information which another leaves out. That does not imply that either one is wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event by different means, and so include into their testimony only that which they deem to be important.

(Light of Life III 1992:107)

48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)?

(Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)

This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter “the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38) and also “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter’s third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence.

Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 “before the cock crows you will disown me three times“

Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 “before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me“

John 13:38 “before the cock crows, you will disown me three times“

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is probably due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Some early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words “a second time” and “twice” in 14:72, nor the word “twice” in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

However, another explanation is plausible if the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others (“twice” in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Jesus’ prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.

Although I am not an expert on the manuscripts used for the King James translation and do not know a great deal about why later, more accurate translators had enough manuscript evidence to omit verse 68 but not the others, I think that the first reason is more likely.

49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31-32) bear his own cross?

(Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31,32 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.

Mark 15:20,21 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Jesus started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Jesus carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Jesus away.

Thus the contradiction vanishes. Jesus started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the journey.

50. Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn?

(Category: misread the text)

After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time of Jesus’ death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ’s death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two events happened, ‘At that moment’, and the other two passages nowhere deny this.

They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam’s expulsion from God’s presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him.

51. Did Jesus say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he speak secretly to his disciples (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:10-11)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The reason people say that Jesus contradicts himself about saying things secretly or not, especially in relation to parables, is due to a lack of textual and cultural contextualising.

This answer requires significant background information, some of which I hope to give briefly here.

Firstly, what is a parable? It is a story given in order to clarify, emphasize or illustrate a teaching, not a teaching within itself. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Rabbinical literature there are approximately 4000 parables recorded. It was thought by Rabbis to be good practice to divide their instruction of the people into three parts, the latter third typically being two parables representative to the first two thirds. Jesus carries on in this tradition with just over one third of his recorded instruction being in the form of parables. He drew upon a wealth of images that the Israelis of his day knew, using common motifs such as plants, animals etc. Therefore the point of each of Jesus’ parables was clear to all the listeners, which can be seen from the Gospels too. Parables were so rich and also so subtle that not only could they drive home a clear and simple point to the ordinary listener, but the scholars could turn them over and over in their mind, deriving greater and greater meaning from them. So, Jesus often expanded on the meaning of a parable to his disciples, his close students, in response to their inquiry or to instruct them further as any Jewish Rabbi would.

This can be seen from reading Mark 4:34 in context. For it says, “With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them [the crowds], as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable [to clarify, emphasize or illustrate the teaching]. But when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything [taught them more, for they could understand more than the crowds].” Mark 4:33-34.

Therefore parables were not secret teachings. They are not esoteric knowledge given only to the initiated. It makes no sense (nor has any historical basis) to say that Jesus went around confusing people. He went around in order to teach and instruct people. So when Jesus was asked while on trial in court (John 18:20) about his teaching, he says something to the words of “I taught publicly – everyone heard my words. You know I taught. I did not teach in secret.” He was right.

As all this is true, what are these “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” which Jesus speaks of? The only ‘secret’ (“the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writing by the command of the eternal God, so that the nations might believe and obey him” (Romans 16:25-26) is that Jesus is Lord!

This secret was that Jesus’ mission was foretold by the prophets, that he was the fulfillment of these prophecies and the greatest revelation that would ever be given to mankind. His words were not only for the saving of people, but also for the judging of people because they were “ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing but never perceiving” (Matthew 13:14) as many of the hearers of the parables were unwilling to repent and submit to God.

Many people enjoyed Jesus’ teaching, came for the nice moral discourses and the excellent parables, but not many followed him as the cost was too great (see Luke 9:57-61, 14:25-27, 33). But it was these things his disciples were beginning to understand because they truly followed Jesus. The secrets of the kingdom of heaven is what he said to his disciples following (and explaining) Matthew 13:10-11:

“But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear [unlike the crowds]. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” [as they did not live during the lifetime of Jesus – all the prophets were before him].

The secret is Jesus is Lord, Jesus is king, Jesus is Messiah, Jesus is the one all the prophets spoke of, the salvation of mankind, God’s greatest revelation, the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6-8, 22:12-16), the only way to be right with God (John 3:36, Romans 6:23).

52. Was Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate’s court (John 19:14) at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The simple answer to this is that the synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) employed a different system of numbering the hours of day to that used by John. The synoptics use the traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00am in modern reckoning), making the crucifixion about 9:00am, the third hour by this system..

John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil day. This reckoned the day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) both tell us as much. Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Jesus’ trial by night was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first hour of the Hebrew reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the crucifixion, Jesus underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and beaten by the soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth in the Roman, or 9:00am by our modern thinking.

This is not just a neat twist to escape a problem, as there is every reason to suppose that John used the Roman system, even though he was just as Jewish as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John’s gospel was written after the other three, around AD90, while he was living in Ephesus. This was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, so John would have become used to reckoning the day according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him doing so is found in John 21:19: ‘On the evening of that first day of the week‘. This was Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part of the second day, each day beginning at sunset.

(Archer 1994:363-364)

53. The two thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark 15:32) or did not (Luke 23:43) mock Jesus?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

This apparent contradiction asks did both thieves crucified with Jesus mock him or just one. Mark 15:23 says both did. Luke 23:43 says one mocked and one defended Jesus. It isn’t too difficult to see what it going on here. The obvious conclusion is that both thieves mocked Jesus initially. However after Jesus had said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” one of the robbers seems to have had a change of heart and repented on the cross, while the other continued in his mocking.

There is a lesson here which shouldn’t be overlooked; that the Lord allows us at any time to repent, no matter what crime or sin we have committed. These two thieves are symptomatic of all of us. Some of us when faced with the reality of Christ continue to reject him and mock him, while others accept our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. The good news is that like the thief on the cross, we can be exonerated from that sin at any time, even while ‘looking at death in the face’.

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The idea that Jesus contradicts himself (or the Gospels contradict themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise or not after his death on the cross is due to assumptions about Paradise as well as the need to contextualize.

Jesus says to the thief on the cross “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. This was indeed true. For the thief was to die that same day on earth; but in paradise “today” is any day in this world, as Heaven is outside of time.

Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, according to the rendering of the King James translation, that he had not yet “ascended” to his Father. However, this could also be rendered “returned” to his Father.

Jesus was with God, and was God, before the beginning of the world (John 1 and Philippians 2:6-11). He left all his glory and became fully God, fully man. Later, God did exalt Jesus to the highest place once more, to the right hand of Himself (see Acts 7:56). This had not yet taken place in John 20:17. Jesus saying “for I have not yet returned to the Father” does not rule out the possibility that he was in heaven between his death and resurrection in “our time” (although Heaven is outside of time). By way of parallel (albeit an imperfect one), I do go to my original home and the area where I grew up without returning there. Returning as in myself being restored to what was.

However, a more likely understanding of the text has to do with the context. Another way to say, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not ascended to my Father. Go instead to my brothers…”, would be, “Do not hang on to me Mary – I have not left you all yet. You will see me again. But now, I want you to go and tell my disciples that I am going to my Father soon, but not yet”.

Both Islam and Christianity believe in the resurrection of the body, and both believe in the intermediate state. In Luke, Jesus dies, and his spirit ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Jesus has been bodily resurrected, and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the Father.

The time factor makes this somewhat paradoxical but the texts are not mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction.

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

(Haley p.359)

56. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered ‘stood’ also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men ‘stood speechless’ after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following God. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions.

(Haley p.359)

57. Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul doesn’t worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story.

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of Saul.

In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a detailed account of his meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ and his conversion.

In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of Paul’s case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one part of a sentence, “I lived as a Pharisee,” as opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27.

58. Did 24,000 Israelites die in the plague in ‘Shittim’ (Numbers 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians 10:8)?

(Category: confused this incident with another)

This apparent contradiction asks how many people died from the plague that occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is misspelt ‘Shittin’ in Shabbir’s pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8 are contrasted. Shabbir is referring to the wrong plague here.

If he had looked at the context of 1 Corinthians 10, he would have noted that Paul was referring to the plague in Exodus 32:28, which takes place at Mt. Sinai and not to that found in Numbers 25, which takes place in Shittim, amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt refer to verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 10, which quotes almost exactly from Exodus 32:6, “Afterwards they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”

Now there are those who may say that the number killed in the Exodus 32 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28) another seeming contradiction, but one which is easily rectified once you read the rest of the text. The 3,000 killed in verse 28 account for only those killed by men with swords. This is followed by a plague which the Lord brings against those who had sinned against him in verse 35, which says, “And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.” It is to this plague which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:8.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:458-459)

59. Did 70 members of the house of Jacob come to Egypt (Genesis 46:27), or was it 75 members (Acts 7:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This apparent contradiction asks how many members of the house of Jacob went to Egypt. The two passages contrasted are Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14. However both passages are correct. In the Genesis 46:1-27 the total number of direct descendants that traveled to Egypt with Jacob were 66 in number according to verse 26. This is because Judah was sent on ahead in verse 28 of Chapter 46 and because Joseph and his two sons were already in Egypt. However in verse 27 all the members of the family are included, including Joseph and his sons and Judah making a total number of 70, referring to the total number of Jacob’s family that ended up in Egypt not just those that traveled with him to Egypt.

In the older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts the number given in verse 27 is 75. This is because they also include Joseph’s three grandsons and two great grandsons listed in Numbers 26:28-37, and in at least the Septuagint version their names are listed in Genesis 46:20. Therefore the Acts 7:14 quotation of Stephen’s speech before his martyrdom is correct because he was quoting from the Septuagint.

60. Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?’ In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”. Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.

61. Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

62. Is the field called the ‘field of blood’ because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas’s bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field”. So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

63. How can the ransom which Christ gives for all, which is good (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5-6), be the same as the ransom of the wicked (Proverbs 21:18)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This contradiction asks, ‘Who is a ransom for whom?’ Shabbir uses passages from Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to show that it is Jesus that is a ransom for all. This is compared to Proverbs 21:18 which speaks of “The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright.”

There is no contradiction here as they are talking about two different types of ransom. A ransom is a payment by one party to another. It can be made by a good person for others, as we see Christ does for the world, or it can be made by evil people as payment for the evil they have done, as we see in the Proverbs passage.

The assumption being made by Shabbir in the Mark and 1 Timothy passages is that Jesus was good and could therefore not be a ransom for the unrighteous. In this premise he reflects the Islamic denial that someone can pay for the sins of another, or can be a ransom for another. He must not, however impose this interpretation on the Bible. Christ as a ransom for the many is clearly taught in the Bible. Galatians 3:13-14 and 1 Peter 2:23-25 speak of Jesus becoming a curse for us. Therefore Jesus has fulfilled even this proverb.

Again Shabbir’s supposition relies upon quotations being taken out of their context. The Mark 10:45 passage starts off by quoting Jesus as saying, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This was spoken by Jesus because the disciples had been arguing over the fact that James and John had approached Jesus about sitting at his right and left side when Christ came into his glory. Here Jesus is again prophesying his death which is to come and the reason for that death, that he would be the ransom payment that would atone for all people’s sin.

In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Paul is here speaking, saying,

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its proper time.“

This comes in the middle of a passage instructing the Early Church on worshiping God. These two verses give the reason and the meaning of worshiping God. The redemptive ransom given by God, that through this mediator Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the Cross, God may once again have that saving relationship with man.

The Proverbs 21:18 passage speaks however of the ransom that God paid through Egypt in the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, as is highlighted in the book of Isaiah, but particularly in Chapter 43:3;

“For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.“

This picture is further heightened in verses 16 and 17 of the same Chapter. This also has some foundation from the book of Exodus 7:5; 8:19; 10:7; 12:33. Chapters 13 and 14 particularly point to this. As history records for us in the Bible it was through this action that the Old Covenant was established between God and the Kingdom of Israel.

64. Is all scripture profitable (2 Timothy 3:16) or not profitable (Hebrews 7:18)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The accusation is that the Bible says all scripture is profitable as well as stating that a former commandment is weak and useless, and therein lies the contradiction. This is a contextual problem and arises through ignorance of what God promised to do speaking through the Prophets, concerning the two covenants which He instituted.

Due to space this wonderful issue cannot be looked at in depth here. However, some background information will have to be given in order for a reader, unfamiliar with the Bible, to understand what we are saying here. In order to illustrate I will draw a parallel from question #92 which speaks of the wealth behind many of the Hebrew words used in the Bible; in that particular case the ability we have to interpret the word ‘niham’ as either changing one’s mind, repenting, or to be aggrieved (refer to the question for a further understanding of the context).

God’s word obviously originates from Him alone, and is indeed useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training as 2 Timothy states. That is a general statement which refers to all that which comes from God.

Hebrews chapter 7 speaks of a particular commandment given to a particular people at a specific time; the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God established in His covenant with His people Israel a system where they would offer sacrifices, animals to be killed, in order for God to forgive them of their sins; particularly what God calls in Leviticus chapters 4 to 6, the “sin offering” and the “guilt offering”.

This concept of substitutional death is foreign to Islam, but is fundamental to Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Atonement must take place for sin. The penalty of sin is death, and someone has to pay that price. There is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood, for God demands justice. He cannot just ignore it for that would not be just.

God indeed established this system of atonement as the Old Testament shows by referring to the need for atonement 79 times! However, it also records God saying “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt” [i.e. at Mount Sinai where He gave the first covenant to the people of Israel just after God saved them from Egypt] (Jeremiah 31:31-33). The reason God gives is that the people did not remain faithful to it. Thus the new covenant will be different as God says, “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (vs. 33). He says also that this new covenant will necessitate a once-for-all payment for their sins, unlike the previous covenant (Jeremiah 31:34, Daniel 9:24-25).

God also speaks in the Old Testament of the Messiah who would bring this about. A Messiah not from the Levitical priesthood, but a perfect man from the tribe of Judah who would be a priest unto God. He, the Messiah would be the sacrifice that would pay for all sin in one go, and approach God not on the merit of his ancestry (as with the Levitical priests), but on his own merit, being like God, perfect. If people follow this Messiah and accept his payment of the penalty for sin for them, then God will write the law on their minds and hearts, and God can be merciful to them as His justice has been satisfied. Then they too can draw near to God, for God wants to be in relationship with His creation (Genesis 3:8-11) and it is only sin which stops that.

Obviously this is quite involved and only a comprehensive reading of the Old Testament will explain it adequately. All scripture is profitable, including that concerning the sacrificial system. However, God also promised in the Bible to make a renewed covenant with His people. In this the original system was replaced with the perfect sacrifice of the Messiah, Jesus.

Many scriptures describe this Messiah who would bring about this new covenant. In this God “makes his life a guilt offering”and we are told “Surely he took up our infirmities [sins] and carried our sorrows, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace [with God] was upon him.” See Isaiah chapter 53.

You can pay the price for your sin if you wish – it will cost you your life eternally. You will die for your own sin and go to hell. Or, because of the love of God, the Messiah can pay that price for you, and be “pierced” in substitution for you, which will bring you peace with God. Then God will permit you to enter heaven for eternity as His justice is satisfied. For as John the Baptist when seeing Jesus mentioned, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the word!” He also said, “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 1:29, 3:36.

God teaches that He will do this. It was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus, EXACTLY as the Old Testament said it would happen, and the new covenant was established. Sin was paid for once for all by the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist announced upon seeing Jesus (see #34 and #44). He is the one God promised. So through his death the old system of sacrifices, offering animals over and over again, became unnecessary. God’s alternative, which is vastly superior and comprehensive, rendered by God himself the previous system useless (Hebrews 8:7-13).

So, like clarification #92, God did not change His mind on His plan for enabling people to be right with Him. God is not a man that He should change His mind. It was His intention and plan all along to bring in this new covenant as a fulfilment of the old, as the Old Testament shows. A further point needs to be addressed a here. These ceremonial laws were required of the Israelites alone, as they were the ones who operating within the stipulations, ordinances and decrees of the Mosaic covenant. Any Gentile, or non-Israelite, who wished to convert to Judaism, was obligated to observe these covenantal ordinances as well. But Christians are not converts to Judaism. They are believers in Jesus, God’s Messiah, the Savior. They operate within the context of a “new covenant,” the one established in Jesus’ blood by his atoning sacrifice, not the old covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. Within this new covenant, Christians too have commandments, and in one manner or another they all relate to what was written in the Old Testament, but now in an entirely new context, that of fulfilment. So there is a clear line of continuity, revelation and renewal between the covenants, new and old – because both Israel and Christianity have the Messiah in common, and it was the Hebrew Scriptures that he fulfilled. Therefore all those Scriptures are profitable for studying, to know where we have come from, and where we are going. But not every commandment, ordinance or decree in the Old Testament is applicable to Christians in the same way it was (or is) to Israel. Though we have much in common, we have distinct covenants, a new covenant, which present Jews need to read about and acquiesce to, as it fulfills all that they look for and continue to hope for.

Note: a parallel to this, although an imperfect one, can be draw for the Muslim from the Qur’an. Sura 3:49-50. Jesus comes and says to the people of Israel “I have come to you to affirm the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you what was before forbidden to you”, or “to make halal what was haram”. According to this he came and confirmed the law which God had given to them, but he made some things permissible for them which God had previously prohibited. This is not true according to the Bible in the context of this “contradiction” and cannot be said for Judaism and Christianity. It is just a parallel to show that the Qur’an testifies of such things too.

65. Was the exact wording on the cross, as ( Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have different wordings?

(Category: misread the text)

This seeming contradiction takes on the question, ‘What was the exact wording on the cross?’ It is argued that Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 all use different words posted above Jesus’s head while hanging on the cross. This can be better understood by looking at John 19:20 which says;

“Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.“

It is interesting that Pilate is said to have written the sign and may have written different things in each of the languages according to Pilate’s proficiency in each of the languages. The key charge brought against Jesus in all of the Gospels is that he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews’. If this had been missing from any of the accounts then there may have been a possible concern for a contradiction here; but this is not the case. For a further explanation of this see Archer’s explanation.

(Archer 1982:345-346).

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist (Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The supposed contradiction pointed out by Shabbir is, ‘Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?’ The passages used by Shabbir to promote his conjecture are Matthew 14:5 where it appears to say that Herod did and Mark 6:20 where Shabbir suggests that Herod did not want to kill him. However the passages in question are complimentary passages.

When we look at the whole story we see that Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark 6:14-29, as far as I have been able to see nowhere contradict each other. This seems to be a similarly weak attempt to find a contradiction within the Bible to that of contradiction 50. In both passages Herod has John imprisoned because of his wife Herodias. Therefore it is the underlying influence of Herodias on Herod that is the important factor in John’s beheading. Mark’s account is more detailed than Matthew’s, whose Gospel is thought to have been written later, because Matthew does not want to waste time trampling old ground when it is already contained within Mark’s Gospel. Notice also that Mark does not anywhere state that Herod did not want to kill John, but does say that Herod was afraid of him, because of John’s righteousness and holiness, and, as Matthew adds, the factor of John’s influence over the people.

67. Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) or Judas, son of James (Luke 6:12-16)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Both can be correct. It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than one name. Simon, or Cephas was also called Peter (Mark 3:16), and Saul was also called Paul (Acts 13:9). In neither case is there a suggestion that either was used exclusively before changing to the other. Their two names were interchangeable.

68. Was the man Jesus saw sitting at the tax collector’s office whom he called to be his disciple named Matthew (Matthew 9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.

It is somewhat amusing to hear Mr Ally drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it a contradictory when persons in the 1st century Palestine either use one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by him.

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.

The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve (albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.

Luke 14:12 says it was “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, which is also called “Passover”. As the name suggest states, part of the Passover meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, “eat bread without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread”. See also Exodus 12:1-20.

The Greek word for “unleavened bread” is ‘azymos’. This is the word used by Mark in “the Feast of Unleavened Bread”, chapter 14 verse 12. The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is ‘artos’. All the Gospel writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. “While they were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body.” Mark 14:22. It is highly probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat (bread with yeast – artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded to eat (unleavened bread – azymos).

Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we read, “when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb“. Exodus 20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have been “customary” to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” They had no idea that Jesus was going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God’s wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was still ‘ringing in their ears’. He does not state that he would eat it with them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat “this” Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions #64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the people if Israel from God’s wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” as John the Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says, “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, “For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before the Passover meal.

70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Did Jesus pray to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?’ Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn’t.

This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon the ignorance of the reader for it’s strength. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arrest of Jesus. In all of these passages Jesus never asks for the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his fears of the difficulties, pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, loneliness and alienation from people and God on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for God’s will to be carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.

John 12:27 is from a totally different situation, one which takes place before the circumstances described above. It is said while Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Jesus at the Upper Room). On this occasion Jesus again says something very similar to the other passages above;

“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father save me from this hour’? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!“

Again we are reminded that he is feeling troubled. He knows events are fast unfolding around him. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who have just asked something of Jesus through his disciples. Were they there to offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Jesus does not go to meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way. Is it really conceivable that this man wants to prevent the crucifixion from taking place! I think not!

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke’s Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)?

(Category: imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and in particular verses 42 and 39 respectively, is not a contradiction at all. Shabbir asks the question: ‘What were the words of the second prayer?’ at the Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed contradiction as contrived and misleading.

Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, “that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39).” Let’s see what Mark does say of the second prayer in 14:39;

“Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.”

Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Jesus prayed the same words as the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence is that the gist of the prayer is the same as before, as the passage in Matthew shows. When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (vss. 39 and 42) we see that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording. Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again “saying the same thing!” Yet according to Shabbir’s thinking the two prayers were different; so how could Jesus then be saying the same thing the third time?

It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by Jesus because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Jesus had with the Father.

73. Did the centurion say that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:47), or that he was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The question being forwarded is what the centurion at the cross said when Jesus died. The two passages quoted are Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47. However as has been said before with other apparent contradictions these passages are not contradictory but complementary.

Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 agree that the centurion exclaimed that Jesus, “was the Son of God!”. Luke 23:47 however mentions that the centurion refers to Jesus as, “a righteous man.” Is it so hard to believe that the centurion said both? Nowhere in any of the Gospel narratives do the writers claim that was all that the centurion had to say. Therefore, let’s not impose on the writers what we would have the centurion say.

Matthew and Mark were more interested by the declaration of divinity used by the centurion, whereas Luke is interested in the humanity of Jesus, one of the main themes of his Gospel. Thus he refers to the corresponding statement made by the centurion.

(Archer 1982:346-347).

74. Did Jesus say “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark 15:34)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The question of whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is probably due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism of the Bible.

Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani.” However, it is doubtful that Jesus spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; the people hearing Jesus’ words thought he was calling Elijah (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35-36). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Jesus would have to have cried “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only “My God.”

It is also worth noting that lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.

Therefore Jesus probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in Aramaic as well? Jesus was part of a multilingual society. He most probably spoke Greek (the common language of Greece and Rome), Aramaic (the common language of the Ancient Near East) and Hebrew, the sacred tongue of Judaism, which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.

That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar Aramaic is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. The simple reason for the difference is probably that when one of them remembered and discussed the happening of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, this phrase may well have been repeated in their conversation as Aramaic, which would be perfectly normal. So he wrote it down as such. Secondly, Mark may have written it in Aramaic due to the fact that he was the original recipients of the Gospel.

However, both these reasons are simply speculation. If Mark recorded his words in Arabic, then we would worry!

(Bivin/Blizzard 1994:10)

75. Were the last words that Jesus spook “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46), or “It is finished” (John 19:30)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

‘What were the last words of Jesus before he died?’ is the question asked by Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death.

It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Jesus, was interested in the fulfilment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase “it is finished”.

John 17:4 records Jesus’ prayer to the Father in the light of Christ’s forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Jesus said ‘It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit’ or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.

76. Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)?

(Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially delivered his message to Jesus via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible that he came personally to Jesus after he had sent the elders to Jesus. Matthew mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial contact.

We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the disciple’s of Jesus, yet it was said that Jesus baptized (John 4:1-2).

We can also understand why each author chose to relate it differently by understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew’s main reason for relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Jesus relates to all people.

Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Jesus told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby concentrating more on the humanity of Jesus by listening to the messengers, the fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself ‘worthy’ to come before Jesus. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Jesus in healing the centurion’s servant without actually going to the home of the centurion.

77. Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17) or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The Scriptures describe death in three ways; 1) Physical death which ends our life on earth, 2) spiritual death which is separation from God, and 3) eternal death in hell. The death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is the second death mentioned in our list, that of complete separation from God, while the death mentioned in Genesis 5:5 is the first death, a physical death which ends our present life.

For obvious reasons Shabbir will see this as a contradiction because he does not understand the significance of spiritual death which is a complete separation from God, since he will not admit that Adam had any relationship with God to begin with in the garden of Eden. The spiritual separation (and thus spiritual death) is shown visibly in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden and away from God’s presence.

Ironically Adam being thrown out of the garden of Eden is also mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 2:36), though there is no reason for this to happen, if (as Muslims believe) Adam had been forgiven for his sin. Here is an example of the Qur’an borrowing a story from the earlier scriptures without understanding its meaning or significance, and therein lies the assumption behind the supposed contradiction.

(for a clearer understanding of the significance of spiritual death and how that impinges on nearly every area of disagreement Christians have with Islam, read the paper entitled “The Hermeneutical Key” by Jay Smith.)

78. Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

In Genesis 6:3 we read:

“Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'”

This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or misunderstanding of the text.

The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned Noah about doesn’t happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah. This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,

“God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”

Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.

(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)

79. Apart from Jesus there was no-one else (John 3:13) or there were others (2 Kings 2:11) who ascended to heaven?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

There were others who went to heaven without dying, such as Elijah and Enoch (Genesis 5:24). In John 3:13 Jesus is setting forth his superior knowledge of heavenly things. Essentially what he is saying, “no other human being can speak from first hand knowledge about these things, as I can, since I came down from heaven.” he is claiming that no one has ascended to heaven to bring down the message that he brought. In no way is he denying that anyone else is in heaven, such as Elijah and Enoch. Rather, Jesus is simply claiming that no one on earth has gone to heaven and returned with a message such as he offered to them.

80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus states that the event happened ‘in the days of Abiathar the high priest’ and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.

If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, ‘When king David was a shepherd-boy…’, it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event certainly did happen ‘in the days of Abiathar’, as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his father’s whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul’s men. Therefore, Jesus’ statement is quite acceptable.

(Archer 1994:362)

81. Was Jesus’ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:39-40), or did the women come and administer the spices later (Mark 16:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:39,40 clearly states that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes, along with strips of linen. We also know from the synoptic writers that the body was placed in a large shroud. There need be no contradiction here. The fact that the synoptics do not mention the spices during the burial does not mean that they were not used.

If Mark 16:1 is taken to mean that the women were hoping to do the whole burial process themselves, they would need the strips of linen as well, which are not mentioned. It is likely that they simply wished to perform their last act of devotion to their master by adding extra spices to those used by Joseph.

As Jesus died around the ninth hour (Mark 15:34-37), there would have been time (almost three hours) for Joseph and Nicodemus to perform the burial process quickly before the Sabbath began. We need not suppose that there was only time for them to wrap his body in a shroud and deposit it in the tomb.

82. Did the women buy the spices after (Mark 16:1) or before the Sabbath (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Several details in the accounts of the resurrection suggest that there were in fact two groups of women on their way to the tomb, planning to meet each other there. See question 86 for more details of these two groups.

Now it becomes clear that Mary Magdalene and her group bought their spices after the Sabbath, as recorded by Mark 16:1. On the other hand, Joanna and her group bought their spices before the Sabbath, as recorded by Luke 23:56. It is significant that Joanna is mentioned only by Luke, thereby strengthening the proposition that it was her group mentioned by him in the resurrection account.

83. Did the women visit the tomb “toward the dawn” (Matthew 28:1), or “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding.

• Matthew 28:1: ‘At dawn…went to look at the tomb’.

• Mark 16:2 ‘Very early…just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb’.

• Luke 24:1: ‘Very early in the morning…went to the tomb’.

• John 20:1: ‘Early…while it was still dark…went to the tomb’.

Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully: The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark’s statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.

84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb in order to put further spices on Jesus’ body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the gospel authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!

85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone “rolled back” (Mark 16:4), “rolled away” (Luke 24:2), “taken away” (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:1-6)?

(Category: misread the text)

Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying, ‘There was a violent earthquake’, the Greek of which carries the sense of, ‘now there had been a violent earthquake’. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Jesus’ body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.

86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus’ body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told.

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod’s residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.

With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Jesus was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.

We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Jesus had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.

87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:11-17)? And how did she react?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Jesus himself.

As all this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women, it appears that there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away ‘afraid yet filled with joy…to tell his disciples’. It appears that their fear initially got the better of them, for they ‘said nothing to anyone’ (Mark 16:8). It was at this time that Jesus suddenly met them (Matthew 28:9,10). Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.

There are several apparent problems in the harmonization of the resurrection accounts, a few of which have been touched on here. It has not been appropriate to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering specific points. A complete harmonization has been commendably attempted by John Wenham in ‘Easter Enigma’ (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press). Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected from four authors writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What was Jesus’ instruction for his disciples?’ Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate this apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Jesus would give his disciples only one instruction.

This is another contradiction which depends upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding that Sunday morning resurrection. (I say Sunday because it is the first day of the week) The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Jesus on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb!? And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.

The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Jesus and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.

89. Upon Jesus’ instructions, did the disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:17), or after at least 40 days (Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:3-4)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text and misquoted the text)

This supposed contradiction asks when the disciples returned to Galilee after the crucifixion. It is argued from Matthew 28:17 that they returned immediately, and from Luke 24:33 and 49, and Acts 1:4 that it was after at least 40 days. However both of these assumptions are wrong.

It would appear that Jesus appeared to them many times; sometimes individually, sometimes in groups, and as the whole group gathered together, and also at least to Paul and Stephen after the Ascension (see 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, and Acts 7:55-56). He appeared in Galilee and Jerusalem and other places. Matthew 28:16-20 is a summary of all the appearances of Christ, and it is for this reason that it is not advisable to overstress chronology in this account, as Shabbir seems to have done.

The second argument in this seeming contradiction is an even weaker argument than the one I have responded to above. This is because Shabbir has not fully quoted Acts 1:4 which says;

‘On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.”‘

Now the author of Acts, Luke in this passage does not specify when Jesus said this. However in his gospel he does the same thing as Matthew and groups together all the appearances so again it would be unwise to read too much chronologically into the passage of Luke 24:36-49. However it is apparent from the Gospels of Matthew and John that some of the disciples at least did go to Galilee and encounter Jesus there; presumably after the first encounter in Jerusalem and certainly before the end of the forty day period before Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.

90. Did the Midianites sell Joseph “to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:28), or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah (Geneis 37:36)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This apparent contradiction is a very strange one because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the text in Genesis 37:25-36. The question is asked, ‘To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?’ Verse 28 is used to say the Ishmaelites, and verse 36 Potiphar.

The traveling merchants were comprised of Ishmaelite and Midianite merchants who bought Joseph from his brothers, and they in turn sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. The words Ishmaelite and Midianite are used interchangeably. This would seem obvious once you read verses 27 and 28 together. A clearer usage for these two names can also be found in Judges 8:24.

91. Did the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28), or was it the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), or was it Joseph’s brothers (Genesis 45:4)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This supposed contradiction follows on from the last one and again lights up Shabbir’s problem with the historical situation, as well as his inability to understand what the text is saying This time the question asked is, ‘Who brought Joseph to Egypt?’ From the last question we know that both the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were responsible for physically taking him there (as they are one and the same people), while the brother’s of Joseph are just as responsible, as it was they who sold him to the merchants, and thus are being blamed for this very thing by Joseph in Genesis 45:4. Consequently, as we saw in the previous question all three parties had a part to play in bringing Joseph to Egypt.

92. Does God change his mind (Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 35), or does he not change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history & misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This “contradiction” generally appears only in older English translations of the Biblical manuscripts. The accusation arises from translation difficulties and is solved by looking at the context of the event.

God knew that Saul would fail in his duty as King of Israel. Nevertheless, God allowed Saul to be king and used him greatly to do His will. Saul was highly effective as leader of Israel, in stirring his people to have courage and take pride in their nation, and in coping with Israel’s enemies during times of war.

However, God made it clear long before this time (Genesis 49:8-10) that he would establish the kings that would reign over Israel, from the tribe of Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore there was no doubt that Saul or his descendants were not God’s permanent choice to sit on the throne of Israel. His successor David, however, was from the tribe of Judah, and his line was to continue.

Therefore God, who knows all things, did not ‘change his mind’ about Saul, for he knew Saul would turn away from Him and that the throne would be given to another.

The word in Hebrew that is used to express what God thought and how God felt concerning the turning of Saul from Him is “niham” which is rendered “repent” in the above. However, as is common in languages, it can mean more than one thing. For example, English has only one word for “love.” Greek has at least 4 and Hebrew has more. A Hebrew or Greek word for love cannot always simply be translated “love” in English if more of the original meaning is to be retained. This is a problem that translators have.

Those who translated the Bible under the order of King James (hence the King James translation, which Shabbir quotes from) translated this word niham 41 times as “repent,” out of the 108 occurrences of the different forms of niham in the Hebrew manuscripts. These translators were dependent on far fewer manuscripts than were available to the more recent translators; the latter also having access to far older manuscripts as well as a greater understanding of the Biblical Hebrew words contained within. Therefore, the more recent translators have rendered niham far more accurately into English by conveying more of its Hebrew meaning (such as relent, grieve, console, comfort, change His mind, etc. as the context of the Hebrew text communicates).

With that in mind, a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be that God was “grieved” that he had made Saul king. God does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man that he should change his mind. God was grieved that he had made Saul king. God shows in the Bible that He has real emotions. He has compassion on people’s pain and listens to people’s pleas for help. His anger and wrath are roused when He sees the suffering of people from others’ deeds.

As a result of Saul’s disobedience pain was caused to God and to the people of Israel. But also, God had it in His plan from the beginning that Saul’s family, though not being from the tribe of Judah, would not stay on the throne. Therefore when Saul begs the prophet Samuel in verses 24 to 25 to be put right with God and not be dethroned, Samuel replies that God has said it will be this way – He is not going to change His mind. It was spoken that it would be this way hundreds of years before Saul was king.

There is no contradiction here. The question was “Does God change his mind?” The answer is, “No.” But He does respond to peoples situations and conduct, in compassion and in wrath, and therefore can be grieved when they do evil.

(Archer 1994)

93. How could the Egyptian magicians convert water into blood (Exodus 7:22), if all the available water had been already converted by Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:20-21)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text & Imposes his own agenda)

This is a rather foolish question. To begin with Moses and Aaron did not convert all available water to blood, as Shabbir quotes, but only the water of the Nile (see verse 20). There was plenty of other water for the magicians of Pharaoh to use. We know this because just a few verses later (verse 24) we are told,

“And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could not drink the water of the river.”

So where is the difficulty for the magicians to demonstrate that they could also do this? Not only has Shabbir not read the entire text, he has imposed on the text he has read that which simply is not there.

94. Did David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) kill Goliath?

(Category: copyist error)

The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly.

The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows:

“In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David’s slaying of Goliath. However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as follows:

“In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be the true and correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed Goliath, but also because of the language.

When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, it must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 179):

1. The sign of the direct object in 1 Chronicals was ‘-t which comes just before “Lahmi” in the sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t (“Beth”) and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi (“the Bethlehemite”) out of it.

2. He misread the word for “brother” (‘-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the direct object (‘-t) right before g-l-y-t (“Goliath”). Therefore he made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles.

3. The copyist misplaced the word for “weavers” (‘-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after “Elhanan” as his family name (ben Y-‘-r-y’-r–g-ym, ben ya’arey ‘ore–gim, “the son of the forest of weavers”, a most improbable name for anyone’s father). In Chronicles the ore–gim (“weavers”) comes straight after menr (“a beam of”) – thus making perfectly good sense.

To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording, which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.

95. Did Saul take his own sword and fall upon it (1 Samuel 31:4-6), or did an Amalekite kill him (2 Samuel 1:1-16)?

(Category: misread the text)

It should be noted that the writer of 1 & 2 Samuel does not place any value on the Amalekite’s story. Thus, in all reality it was Saul who killed himself, though it was the Amalekite who took credit for the killing. The writer relates how Saul died and then narrates what the Amalekite said. The Amalekite’s statement that he ‘happened to be on Mount Gilboa’ (2 Samuel 1:6) may not be an innocent one. He had quite possibly come to loot the dead bodies. In any case, he certainly got there before the Philistines, who did not find Saul’s body until the next day (1 Samuel 31:8). We have David’s own testimony that the Amalekite thought he was bringing good news of Saul’s death (2 Samuel 4:10). It is likely, therefore, that he came upon Saul’s dead body, took his crown and bracelet and made up the story of Saul’s death in order that David might reward him for defeating his enemy. The Amalekite’s evil plan, however, backfired dramatically on him.

96. Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8-10), or do some not sin (1 John 3:1, 8-9; 4:7; 5:1)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage & Imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Does every man sin?’ Then a number of Old Testament passages that declare this are listed followed by one New Testament passage from 1 John 1:8-10:

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”

After this it is claimed by Shabbir that: ‘True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are children of God.’ This is followed by a number of passages from the First Epistle of John showing that Christians are children of God. Shabbir is here imposing his view on the text, assuming that those who are children of God, somehow suddenly have no sin. It is true that a person who is born of God should not habitually practice sin (James 2:14ff), but that is not to say that they will not occasionally fall into sin, as we live in a sinful world and impinged by it.

The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:

“No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

Shabbir in his quote uses an older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, “No one born of God commits sin…and he cannot sin…,” which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning…, the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is interesting how Shabbir jumps around to make his point. He begins with 1 John 1, then moves to 1 John 3-5, then returns to the 1 John 1 passage at the beginning of the Epistle and re-quotes verse 8, which speaks of all men sinning, with the hope of highlighting the seeming contradiction. There is no contradiction in this as Shabbir obviously hasn’t understood the apostle’s letter or grasped the fact that the letter develops its theme as it goes on. Therefore quoting from the beginning of the letter, then moving to the middle of the letter, and finally returning to the beginning of the letter is not the way to read a letter.

The Scriptures clearly teach that all men have sinned except for one, the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore we have no quarrel with Shabbir on this point. As to Shabbir’s second point I am glad he has come to realize that Christians are children of God therefore we have no quarrel with him on this subject.

It is Shabbir’s third point, however, which is a contentious one because it does not take on board the development of the themes of the letter, of which the one pointed out here is the call to holiness and righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ’s atoning death. It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ’s sinless likeness. In his attempt to show an apparent contradiction Shabbir has mischievously rearranged the order in which the verses were intended to be read in order to force a contradiction, which doesn’t exist.

97. Are we to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), or are we to bear only our own burdens (Galatians 6:5)?

(Category: misread the text)

The question is asked: ‘Who will bear whose burden?’ Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 are compared, one says each other’s, while the other says your own.

There is no contradiction here at all. This is not a case of ‘either/or’ but of ‘both/and’. When you read Galatians 6:1-5 properly you will notice that believers are asked to help each other in times of need, difficulty or temptation; but they are also called to account for their own actions. There is no difficulty or contradiction in this, as the two are mutually inclusive.

98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place.

In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term ‘the Twelve’ is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.

99. Did Jesus go immediately to the desert after his baptism (Mark 1:12-13), or did he first go to Galilee, see disciples, and attend a wedding (John 1:35, 43; 2:1-11)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?’ Mark 1:12-13 says he went to the wilderness for forty days. But John ‘appears’ to have Jesus the next day at Bethany, the second day at Galilee and the third at Cana (John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11), unless you go back and read the entire text starting from John 1:19. The explanation about the baptism of Jesus in John’s Gospel is given by John the Baptist himself. It was “John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was” (vs. 19). It is he who is referring to the event of the baptism in the past. If there is any doubt look at the past tense used by John when he sees Jesus coming towards him in verses 29-30 and 32. While watching Jesus he relates to those who were listening the event of the baptism and its significance. There is no reason to believe that the baptism was actually taking place at the time John was speaking, and therefore no reason to imply that this passage contradicts that of Mark’s Gospel.

100. Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

This supposed contradiction asks: ‘Was baby Jesus’s life threatened in Jerusalem?’ Matthew 2:13-23 says yes. Luke 2:21-40 appears to say no.

These are complementary accounts of Jesus’ early life, and not contradictory at all. It is clear that it would take some time for Herod to realize that he had been outsmarted by the magi. Matthew’s Gospel says that he killed all the baby boys that were two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. That would be enough time to allow Joseph and Mary the opportunity to do their rituals at the temple in Jerusalem and then return to Nazareth in Galilee, from where they went to Egypt, and then returned after the death of Herod

101. When Jesus walked on the water, did his disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51-52)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text)

This seeming contradiction asks: ‘When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?’ Matthew 14:33 says they worshiped him. Mark 6:51-52 says that they were astounded and hadn’t understood from the previous miracle he had done when he fed the 5000.

This again is not a contradiction but two complementary passages. If Shabbir had read the entire passage in Matthew he would have seen that both the Matthew account (verses 26-28) and the Mark account mention that the disciples had initially been astounded, thinking he was a ghost. This was because they had not understood from the previous miracle who he was. But after the initial shock had warn off the Matthew account then explains that they worshiped him.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, once we have weighed the evidence, many if not all of the seeming contradictions posed by Shabbir Ally can be adequately explained.

When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into 15 broad categories or genres of errors. Listed below are those categories, each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir’s contradictions. Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed, Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question.

Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet:

-he misunderstood the historical context – 25 times

-he misread the text – 15 times

-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage – 13 times

-the texts are compatible with a little thought – 13 times

-he misunderstood the author’s intent – 12 times

-these were merely copyist error – 9 times

-he misunderstood how God works in history – 6 times

-he misunderstood the Greek usage – 4 times

-he didn’t read the entire text – 4 times

-he misquoted the text – 4 times

-he misunderstood the wording – 3 times

-he had too literalistic an interpretation – 3 times

-he imposed his own agenda – 3 times

-he confused an incident with another – 1 time

-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript – 1 time

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected when four authors write independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of.

In Shabbir’s booklet, he puts two verses on the bottom of each page. It would seem appropriate that we give an answer to these quotes, which are:

1. “God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Corinthians 14:33) True, God is not the author of confusion. There is very little that is confusing in the Bible. When we understand all the original readings and the context behind them, the confusion virtually disappears. Of course we need scholarship to understand everything in there, as we are 2,000 – 3,500 years and a translation removed from the original hearers.But this is no different to the Qur’an. On first (and tenth) readings of the Qur’an there are many things which are not apparent. Take the mysterious letters at the beginning of the suras. It seems that after 1,400 years of scholarship, people can only take a good guess at what on earth they might be there for. Or take the many historical Biblical characters whose stories do not parallel the Bible but seem to originate in second century Talmudic apocryphal writings. This is indeed confusing. However, it is because we can go to the historical context of those writings that we now know that they could not have been authored by God, but were created by men, centuries after the authentic revelation of God had been canonized.

2. “…A house divided against itself falls”(Luke 11:17) The Bible is not divided against itself. Jesus was talking about a major division, i.e. Satan destroying his own demons. This is far removed from the Bible. A book four times the size of the Qur’an, with the remaining problems able to be counted on your fingers and toes, a 99.999% agreement! That indeed is remarkable!

We conclude with two quotes of our own:

“The first to present his case seems right… till another comes forward and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17)

“…our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him….His letters contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Bibliography:

Archer, Gleason, L., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1994 Revised Edition, 1982, Zondervan Publishing House

Bivin, David, & Blizzard, Roy, Jr., Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, Revised Edition, Destiny Image Publishers, 1994

Blomberg, Craig, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, IVP, Leicester, 1987

France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale IVP, 1985

Fruchtenbaum, A. ‘The Genealogy of the Messiah’. The Vineyard, November 1993, pp.10-13.

Geisler, Norman & Howe, Thomas, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992

Haley, John, W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania

Harrison, R.K., Old Testament Introduction, Tyndale Press, London, 1970

Keil, C.F., and Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 20 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949

McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990

Morris, Leon, Luke, Tyndale Press, 1974 (1986 reprint)

The True Guidance, Part Two, (‘False Charges against the Old Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992

The True Guidance, Part Three, (‘False Charges against the New Testament’), Light of Life, Austria, 1992

Was YHWH a New Name in Exodus 6:2-4?

Here is a PDF article on this subject:

[To be supplied - not available from ASRA website (“access denied” error)]

The Hermeneutical Key (Genesis 3:8-9)

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Finding the Hermeneutical Key

   1. The Garden of Eden

3. Applying the Hermeneutical Key

   1. God

   2. Trinity

   3. Humanity

   4. Sin

   5. Revelation

   6. The Incarnation

   7. The Cross / Atonement

   8. Predestination

   9. Theocracy

   10. Jihad

   11. The Spirit World

   12. Prayer

   13. Paradise

4. Conclusion

A: Introduction

A number of months ago, I had just arrived home from the university, where I had been involved in an enlivening though exhausting discussion with an English convert to Islam. We had talked about the role of the Khilafa, and how Britain was or was not ripe for an Islamic state. Because of my Mennonite background, I not only had difficulty in agreeing with my friend, but I had problems understanding why such a state was so important for him. I couldn’t understand his position and he couldn’t understand mine. Both of us were simply talking past each other.

It was cold that evening, and I was dirty and tired. So I slipped off my clothes, turned on the hot water and slid into a steaming hot tub. On that particular occasion, as I so often do when I am taking a bath, I sank down into the warm soothing water until the suds were tickling at my nose, and my eyes were on the level where I could see the vapors as they lifted lazily off the surface to swiftly disappear into the dark cold air above. It is at times like these that the rusty gears in my mind wake up out of their lethargy and begin to slowly creak and groan themselves awake, letting loose the long dormant creative juices, which sometimes give birth to outrageous thoughts and ideas, while at other times they simply waft along in idle fantasy. On this night, my mind was still occupied with the earlier discussion, and the juices were flowing.

And that is how, suddenly, an idea popped right into my partly submerged head which would clarify the discussion I had just had with my friend at SOAS, and make sense of the log-jam which we had experienced. The idea, interestingly, originated from two seemingly insignificant verses which are found in the 3rd chapter of Genesis.

If you have the time, put this paper down and read Genesis chapter 3, and ask yourself what is the major theme of this chapter? How would you interpret it for someone else? In other words, what is the hermeneutical key which comes to mind here?

Now, without wanting to lose my audience in the first few minutes, let me explain what I mean by “hermeneutical key.” This term is nothing more than the science of interpreting what scripture says, exegeting passages so they make sense, or presenting an idea which is used as a cornerstone for other ideas, a sort of code-book which explains a host of little known secrets, a program which unravels the intricate details of a complicated set of beliefs. In fact, by penning these definitions we have carried out an exercise in doing just that.

Where, then, would the two small verses which I am referring to be? They are verses 8 and 9.

Genesis 3:8-9: “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called out to the man. “Where are you?”

“…God walked in the garden, with Adam… and the Lord had to call out to Adam.” That was it! That was what I had been missing! That was what my friend needed to hear. I needed to take him back to Eden. Now it all made sense.

B: Finding the Hermeneutical Key

B1: The Garden of Eden

Let me explain. Ever since I was a little child I had been told the story of creation, and the story of the Garden of Eden. I knew all about Adam and Eve. I still remember vividly till this day the movie titled “The Bible.” I remember the Eden episode especially, as it has become the standard for how I view that story even up to this day. The greater part of the story, however, gravitated around the incident at the tree with the forbidden fruit.

I soon found that most of the stories about Adam and Eve dealt with the fruit. Every Sunday-School lesson, every night- time devotional on the subject, and every film and film-strip always reminded me that it was here that I and all of the rest of the little boys and girls in the world became evil. We all became polluted because of that offensive fruit. Every teacher since that day has taken it upon themselves to remind me and every other little boy and girl that Eden was where all our troubles began. I am sure that the reason I don’t like fruit till this day has something to do with my sensibilities over that dastardly first-fruit which has put us into the mess in which we find ourselves.

But, you know what is curious? I don’t ever remember anyone talking about verses 8 and 9! And I don’t know why, all of a sudden, those two verses popped into my head on that cold spring evening while basking in my 2nd floor tub. But they did. And since then, they have completely changed the way I view God, and the way I intend to introduce Him to others, especially my Muslim friends.

Now some of you may say, “So what? They are not important to the story, except to tell us that Adam and Eve were about to be caught for their sin.” And on face value, I would have to agree, “So what?” All my life I have been taught the same view. But it wasn’t just they who were going to be caught, but me and my sisters and all the rest of the little boys and girls who were in the world. We were all imputed with guilt as a result of that act. Genesis 3 has always been drummed into my head as the chapter on the great fall. I had never really stopped at these two verses, or paid them any attention, because the real meat was with the apple and with the condemnation which followed. That is, until that night in the tub.

While salubriously sitting, soaking in the suds a suggestion slinked its way slowly into my subconscious, saying: “what was God doing walking among the trees and calling out to Adam, ‘Where are you?'”

Here was the creator of the universe, who flung the stars into space and tread out the valleys on the earth, who reached out and in one swoop separated the light from the darkness; who shaped the mountains and rustled up the wind, and with only a word formed every living, swimming, crawling or flying creature that has ever existed.

This great omnipotent and powerful God humbled Himself to walk in the cool of the day, and look among the trees and call out, “Where are you?” This was the God who made the heavens and the earth. Why should He have to call out and ask Adam where he was?

Now can you begin to see why I find these two verses so important? Because here in this little scenario, we find something about the character of God which you will not find in any other religious or philosophical book in the history of the world. No other religion or faith even comes close to delineating the creator-God as someone who would lower and come among those whom He has created.

The Aristotelian tradition of thought starts from a completely different starting point. The material world and God, according to Aristotle, are incompatible with one another. The two never intersect. The one, God, exists in total separation from the other, the material world. This view of the God-world dichotomy, which originated in the third century B.C., has become deeply entrenched in not just western-European thinking but has been borrowed, via the expansion and conquest of North Africa, by Islam following the prophet’s death.

Therefore, since no other faith has desired to present their God in the context of relationship, they have missed what I consider to be the most important aspect about God, which, in turn explains the entire scope of who we are, how the world is to be run, and what God’s intentions are for His created.

From these two verses we can find three things.

1. LimitationWe read that this omnipotent God came down and was walking in the garden. That shows us, as I have mentioned, that God lowered Himself and took on the limitations of His created. He was looking for Adam. Therefore, He restricted Himself, casting away His omnipotence to walk and search and talk in the same fashion as did His created man and woman.

2. ResponseThis omniscient, all-knowing God called out “Where are you?” Certainly God knew where Adam was. He knows everything. Yet, in this verse we find that He gave Adam the chance to respond. He had humbled Himself to come down to His level, and now He was calling out to Adam to return to Him.

3. RelationshipFinally, and most importantly, from the fact that God was walking about and looking, we can surmise that this was something that He did often with Adam and Eve, possibly taking walks with them in the evening. What astounds me about this act, however, is that the all-powerful creator God seemed to have a personal relationship with Adam and Eve. The possibility that He did this often shows me that He cared about them, and sought out their companionship. He was looking for them, which implies that He wanted to spend time with them. Indeed, He was in relationship with them.

In other words, here we find an infinite creator-God who walks and talks with His finite created man. Do you know of any other concept of God that claims to do this?

The reason I find this important is that from this item alone, I believe, we can build a theology of not only who God is, but who we are, what purpose we have here on earth, how we are to model our lives, our families, our societies, where it is that we are headed, and what we will find once we get there.

It is these verses that show us the unique relationship which Adam and Eve shared with their creator. Therefore, it is this relationship which, I feel, must be the hermeneutical key with which we can measure almost everything else.

Interestingly, in respect to Islam, it is not surprising to note that these two verses do not exist at all in the Qur’an. A reason for their exclusion could be due to the influence of the Aristotelian thought which, some believe, crept into Islamic philosophy after the conquest of North Africa, where it had already been well entrenched.

Note: The evolution of the Qur’an infers that many theological, political and social concepts were added later on by Muslim tradition in the 8th and 9th centuries.

Consequently, one might say that because these verses do not exist in their Qur’an, it stands to reason that there will be a large divergence in the way the Muslims explain who God is, who we are, what purpose we have on earth, where it is we are headed, and what we will find once we get there.

This hermeneutical key doesn’t exist in Islam, and therefore, we have a tool which can help us understand the differences between us.

What I would like to do now is begin listing how this hermeneutical key, the relationship which God had with man, features in our two theologies today. Because once we do that, I feel we can then interpret the gospel so much more adequately for the Muslims.

C: Applying the Hermeneutical Key

C1: God

A good place to begin our discussion is with God, because that is where our scriptures begin. In the first verse of Genesis we read, “In the beginning God…” As we delineate who this God is we find that the God of the Bible is quite different from that of Allah in Islam.

According to Islam, Allah is one-dimensional; that is he has only one character, which is powerful and imposing (almost Aristotelian). He is an omnipotent and impersonal God, one who is completely transcendent, and therefore quite distant and distinct from his creation.

Though Muslims will respond that there are 99 names which delineate his character, not one of these names are personal, or denote a true understanding of a God of love. Muslims say he is merciful and compassionate, yet they do not define those terms as we do.

1. PersonalThe God of the Bible, likewise, is all- powerful, but He is not impersonal. Verses 8 and 9 of Genesis 3 show us that God walks and talks with His creation. He is very personal, and the name He has chosen for Himself, Yahweh, delineates His personal character. In the Bible we find this name repeated 6,823 times, more than any other name (note: In the English translation of the Bible this name for God is indicated by capitalizing the letters LORD).In the Greek New Testament several times God is referred to as Abba (which means father) denoting a very close and intimate relationship with His creation. This is unique to the Judeo- Christian understanding of God. A true father not only instructs and protects his children, he loves and is self-sacrificial for them, even to the point of death. Nowhere in any other holy book or philosophy do we find this character of God even intimated.

2. Relational / SacrificialFurther attributes of Allah point out other differences between a Muslim and Christian concept of God. Allah, because he is not interested personally with his creation loves only those who do his will. Sura 66:12 says, “If you love Allah, follow me, (i.e. Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive your sins. Allah is forgiving, merciful… Allah directs the hearts of those that believe him…”The God of the Bible, Yahweh, however, because He desires to be in relationship with His creation, not only loves those who are good, but He loves those who are sinners, even those who reject Him. His love is exemplified in its highest expression, the sacrifice of one for another. Yet, His death on the cross encompassed not just those who loved Him, but all of creation, though its saving power is only efficacious for those who acknowledge it (Romans 5:1-10).

3. Just / RighteousIslam tells us that Allah is not bound by any moral obligation, as this would limit his sovereignty. Al-Ghazzali, an 11th century Islamic scholar, confirms this in the context of love, stating, “Love is to sense a need of the beloved and since Allah cannot be said to have a need or an experience of a need, it is therefore impossible that Allah should love” (Nehls, Asks, 34).We would expect to find this in a one-dimensional god. It follows that Allah is also the author of evil. Sura 91:7,8 implies this by saying, “He intimated to it by inspiration its deviating from truth and its piety” (Mishkat III pg.104).Allah is under no necessity of his own nature to be right, or just. Al-Ghazzali maintains that, “Allah’s justice is not to be compared with the justice of man. A Man may be supposed to act unjustly by invading the position of another, but no injustice can be conceived on the part of Allah. It is in his power to pour down torrents upon mankind and if he were to do it, his justice would not be arraigned. There is nothing he can be tied to, to perform, nor can any injustice be supposed of him, nor can he be under obligation to any person whatever” (Nehls, Asks, 28). A Muslim exhibits this twist-of-logic by saying, “Allah does not will an act because it is good; rather, it is good because he has willed it.”Allah is free to be good or evil. The fact that He is both good and evil, proves that He is free for himself only. If Allah has no principles in which he has bound himself to, his justice is likewise unbound. There are no absolutes by which he has bound himself to, and thus mankind has no real boundaries by which to live by, except that which Allah has revealed in his law, making that law the only absolute. Consequently, Allah can be totally capricious in his dealings with man. Allah pronounces his law, though he does not live by it himself. This presupposes no idea of a covenant relationship with his created.In Christianity we find quite a contrast to this idea of a capricious God. The God of the Bible wills not to be evil. As Barth says: “God’s freedom constitutes not only His action towards what is outside Himself, but also His own inner being.” (Church Dogmatics Vol.2, Part 1, pg.303) “According to the Biblical testimony, God has the prerogative to be free without being limited by His freedom from external conditioning, free also with regard to His freedom, free not to surrender Himself to it, but to use it, to give Himself to this communion, and to practice this faithfulness in it, in this way being really free, free in Himself” (Barth, pg. 303). Thus God, Yahweh is free to not be free. He could choose to have no choice, so we must not limit His freedom.We, on the other hand, are limited by our nature. We cannot walk through walls. Yet there is freedom within that choice, in that we can walk upto and around the walls. God, on the other hand, is unbound by His nature. He can be whatever He wants. He could walk through walls if He so chose. He could also sin if He so chose. Yet God chooses to limit that choice, and so He has chosen not to be sinful. His choices became even more limited when He chose to become human. But why did he take on these limitations?What we know about the Biblical God is that He chose to be in covenant with His creation, thus He chose to limit his power. God, before the world began drew up a charter, to live by certain limitations. It is an eternal covenant (Ephesians 1:9, Colossians 2; 1 Pet.1-2). The Father and the Son covenanted together with respect to their creation.Consequently the Biblical God is now bound by His character because of that choice, and He is absolutely just and pure. God is infinitely righteous and holy (Psalm 77:13;99:9). What this means is that God, Yahweh, is incapable of doing evil, nor could He be attributed as its author, and though He allows evil to exist, it may never share its presence with Him, for, according to Habakkuk 1:13, “His eyes are too pure to look on evil.”

When we take these three attributes of the Biblical God:

1. a God who desires a personal relationship with His creation

2. who is completely selfless and sacrificial in His love, yet

3. who is unable by His choice to create or accept evil,

we find in these three that which sets Him apart from all other gods created by man.

The God of the Bible, therefore, is multi-dimensional. He is both an omnipotent king, and a personal father; both the almighty creator and a sacrificial servant; both righteous judge and redeeming priest.

Perhaps for many these categories seem contradictory, and that is just as well, for God does not choose to stoop to the categories of men. His character is beyond our feeble wisdom.

What these characteristics of God do reveal, however, is that they could not have originated within a one-dimensional and impersonal god, such as we find in the Allah of Islam. No, they could only be explained within the context of a multi-dimensional God, one who is both three and one, or, what the church has chosen to call the “trinity.” Yet, it is this very term which has caused so much derision by both non-Christians and Muslims alike.

C2: Trinity

“How,” many people today ask, “can God be both three and one?” Furthermore, they continue, “why is this so important?”

To begin with it is important primarily because we find God revealed in the scriptures as both three and one. The first clues to what God is like is found almost immediately, in fact, in the very first verse of Genesis, where we read, “In the beginning God created…” The word for God (Elohim) is plural, so God is plural. The word created (Bara) which follows, however, is singular. Therefore, in this first verse we find that a plural God creates as one. This is echoed again in the same chapter, verse 26, where God speaks to Himself saying: “Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness.”

As we continue on through the Old Testament we find many inferences to the plurality, yet oneness of the godhead (Genesis 3:22; and 11:7; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 6:8; 7:14; 9:6; 44:6; and 63:7-10). The New Testament, likewise, carries the theme on from where the Old Testament left off, many times stating that God expresses Himself in a multi-dimensional capacity (John 1:1-5,10- 12; 8:58; Luke 7:49; Colossians 1:19,16-17; Philippians 2:6-7; Rom.9:4-5; II Corinthians 4:4; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 1:2-3).

It explains the love of God

But to understand why this concept of the trinity is important for our present discussion, it may be helpful to use as an example the idea of the love of God, a belief which both Christians and Muslims can agree upon (though our definitions may vary, as evidenced in al-Ghazzali’s quote earlier, where he intimates God’s love as mercy and compassion). It is not until we comprehend the trinity (a doctrine much maligned by Muslims) that we can truly understand love. For it is within the trinity that love is fully expressed.

True love by its very nature requires an object, otherwise it becomes self-centered, self-serving and carnal. If God were one-dimensional, where would true love have originated? How could love have existed before creation if there was no object on which it could be expressed?

The trinity, encompassing the triune godhead, delineates the source from which love began, as each person of the godhead, since eternity, has given and received love from among themselves.

The best example of the love between the godhead is exemplified by God the Father who sent God the Son to earth (John 3:16); and by God the Son, who in turn “being in very nature God… made Himself nothing… being made in human likeness… He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:7-8).

As a result of this extreme act of love, we humans, being made in the image of God, can now explain and model perfect love to the world, using the examples of God the Father towards God the Son, and the ongoing relationship of God the Holy Spirit in our lives counselling us to become more like Him, by exemplifying that same love.

When Muslims maintain that Allah can be defined as the God of love our response must be that this claim simply makes no sense. For where did it originate, and from where is it exemplified in history, or in Islam today? Realistically speaking, love can only be understood within the context of a multi-dimensional God, where it was not only originally modelled within Himself, but continues even now as He aids us in that same endeavor through the working of the Holy Spirit.

God, as three in one, then, helps explain why relationships between one person and another are so important, and why we humans are such ‘social animals.’ Having been made in God’s image, it stands to reason that we would reflect these very significant attributes of God, a God who has eternally been in relationship within the trinity.

One can, moreover, understand why God desires that same relationship with His created. And with that in mind, we can now introduce our next category, God’s highest creation: humanity.

C3: Humanity

Here again, by using the hermeneutical key of relationship we find a vast divergence between the view of humanity in Islam and that of Christianity.

Because Allah is considered to be totally transcendent, his creation shares none of his character. Humans enjoy a unique place in creation, because Allah breathed into Adam his spirit (Sura 15:29). But the Qur’an never explains what the Spirit of Allah does. What we do know is that humans were created to be Allah’s representative, or his viceregent on earth (Suras 2:30; 33:72; 35:39). Thus, humans have the task to maintain the earth.

The relationship between Allah and his creatures was in the context of obedience and fear, what the Qur’an calls Taqwa (which when translated means self-protection or fear of God). Therefore, humans are no more than slaves to Allah; their sole requirement to obey their creator. In fact the word “Muslim” has come to mean “one who obeys, or submits.”

In God’s image

Christians, likewise, believe that humans were created to “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth” (Genesis 1:26). But that is only half the story, for the Bible tells us that humans were created in God’s image (Genesis 2:27), a view which is in direct contrast to that of Islam, which perceives humans as slaves to Allah. According to the Bible, we were never created to be slaves. We were created, from the very beginning, to be His children, in perfect relationship with Him.

We see clearly from Genesis chapter 3 that God walked and talked with Adam. This implies that Adam had a higher status than simply that of a caretaker. Indeed, a relationship is evidenced between Adam and God; a relationship which was worked out within a context of equality, in that God, the second person of the trinity, confined Himself by taking on all the limited characteristics of Adam’s finite existence, such as the need to walk, to search and even to call out when He couldn’t find Adam in the garden.

Freedom of choice

Conversely, because Adam was made in God’s image he had the capacity to choose, to make up his own mind. This stands against the concept of slavery, as a slave has no freedom to choose. Freedom of choice entails that one can accept or reject something, in this case a relationship with God, despite the fact that He is their creator. Adam was given that choice, with tragic consequences, and we, each one of us, are likewise confronted with the choice to accept or reject God.

Though Muslims testify to the superiority of Allah, because he is only one-dimensional, they fail to take into account that which is missing, that which Allah cannot offer. Allah, because of his overwhelming omnipotence cannot accept the possibility of rejection by those he creates. In fact, all that Allah can offer is that his disciples follow him blindly. The penalty for apostasy is death. While the Qur’an mentions nothing about a death penalty for apostasy, the Hadiths attribute numerous occasions when he demanded it. He is purported to have said, “Slay him who changes his religion” (Gibb and Kramers, pg.413), and at another time a set of traditions reports his ruling that it is permissible to take the life of someone who “abandons his religion and separates himself from his community” (Gibb and Kramers, pg.413).

In contrast, the God of the Bible does not seek a blind obedience from His creation, nor does He demand any sort of capital punishment for those who reject Him. For that would not illustrate true love. True love seeks the best for the loved- one, at the owner’s expense.

This sacrificial love is best exemplified in the crucifixion of Christ, the 2nd person of the trinity, on the cross. It is this same quality of love which God desires from us, both in our relationship with Him, and in our relationships with all of humanity, who are made in His image, sinner and saved alike.

Made in His image, and therefore free to chose to accept or reject His love for us, brings us to the fifth category where Islam and Christianity differ: sin.

C4: Sin

In both the Qur’anic and Biblical accounts of Eden, we find that Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit. But the consequences of that sin are quite different between the two beliefs.

In Islam, since there was no special relationship between man and God in the garden, there was nothing which could be lost by Adam’s sin. Therefore, the sin of Adam was his and his alone. In fact, not much ado is made of his sin in the Qur’an. It was an act of disobedience for which Adam, and he alone, was responsible. Once he repented of the sin, God simply forgave him and extended to him his mercy and guidance (Sura 20:122). Nothing needed to be repaired, because nothing substantial had been broken. The matter is then left to rest.

Adam was sinless

In the Biblical account, the story is altogether different. Adam’s sin was taken much more seriously. It is not difficult for us to understand why in light of Genesis 3. As we know, before the sin of Adam and Eve, Eden was a garden which was perfect. There was no blemish, and as such it was a place in which God could come and be in relationship with Adam, the two communing openly. There was nothing between them which could impede their relationship.

Adam became sinful

Once the fruit was eaten, however, that relationship was completely altered. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and, suddenly, like God, they could now understand right from wrong (Genesis 3:22).

Before they had been in total innocence and only knew that which was right. They had been naked and felt no shame. Now, however, they covered their bodies with leaves to hide their shame, and they hid behind trees to hide their guilt. Their relationship with God had now been totally broken, because sin had entered into the world. In other words, they, who were now in sin had to be removed from Him who knew no sin. Thus, they were dismissed from God’s presence because of the fall.

Note: The idea of fall comes from Origen in his work “Periarchon.” In his overwrought fantasy the small logoses (all created beings) turn round and round the real Logos contemplating him. They fell, however, when they began to contemplate themselves [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.4, pg.256-260]. The fall, therefore, is a misnomer. It would perhaps be more correct to call it the divorce, or separation.

Adam was thrown out of Eden

This one seemingly small bite from the fruit had eternal consequences, one which would affect the entire shape of history. Not only was corruption and death introduced into the world by this little bite, but more devastating, humanity’s unique relationship with the Lord was annulled, causing Adam and Eve, and along with them all their descendants, including us, to be banished from God’s presence.

The fruit was probably the most expensive the world has ever known. Though it may have been a small blemish for the fruit, it incurred an enormous blemish for all of mankind, and that’s the bad news. But fortunately, we serve a God who desires above all else to remain in relationship with us, His created. We know that the story doesn’t end with the garden of Eden. We know that God has made a way for us to get back in relationship with Him. We know this because of God’s revelation, His written word, and our next category.

C5: Revelation

Islam tells us that Allah is remote and therefore must not reveal himself to man upon a personal level. It is for that reason that Allah reveals himself by means of appointed prophets, who are referred to as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are merely human and so finite, yet they are protected by God. Revelation in Islam is simply one-way, from God to Man via the prophets. The final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is the Qur’an. It was revealed to Muhammad between A.D. 610-632, via the angel Gabriel, using a process known as Nazil, which implies a word-for-word transmission.

Thus, Muslims believe that the exact Arabic words that we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven.

Since Allah is infinite and transcendent, it stands to reason that his revelation would be infinite and transcendent. For instance, according to Sura 85:21 and 22, we read, “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Muslim scholars admit that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They contend that the Qur’an is an absolutely identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters is concerned. Why modern translations still can’t agree what those divisions are is evident when trying to refer to an aya (verse) between one version and another.

The Qur’an is the “Mother of books,” according to Sura 43:3. There is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, three times, in Suras 2:23, 10:37-38, and 17:88 we find the challenge to, “Present some other Sura or book of equal beauty.”

Thus this final revelation, according to Islam, is transcendent, and consequently, beyond the capacity for conjecture, or criticism. What this means is that the Qur’an which we possess today is and has always been final and pure, which prohibits any possibility for verification or falsification of the text.

Because Allah is revered much as a master is to a slave, so his word is to be revered likewise. One does not question its pronouncements any more than one would question a master’s pronouncements.

What then are we to do with the problems which do exist in the Qur’an? If it is such a transcendent book, as Muslims claim, then it should stand above any criticism. Yet, when we look more carefully at the text which we have in our possession today, that (supposedly) of Uthman’s final codification of the Qur’an, compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, from a copy of Hafsah’s manuscript, we are puzzled by the differences between it and the other codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, all of which have deviations and deletions between them. We are also puzzled by the many errors and contradictions in its text.

Other problems concern its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we are obliged not question its content, much of which originates (we are told) from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years). These Suras consist primarily of rules and regulations for seventh to ninth century social, economical, and political structures, leaving us with a document which is ill adapted to the twentieth century.

The Bible, by contrast is not simply a book of rigid rules and regulations, which takes a particular historical context and absolutizes it for all ages and all peoples. Instead, we find in the Bible broad principles with which we can apply to each age and each culture (i.e. worship styles, music, dress).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies today. Since we do not have a concept of Nazil revelation, we have no fear of delving into and trying to understand the context of what the author was trying to say (historical analysis).

But one would expect such from a revelation provided by a personal God who intended to be actively involved in the transmission of His revelation.

Perhaps this is the crux of the problem between the two views on revelation.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God. That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.”

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.” This He does by means of prophets, who are sent with a specific word for a specific time, a specific place, and a specific people.

Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable urge to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken (which we will refer to later). This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity. He took upon Himself the form of a human, spoke our language, used our forms of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we, who are human would better understand Him who is beyond all human understanding.

As we find in Hebrews 1:1,2:

“God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.”

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified!

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. One may prefer to call it a secondary revelation, as it is simply the witness by men to the revelation of God. The Bible tells about His life, speaking about what He said and did, and then expounds upon these teachings for the world today. Consequently, it is a book which points to a person. We can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself, to truly understand who God is.

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the comforter, convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the truest revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us.

For Muslims this must sound confusing, and possibly threatening. Perhaps to better explain this truth to them, we may want to change tactics somewhat. Instead of comparing the Qur’an with the Bible, as most apologists tend to do, it might be helpful to compare the Qur’an with Jesus, since they are both considered as the Word of God, and stand as God’s truest revelation to humanity.

The Bible (especially the New Testament), consequently, is the testimony of Jesus’s companions, testifying about what He said and did. To take this a step further, we could therefore compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira and the Tafsir, all of which comment upon the history and teachings of the prophet and the Qur’an. While this may help us explain the Bible to a Muslim we must be careful to underline that while the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning what He did, whereas the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with interpretations of what he said.

In this light, there is no comparison between the two revelations, Jesus and the Qur’an. The Qur’an, a mere book with all its faults and inadequacies, its very authenticity weakly resting on the shoulders of one finite man, who himself has few credentials as a prophet, is no match against Jesus, the man, revered by Muslims and Christians alike as sinless, who, according to His sinless word is God Himself, and therefore, the perfect revelation.

In light of Genesis 3 we would expect God to reveal Himself in this way, because that is what someone who desires a truly loving relationship would do. And this takes us to our seventh category, that of the incarnation.

C6: The Incarnation

Muslims would not accept that the perfect omnipotent God would choose to pollute Himself by coming amongst his creation, let alone live among them. Take for instance the pronouncement of the Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat who identifies humanity as equalling worms, or maggots. He says:

“These worms, you know, that go on manure, human dung. You and I according to this book of God, you are nothing more than a maggot… God Almighty goes out of His way to tell you. Look, this Jesus of mine is no exception… this Son of Man, who is only a worm, worm, a worm! (shouting out the word).”

It is not surprising then, that with such a chasm between Allah and his creation there is no room for the incarnation in Islam, because it implies that Allah needed to do something to help humanity, almost as if he had to correct a mistake, his mistake.

Muslims would not say that Allah is incapable of doing this, but that it is against His character to do so. For proof, they point to the complete humanity of Jesus. How would God debase Himself so?

Since Jesus had all the characteristics of a human, they throw the problem back into our laps, contending that this fact alone is proof that Christians started from the perspective of humanity and simply elevated a man to the position of God. For a Muslim this act is considered the most heinous of sins, as it is simple idolatry, what the Qur’an refers to as “Shirk” (see Suras 4:48; 5:75-76; and 41:6).

For Christians, the incarnation, on the other hand, stands as one of the cardinal examples of God’s love for His creation. God, desiring to be in relationship with humanity, as we noticed earlier, takes the initiative and comes Himself as a human.

What better way to communicate than to enter into relationship with the people with whom you want to communicate, be one of them, live with them, speak their language, cry with them, and use their methods and world-view to better explain your truth. It is much the same model we use as missionaries when going cross-culture.

We must remember that it was God who came down to the garden with Adam, and incarnated Himself there. If He did it at that time, then why should we be surprised if He chose to do it again?

Since Muslims don’t have this incarnational story in their Qur’an, it stands to reason that they cannot perceive God in that role.

In what capacity was He there? Is this an incarnation, or a theophany? Most likely it was the later.

Muslims are not aware of the theophanies which many Christians believe are found in our scriptures: such as Genesis 18:1-33 where He came as Abraham’s visitor; or in Genesis 32:25- 30 where He wrestled with Jacob; or in Exodus 3:2-5 at the burning bush with Moses; or in Exodus 13:21 where He appeared as pillars of cloud and fire leading the Israelites; and later in Exodus 33:9-11 appearing as a cloud at the tent of Meeting with Moses; and finally in Judges 2:1 where He came as an angel at Bokim.

Once Muslims understand that the supreme incarnation Jesus Christ had entered time and space before, it will then be easier for them to understand that God could come down again as the Christ, 2,000 years ago.

They will also then understand that in His desire to be continually in relationship with us, He continues even till this day to incarnate Himself by means of His Holy Spirit.

Yet, though we can understand why God would want to incarnate Himself, so as to better communicate His truth to us, that is only half the picture. He did not simply come to earth to reveal the gospel. He came also to repair that relationship with His creation which had been broken at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden.

C7: The Cross / Atonement

We now come to the eighth category for delineating how the hermeneutical key of Genesis 3 helps us understand the nature of God and ourselves.

Earlier we talked about sin and mentioned that sin separated us from God and needed to be repaired. God ordained in the Old Testament that after sins were committed, the offender should seek to atone for them in order to be reconciled with God (Leviticus 4:2). The way this should be done was stipulated in great detail in the book of Leviticus. It was by means of a sacrifice. The word atonement appears 79 times in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament the place of an animal sacrifice was taken by Jesus, who suffered in the place of the offender once for all (Hebrews 9:12,14,26-27; 10:10).

Ironically, the word for atonement is found only once in the New Testament. We know from the Bible, therefore, that our relationship with God has been repaired by means of this sacrifice, this atonement on the cross.

Muslims disagree with this, reasoning that it would be unjust of God to punish the innocent for the offence of the guilty. Jesus, therefore, the just, cannot suffer for someone else’s sin, that of the unjust, for this would be offensive to God’s concept of righteousness and justice. Each person, they believe, must pay the penalty for their own sin. What the Qur’an does not teach, is that the penalty for sin is death. Sin, for them, can merely be forgiven with a few words of pardon from Allah. Death is not required.

It is for this reason that the death of one of God’s prophets is appalling to Muslims. Why would Allah allow prophets to die? God has promised to protect his prophets, yet ironically the Qur’an does admit that prophets did suffer and die in Sura 3:183.

To say that God, while in the form of a man, died is even more audacious, as it not only implies the inadequacy of Allah to protect His prophets, but assumes that God as a man could not even protect Himself!

Consequently no atoning death is needed. Muhammad taught that the shedding of blood for the sacrifice of one’s sin did not bring forgiveness in Suras 6:164 and 53:38.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that blood is required. Furthermore, we believe that Christ as God on the cross is the only means by which complete atonement can be achieved. Atonement means a reconciliation with God after having rebelled against Him by breaking the covenant that He made with humanity, which is sin.

Atonement demands the shedding of blood. It is not sufficient to simply say someone is forgiven. It should not be difficult for Muslims to understand this, as they are familiar with the sacrifice of Ishmael, and that of Cain versus Abel. It is part of their history as well. Yet, have they dared to stand back and question why so much of Old Testament history, and that which is revealed in the previous scriptures speak of blood sacrifices? Have they bothered to question why they must sacrifice a goat at Eid; or why the goat must be unblemished? These are bridges which we can use with the Muslims to introduce the need for atonement.

Sin demands a punishment in order for justice to be served. The offender deserves to be punished, to be put to death. Since sin separates us from God, atonement reverses that process by returning us to God.

By punishing sin with death God expresses His righteousness (providing for the justice demanded by the sin), and by taking the punishment on Himself, He expresses His mercy. Apart from this there is no way for a righteous God to punish the heinousness of the sin and yet be merciful as well.

Both Muslims and Christians believe in justice. Justice is getting what we deserve. We deserve to die. Mercy, which both Muslims and Christians believe in, is not getting what we deserve. Yet, we don’t deserve to be pardoned if sin has not been dealt with. That is a false pardon, but it is that which Islam offers. What is needed is grace. We don’t deserve pardon, because we have not paid for our sins. Yet, God, by His atonement on the cross has paid for our sin, which we receive by His grace. Therefore, Grace is getting what we don’t deserve. Only Christ on the cross fulfils the price of sin, death, and provides the atonement for those who acknowledge that God has bought them back a second time (i.e. the story of ‘little John’ and his boat: “Little boat you are mine two times; I first made you, and then I bought you back again.”)

C8: Predestination (where you find yourself when you’ve missed your train)

Sura 9:51 says “Nothing shall ever befall upon us except what Allah has ordained for us.” For many
Muslims the idea that Allah has total control over all that happens, including history, gives them the security they crave.

The popular phrase “Insh’allah”, which means “if Allah wills it,” reflects this mentality.

All our actions both good and bad, they believe, are controlled by Allah. Consequently, it is Allah who brings about evil and good. There is no personal choice, and consequently no assurance of salvation, as it is Allah who decides what is to happen to us (Sura 16:93,95). What Muslims fail to acknowledge is that this belief smacks of the mechanical doctrine of predestination, a non-questioning acceptance of destiny and a resignation to fate, commonly termed Kismet (or Qismah) in Arabic, much like a master to a slave or an engineer to a robot.

This is total determinism. Humanity is judged and condemned for what they cannot help doing. This is also total injustice. One would expect such from a non-personal god, one who seeks total obedience. Gone is any hope of free will.

For some, Allah’s complete control leads to a fatalism and passivity; while for others, it frees the mind from matters over which it has absolutely no control. Kismet makes the Muslim fanatically self-sacrificing in war, yet resigned in defeat or in bereavement or in disaster, or in the presence of preventable evil such as epidemics (because these could fall under the “will of Allah”).

Without the context of relationship one would expect Allah to be in total control, his creation accepting his authority without questioning, as a robot with its maker.

Christianity, however, views this relationship quite differently. The Bible stands against the idea of a total pre- destination of humanity. While there is some room for interpretation within scripture concerning whether God totally predestines or merely has foreknowledge of our choices (reflected in the two traditions which speak to this issue best: Reformed vs. Arminian thinking), it must be remembered that these views are only argued within the context of one’s salvation.

Many Christians believe that we are given the option of free-will, that we are given the option to accept our saviour or reject Him (notwithstanding the theology of election). God woos us, and we respond. Depending on our decision, we are either saved or condemned, but the decision rests with us.

This form of choice reflects what a lover would do for his loved one. One cannot demand love, it must be earned. We respond to God’s love by accepting Him, because He first loved us, and made it possible for us to respond freely to that love. A true relationship, by its very nature, requires the possibility for both acceptance and rejection. Therefore, it is this kind of relationship between the creator and His created which is unique to the God of the Bible.

C9: Theocracy

The tenth category which I would like to deal with is that of the Kingdom of God, and follows on from our discussion on predestination, in that if we begin with a God who controls us so completely, then we would expect his kingdom to reflect that same control.

A transcendent God would desire a transcendent kingdom, where he would have absolute authority. The term for this kingdom in Islam is Khilafah, which constitutes a theocratic state on earth, controlled by the dictates of Allah, and maintained as an aspiration for all Muslims.

Allah’s blueprint for all of life is best exemplified by the control which would be established within the Khilafah, and would include social, political, economical, legal (Shari’ah) and religious functions. Modelled upon a seventh-ninth century scenario, with a Caliph at the head, it would be supported by a hierarchy of religious leaders (Ulema) who would be chosen from within the circle of Dar-al-Islam (house of Islam).

Jacques Ellul in his writings speaks of cities as the epitome of rebellion against God. Cities, he believes, are man’s extreme attempt for security, to be their own gods, to be in control, and away from the authority of God. Theocracy has much the same desire. One might argue that this view of the Kingdom of God found within Islam, the Khilafa, parallels what we find in Ellul’s cities, an attempt to create structures of security for ourselves, which in the end merely take over and supplant God.

Christianity, on the other hand perceives itself as made up of individuals who are sojourners passing through this world. This is not our home. Indeed, our home is where God is, in heaven, or with the Holy Spirit on earth. We yearn and desire to be with Him at all times.

While on earth, our security is with Him, via the Holy Spirit. Thus our relationship with Him, in whatever environment we find ourselves (either belligerent or welcoming), is what we seek after. We have no need for a physical Kingdom of God, as He is with us wherever we are. Because our security is in His hands, we have no need to recreate that security.

We, therefore, are not fearful of belligerent kingdoms, and ironically, historically we have thrived under persecution. Perhaps that is because sometimes it takes persecution to eradicate our carnal securities, to put us back on the “cutting edge,” and bring us back into God’s security, back into relationship with Him. Thus, we stand against a theocracy.

Speaking of history, Christianity has a number of examples of failed theocracies, such as: Solomon’s kingdom, Constantine’s religious state in the 4th century, the Reformationist experiment in Geneva during the 1500’s, and colonialism in this century. All of these are examples of failed human attempts to create their own security, while erroneously using the name of God for their authority, much as Islam continues to do.

C10: Jihad

One cannot talk of a Khilafa state without also bringing into the picture the means by which it is installed, that which Muslims term Jihad, or “striving.” While many Muslims are quick to point out that this only refers to peaceful forms of Da’wah (which means “to invite”), much as we have in our own missionary activity, history has shown that much of the expansion across North Africa, and into the southern reaches of Turkey, and also into India (under Aurangzeb) was carried out by forceful conquest, followed by an “Islamic Ambience” (i.e. influencing from above, by implementing Dhimmi laws and Jizya and Kharaj tax).

Perhaps an easy example for today would be that of the existing Islamic countries which refuse to open themselves up for the propagation of the gospel. It is understandable why a religion which is rigid and transcendental would require such a violent and rigid means of propagation and consolidation.

Compare that with Christianity, where we are never invoked towards violence but are demanded specifically to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them… and teaching them…” (Matt.28:19-20). We know that we are merely the vessels of the Word of God, a pen in the hands of a ready-writer. It is the Holy Spirit who has the task to convict and bring men and women to God. God Himself, who desires to bring His creation back to Himself, does so Himself. We are His mouthpiece, through which the Holy Spirit can work. And that brings us to our 12th category, that of the Spirit World.

C11: The Spirit World

Islam perceives the world within a Dualistic framework, which some believe was borrowed from Aristotelian thought (discussed earlier). Therefore, much of the current Muslim superstitions surrounding the fear of Jinns and spirits do not belong within an orthodox understanding of Islam. In fact, most scholars today point to pre-Islamic Arabic religions, which incorporated many Jinns in their beliefs, for the influence of demons and Jinn in Islam. Theologically speaking, Islam has no “excluded middle.” Consequently, Folk Islam has evolved over the centuries to fill this gap, and interestingly, now makes up two- thirds of the Islamic world.

Allah, who is impersonal, does not involve himself in the day-to-day goings-on of humanity. He does not intersect time and space, and work amongst his creation, and therefore does not fulfil the need, which all humans have, to be in contact with something bigger than themselves.

Christianity, which accepts God as personal, acknowledges the spirit world. Jesus often speaks about it, and warns against the evil forces which Satan controls. Yet, He doesn’t just leave His creation open to the whims of the evil one, but promises power over him and his cohorts by means of the Holy Spirit.

One would expect a personal God to value His contact with His creation, while providing a defense against those evil powers which seek to thwart His rule, as we find in Christianity.

C12: Prayer

Along those same lines, a God who desires relationship with His creation would also desire to communicate with them on an ongoing basis.

In Islam we find that individuals can only communicate to Allah by means of certain prescribed prayers, many of which are memorized and repeated verbatim, without any thought of a response from God. It is a one-way communication (i.e. the 5 pillars: Shahada = a programmed oath, Salat = a programmed communication, Sawm = a programmed penitence, Hajj = a programmed fellowship, Zaka t= a programmed giving)

In Christianity prayer is not at all conceived within the framework of a programmed formula. We wouldn’t converse to a friend this way, nor to our wife or husband, and certainly not to Him who is the focus of our life, our Saviour and Lord. Relationship requires a two-way communication, so we would expect that a loving God who desires our relationship would willingly and joyfully respond to our requests and praises to Him.

C13: Paradise

The final category which I will deal with is that of paradise, or heaven. In Islam, Paradise is a garden, with rivers (some of wine), fruits and large eyed virgins (Hourris); a very carnal and man-centered environment (Suras 55:56; 56:22,35-36), reflecting again a seventh-ninth century Arabic mentality.

Ironically, in Islam, men are promised the very things which they must abstain from in this life. Nowhere is there any mention of Allah in relationship with his creation in paradise. He is conspicuously absent. The Islamic aversion towards any contact between the creator and his created continues even till the end. Mankind is relegated to spending eternity filling up on fruit, wine and women.

Christianity, however, has a completely contrasting view of heaven, one that is absolutely God-centered. For it is here, in heaven, that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve finally return to full relationship with God. In heaven Eden is realized as it should have been. We are once again walking and talking with God, but in a new and invigorated garden.

In heaven the incarnation of God is fully realized, so that the relationship which He had intended from the very beginning comes to fruition. In heaven we come full circle. For every individual who accepts and acknowledges Christ’s relationship with them, brought about by means of the cross while on earth, will be allowed into a perfect and eternal relationship with God in heaven, as He had intended from the beginning.

D: Conclusion

So what can we say concerning this new hermeneutical key which we find in verses 8 and 9 of Genesis 3? Does it help us to better understand the gulf which exists between our two faiths? Can it be used to explain the Muslim and Christian views concerning who God is, who we are, and what God intends for us?

I believe it can, for if we use this key to compare we find that:

1. on the one hand, when we consider the Allah of Islam, we are confronted with a one-dimensional transcendent God who neither desires, nor is able to have a relationship with his creation.On the other hand, within the Biblical account we find substance to the concept of love and sin, because it is fashioned not only within the context of the Godhead but reflected within the relationship between the creator and His created. Love which creates the relationship, and sin, which destroys it.

2. On the one hand within Islam we find humanity created to serve and obey Allah, their sole responsibility that of viceregents on earth.On the other hand the Bible views the creation of humanity within the terms of a relationship, with a God who creates Adam to be much more than just a viceregent of the earth, but created to be His child whom He loves.

3. On the one hand we find an Allah who is totally one-dimensional, and singular, which excludes any possibility of how or where love and relationship originated.On the other hand we find that the fountainhead for relationship and love is exemplified within the Godhead itself, and is adequately described by the trinity, because only in the context of a God who is both three and one can true love have originated, which engenders relationship one with another, and which in turn gives us, who are made in His image, that same character.

4. On the one hand we find within Islam a concept of sin which is cheap and simplistic, because it does not take into account that which sin has destroyed, the relationship which only humans enjoy with their creator. Nor does it take into account the consequences of sin, which is death, both physical and spiritual.On the other hand the Bible not only acknowledges the heinousness of sin, and its consequence, but it speaks of a response, provided by God Himself on the cross, a more than adequate atonement for our sins, restoring that relationship with God which He had intended with Adam in the garden of Eden.

5. On the one hand we find the final revelation of Islam a mere book, the Qur’an, an echo of its creator, supposedly, though a book, totally transcendent, final, cold and non- verifiable.On the other hand the revelation which we hold most dear is that of God Himself, in the person of Jesus on earth. The Bible, which is merely a book written by men, though inspired, is only a secondary account of what the true revelation, Jesus, said and did, and to which we can refer to in order to know better who God is, and what He intends for our lives.

6. On the one hand, because of Genesis 3, we can now understand why Islam fails to acknowledge an incarnational God, as this would pollute his character.On the other hand, within a Christian framework, we would expect God to take on the form of a human since He had previously done so not only in Genesis 3 but subsequently as well, choosing to enter time and space to communicate and relate with His creation, both in history and now, by means of the Holy Spirit.

7. On the one hand, the cross and the atonement for Muslims make no sense, since without any true concept of the separation with God which sin causes, there is no need for a reparation, and thus no need for an atonement, or a saviour.On the other hand because Christianity is the only faith which points to the dilemma of a creator separated from His creation, through no fault of His own, it is the only faith, likewise, which adequately provides an answer to the separation which we all feel with our creator, a solution rendered by the creator, Himself, on the cross 2,000 years ago.

8. On the one hand a transcendent God would necessarily require a transcendent kingdom, exemplified in the Khilafa, a structured hierarchical entity which controls all aspects of human life, much as a master would control a slave. It would follow that the means by which individuals are brought in to the Khilafa, Jihad, also reflects this same distant and impersonal thinking.On the other hand the Biblical perception of God’s children is that of sojourners, incorporating, voluntarily, the kingdom within their hearts, in anticipation of the final and eternal kingdom of God, which we yearn for, but which we will only experience on the other side of death.

9. On the one hand a dualistic world, as Islam personifies, leaves no room for the work of God amongst His people. Allah, because he is distant, remains distant, not even attempting to communicate personally with his creation, demanding instead a blind and complete obedience to his rules and regulations.On the other hand Yahweh of the Bible, because He truly desires a relationship desires equally to communicate and involve Himself intrinsically with His creation; responding to prayers, while guiding and protecting His loved ones much as we would expect a true father to do.

10. And finally, on the one hand without any understanding of Allah in relationship with humanity, Islam delivers a view of paradise which is quite carnal and man-centered, an escape to all the desires which man is to repress in this life, with no inference at all to Allah’s presence. And humanly speaking, that possibly makes sense.On the other hand heaven for a Christian is where the relationship broken at the time of Eden is finally and completely restored, where the creator reunites with His created, coming full circle to offer humanity the life which He had intended from the very beginning, to be with Him in perfect relationship for eternity. Now this makes more sense.

So, essentially, what we have found in this discussion is that without a view of a God who is in relationship with His creation, all the other ramifications of our lives fall into a cold and calculated man-centered existence, devoid of God’s presence. Until Muslims understand that God is not just a one- dimensional transcendent being, but personal and loving, they won’t be able to understand the reason or the possibility for a loving God who can and did come to earth to rectify the moral dilemma of our sin.

And until they begin to step back and take a critical look at the authority for their beliefs: the Qur’an, Muslims will be condemned to limit their view of reality to that of the dualistic, black and white hues which it proposes, while neglecting the myriad of colours which reflect the true revelation of a God seeking to relate to each of His creation, personally, and in accordance to their individual needs, so that we all can live with Him in relationship, as was intended in the garden of Eden.

Furthermore, until Muslims see God and Man in the context of a loving relationship, as they were originally were in Eden, they won’t understand why sin has caused so much damage. Nor will they understand why we need to repair that which has gone wrong.

Islam, without a concept of the personal loving and sacrificial God, only has half the picture. God as Abba father wants to be in relationship with me and you His children, now more than ever before. The good news is that the possibility for a repaired relationship has been provided by God, both because of what happened on the cross 2,000 years ago, and subsequently, because of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today. We don’t have to wait for the “pie in the sky when we die, but can enjoy the steak on our plate while we wait.” It is that which gives us hope.

What remains is for us to speak, and go out and offer to our Muslim friends that which their revelation cannot offer; a true view of the creator-God in relationship with His creation; a relationship which, because of the fruit, was temporarily broken, but which, because of the cross, can be repaired at any time, anywhere, and by any one, loved and un-loved alike.