The Qur’an’s view of Christians: Sincere or Sinister?

Why are Muslims so hesitant to listen to Christians? Why are Christian views and arguments so often dismissed without any real consideration? Why do Muslims seem appreciative of Christian virtues and piety, yet refuse to consider Christian truth? Before one looks for answers from modern or medieval politics, or from culture or sociology, one should go to the heart and fountain of Islam, the Qur’an. Its references to Christians provide the basis for much of the ensuing history of Christian/Muslim relations. They also provide the basis for much of current Islamic attitudes and actions toward Christians and the West.

Qur’anic references to Christians are both positive and negative. Here are items of praise toward Christians. Some are sincere and pious, engaged in good works and pious in devotions. There is an Islamic emphasis of piety: reciting revelation during the night, falling prostrate in prayer, enjoining right conduct and forbidding indecency. Some show humility and entire devotion to God. Christians are said to be closer to Muslims than Jews and idolaters. (3:110-115,199; 5:82)

Some Christians are also praised for their character. Some are trustworthy with money (3:75), examples of moderation (5:66), merciful and compassionate following the example of Jesus (57:27). Sincere Christians are also said to not be worthy of hell (2:62; 5:69).

These few examples of praise, however, are overbalanced by verses warning of the wickedness of Christians. This wickedness is presented as being in beliefs as well as actions. For example, when Christians reject the Qur’an it is said to be due to unreasonable wickedness and deceit (3:21; 98:6; 5:49; 62:5). Christians are charged with knowingly concealing the fact of the Qur’an’s truth. Questioning the authenticity of the Qur’an proves one’s wickedness (2:146; 3:71; 5:15). Christians are also accused of using deception to proselytise Muslims even to the point of misrepresenting their own scriptures and using seductive tactics that misrepresent Islam (2:120; 3:78; 3:99,100; 4:44; 5:49). It is interesting to note that sincere concern for the truth or the eternal welfare of Muslims is never recognised as being a Christian’s true motive for desiring a Muslim’s conversion.

To these are added miscellaneous charges of wickedness. Some Christians will steal if entrusted with money (3:75). Most Christians are wicked in their lifestyles (3:110; 5:59,66; 57:27). Christians have a great hatred for Muslims in their hearts which they deceitfully hide (3:118,119). Christians rejoice when disaster befalls Muslims. They also act toward Muslims with guile (3:120). Christians compete with one another to make illicit profits (5:62). Christian priests don’t forbid their people’s sins and instead commit them themselves (5:63). Christian monks devour wealth wantonly and barr people’s way to the truth (9:34). Christians display pride, enmity and hatred in their factionalism among themselves (5:14; 30:32). Many of these do occur, to our shame. Most of these sins are ones that Jesus Himself condemned, especially concerning the Pharisees. The most serious aspect of these is that they are presented as the normal way of life for Christians, not as the exceptions.

To these are added accusations that Christians teach perverse doctrines. Christ’s Sonship is the prime example (9:30). Christians made a prophet out to be their Lord, ascribing deity to him, committing the supreme blasphemy (3:79,80; 4:48,171; 5:17; 9:31). Any reference to the Trinity is included in this. Christians disobey their own Book, stress falsehoods in their religion, and exaggerate in their teaching (5:66,77; 4:171). Monasticism and saint worship are condemned (57:27; 9:31). Before Muhammad came, Christians were lost in error. Islam and the Qur’an are the only remedies (98:1).

In view of these accusations, it is only natural for the Qur’an to warn Muslims about friendship with Christians. As a general rule Muslims are not to take Christians for friends, especially over Muslims (3:118; 4:144; 5:51,57). The only exception given is if you need to have them as your friend to guard your own security (3:28). To this basis add the events of history, current global politics, cultural and social dynamics. There is much to foster skepticism and paranoia among Muslims. Thankfully, most Muslims I have met are more open to Christian friendship than all of these factors encourage. Also, Muslim writers and teachers in the West often reduce the strength of the Qur’anic accusations by saying the Qur’an verses refer to specific instances in the life of Muhammad rather than presenting a general rule. Many Muslims have found Christians to be trustworthy and caring and let their experiences shape their attitudes. But even with these, it must be recognised that the Qur’an does not encourage Muslims to understand their Christian neighbours and embrace them in friendship. Instead, Muslims are encouraged to be on their guard. May we by our actions and words earn their trust and confidence.

Conclusions

The Qur’an promotes exceptionally negative views of Christians and Christianity. These views support Islamic convictions of superiority over Christianity. These negative views are a great obstacle to Muslims realistically considering the gospel. For the gospel to gain a hearing, these views must be challenged and overturned.

Two courses of action can overturn them. First, Christians need to live conspicuous lives of genuine love and holiness. Any practice or attitude that can be interpreted as deceitful, hateful, abusive, or demeaning has no place in our lives. We need to show Muslims love and compassion. Also, we cannot meet irrational dogmatism with anger, frustration, or exasperation. We need to be direct, but with courtesy and tact.

Second, we should clearly and patiently refute the Qur’an’s misrepresentations of Christian doctrine. The Qur’an’s challenges are superficial and can be answered historically, theologically, and scripturally with consistency and logic. There is nothing for us to apologise for in the mysteries of the Trinity or Christ’s Sonship. There are ways to talk about them with clarity, reverence, and persuasiveness. The Bible is the Qur’an’s great superior in truth, wisdom, and revelation. We need to seize the initiative on these topics and not let Muslims put us on the defensive.

Two of Paul’s admonitions to us from the Bible are appropriate to draw these thoughts to a close.

But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held by him to do his will.
2 Timothy 2:23-26

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
2 Corinthians 4:1-2

Presented by Keith E. Small, 6 December 1997

The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures

Antoin MacRuaidh

---

1. Introduction

Islam is a prophetic-revelatory religion whose faith and practice centres on its holy book, the Qur’an. Muslims believe that there have been one hundred and four revelatory books – ten to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Enoch, ten to Abraham, one to Moses, one to David, one to Jesus and one to Muhammad. All but those of Abraham, Moses David, Jesus and Muhammad have been taken up to Paradise, and the Book of Abraham is no longer extant. Those that remained, apart from that of Muhammad, are those revealed to Moses, the Tawrah (Torah), to David, the Zabur (Psalms), and that given to Jesus, the Injil(Gospel). The Mosaic and Davidic books mentioned in the Qur’an resemble the Jewish structure of the Tenak (Old Testament) – the Torah, Nebi’im and Kethubim – the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, the last-mentioned often termed ‘the Psalms’ after the first book in the section. Of course, there is no reference in the Qur’an to the Nebi’im, although Islam’s holy book does refer to a number of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, nor is there any reference to the Kethubim, and the reference to the Psalms being given to David indicates that only the individual book of that name is concerned, rather than the entire section of the Tenak sometimes denoted by the term.

The Muslim, as opposed to Qur’anic, charge of corruption against the Bible usually refers to al-tahrif al-lafzi, changing the actual text, rather than al-tahrif al-ma’nawi, misinterpreting such. It should be said at the outset that nowhere does either the Qur’an or the Hadith present us with the idea that the Books of Moses, David and Jesus have been lost, removed or even corrupted, despite the view of many Muslims on the issue. However, as we study the sources of Islamic revelation, we find that while there are similarities between the Jewish-Christian Scriptures and the Books mentioned in the Qur’an, there are also important differences. These distinctions, together with the obvious differences in theology between the Bible and the Qur’an, lie at the heart of the controversy over Scriptural identity between Islam and Christianity.

2. The Nature and Status of the Qur’an

The most difficult aspect of understanding the traditional Muslim view of the Christian Scriptures is caused by the distinct point of reference. Obviously, the Muslim looks at the Bible from the standpoint of that with which he is familiar – his holy book. A Muslim coming to the Bible for the first time finds it difficult to understand what he is encountering. It is not just that he has been continually regaled from infancy with tales of how the Bible has been changed. It is primarily because the nature, structure and teaching of the Bible do not adhere to that of the Qur’an. The Muslim, from his reading of the Qur’an,has a fixed idea not simply about the content of divine revelation (i.e. Islamic doctrine), but also its form and character. He looks at the Bible through the lens of the Qur’an, which he believes to be the ultimate inscripturated revelation from God. The holy book of Islam sets the pattern for the characteristic of an inspired Scripture. In order to see why the charge of corruption against the Bible has arisen among Muslims, we must first understand the nature of the Qur’an in Islam.

2.1 The Nature of the Qur’an

The Qur’an is believed by Sunnis (though not by Shi’is) to be the eternal, uncreated word of God. The source of this belief is found in the Qur’an itself, in the concept that there eternally exists in Paradise (and is therefore free from human influence) the Preserved Tablet, (Lawh-i-Mahfuz), the eternal Word of God, from which revelation descends to humanity. It is termed ‘The Mother of the Book ‘ (Umm-ul-Kitab). The Muslim Qur’anic translator and commentator Yusuf Ali says:

For: 43. 4

…The Mother of the Book, the Foundation of Revelation, the Preserved Tablet (Lauh Mahfuz. lxxxv. 22), is the core or essence of revelation…The Mother of the Book is in Allah’s own Presence…

The Islamic scholar Mawdudi states:

‘Umm al-Kitab’: the ‘Original Book’: the Book from which all the Books sent down to the prophets have been derived. In Surah Al Waqi’ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah al-Buruj: 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference…Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages…they brought one and the same Din (Religion). The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different…they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, he raised a prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion…

Hence, according to Islam, there is a certain degree of progressive revelation, but not in the Christian sense of the unfolding drama of redemption whereby purely temporary physical phenomena such as the Temple, the Levitical priesthood, the political state, etc., were superseded by the New Testament Church, the common priesthood of all believers (based on the eternal priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek) and the present Messianic Reign, or with respect to the gradual disclosure of Messianic prophecy. In the view of Islam, each book brought the same message, without any typological scaffolding such as prospective sacrifices for sin, etc., the major difference between the Books of Islam being that the previous scriptures predicted the coming of Muhammad, which the Qur’an records as fulfilled. Further, the nature of inspiration was the same, revelation being ‘sent down’ from the Eternal Tablet, and so, as we shall see in my other paper The Compilation of the Text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia dispute, Muslims naturally affirm that the process of canonical compilation was also identical.

It should also be noted that Mawdudi’s point about a prophet bringing ‘…subject matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion…’ in itself points to a difficulty Muslims experience with the Christian Scriptures. The ‘Great Commission’ in Matthew 28:18-20, where Jesus enjoins the universal proclamation of His message, contradicts Islamic dogma that all prophets prior to Muhammad were merely local messengers. As one Muslim author puts it,

…God was sending different prophets to the different nations. Jesus was one of these national prophets.

Necessarily, therefore, His Scripture was of purely local and temporary concern. This being the case, a further point in this regard which is often raised by Muslim apologists is the language of the gospels. We know that a principal reason for the New Testament being in Greek was because the Christian message was for all humanity, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman and Near Eastern world, comparable to the contemporary position of English today. Furthermore, Palestine itself had been heavily Hellenized since the time of Alexander the Great, as Martin Hengel has demonstrated. When Christ entered the Greek-speaking area of Tyre and Sidon, the Decapolis, or spoke to Roman officials such as the Centurion or Pontius Pilate, he evidently spoke in Greek, as it is most unlikely that the latter in particular would know either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, the usual Muslim position is that the true gospel must have been in Aramaic, since Jesus was a purely local prophet, and against all the evidence, Muslim polemicists hold that Jesus, as a Palestinian, would not have known Greek. Moreover, Muslims hold that revelation suffers in the translation, hence the reason that translations of the Qur’an are always qualified by titles such as ‘The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an’ (emphasis mine). Thus the Gospels are held to be unreliable simply because they are not in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Muhammad, however, being the Seal of the Prophets, was the universal Messenger for Mankind, S. 7:159; 21:107, and as his message was essentially the Qur’an, the same is true of his scripture – it alone was for all humanity. As the New Testament stands, the climactic and universal claims of Jesus give to Him, and thus to the New Testament itself, what Muslims hold in this respect belongs to Muhammad and the Qur’an. There is no theological and eschatological basis for future prophets and scriptures in the New Testament. Quite apart from the doctrinal problems this produces, it presents a picture of the previous Scriptures that does not tally with the Islamic idea of the characteristic of an earlier holy book. The Bible is self-sufficient and a complete, final revelation, and it is thus incompatible with the Qur’an on this basis.

2.2. Status of the Qur’an

Following from the idea that the Qur’an descends from an eternal Tablet in Paradise, we can see that a major problem is Christian-Muslim dialogue is the misunderstanding about comparison. Christians and Muslims often compare Muhammad to Christ, and the Qur’an to the Bible. Persons and Scriptures are compared with each other. On the Christian side, we make the point that the Bible reveals Christ – that it discloses him as the Word of God and the eternal Son of God, and that through faith in Him, and thus what is revealed about Him in the Bible, we receive eternal life, John 20:31. ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.‘, John 1:14, and He ‘…came from the Father, full of grace and truth.‘ However, in Islam, it is Muhammad who reveals the Qur’an, the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which became a Book and is recited among us.

Moreover, the Qur’an, in its instructions to men, is the key to the knowledge of salvation – necessarily so, for it is the revelation of God giving them the sign of how to walk the Straight Path of obedience to the divine will – Islam. It is often said of Muhammad by Muslims that ‘his life was the Qur’an.’ It can be seen that on this basis the Qur’an is not exactly equivalent to the Bible in the Christian understanding: rather, as the means of salvation, it stands in Islam where Jesus stands in Christianity. Just as Christians believe that the impartation of spiritual life by the Spirit of Christ enables us to walk in conformity with the will of God, Romans 8:9, so the internalization of the Qur’an enables the Muslim to live the life of perfect submission to God, as exemplified by Muhammad. The true contrast is between Muhammad and the Bible on the one hand, and Jesus and the Qur’an on the other. It is noteworthy that Islam calls Jesus Kalimat’Allah (‘a Word from God’) and Ruh’Allah (‘the Spirit of God’). The concept is clearly linked to the idea of revelation, and of prophets as instruments of this What is interesting in this regard is that the title ‘the Spirit of God’ is also applied to the Qur’an in the Hadith. This being the case, Christians can understand from their own concept of the Holy Spirit what is the nature of the Qur’an for Muslims.

The Qur’an, in its instructions to men, is the key to the knowledge of salvation – necessarily so, for it is the revelation of God giving them the sign of how to walk the Straight Path of obedience to the divine will – Islam:

Surah: 2. Baqara Ayah: 135

135. They say: ‘Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation).’ Say thou: ‘Nay! (I would rather) the religion of Abraham the true and he joined not gods with Allah.’

136. Say ye: ‘We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam).’

AL-MUWATTA of Imam Malik

Malik ibn Anas

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘I have left two matters with you. As long as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.’

This is often difficult for Evangelical Protestants to understand, given their belief in Original Sin, Free Grace and spiritual regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit on the basis of Christ’s salvific work on the Cross. Since Islam does not regard Man as innately corrupt, but rather as morally neutral, spiritual regeneration is unnecessary. Further, in Islam, sin is not a matter of lack of conformity to the nature of God, but concrete acts which contravene the divine will, as revealed in Islamic law (Shari’ah), based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah. On the same basis, the salvific effects of Christ at Calvary are likewise redundant, because Man, in obedience to the Islamic law, can indeed ‘save’ himself with the help of God in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It follows therefore that what is needed is purely the revelation of God instructing Man on how to walk as the Creator would have him behave. Hence the emphasis on the Qur’an as being the Guide to salvation. There is no sense of Substitutionary Reconciliation or Federal Headship in Islam, because there is no concept of one being saving another. Nor is there the same inter-action between God and Man on the earthly scene. Rather, the transcendent deity sends down the Divine Guidance to salvation through angelic and human intermediaries, and the rest is up to Man himself. We may infer from this that the ultimate answer to Muslim attacks on the Bible is not textual, but Christological.

This being the case, it can be understood why a Muslim, looking at the Christian Scriptures in the light of the nature of the Qur’an, cannot fathom their character, especially given the absence of ‘legalism’ in the New Testament. The Qur’an points to itself as the ultimate revelation of God and means of relation to Him, whereas the Bible points to something – or rather someone – external to itself in this respect. Given, the nature of the holy book of Islam, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to revere the Qur’an. We can see why Salman Rushdie ‘s book, The Satanic Verses, caused so much offence – he committed the equivalent of blaspheming Christ. Islamic jurisprudence states that the Qur’an must not be treated with disrespect, so one must not write in it, or place in on the floor, etc.

A further point worthy of note in this regard is that the nature and status of the Qur’an flow from the belief that it is the miracle of Islam and Muhammad. Muhammad is said to have received revelations during a trance, and that extraordinary phenomena were associated with this, such as strange sounds, being gripped by an angel, perspiring in winter, etc. This indicates that both the act of inspiration and the contents thereof were miraculous. Muhammad himself specifically denied that he performed any miracle, other than conveying the Qur’anic revelation. Many Muslims believe it is impossible to read the Qur’an – at least in Arabic – without being converted to Islam. The claims to its being miraculous mainly relate to its language and style (hence the importance of its being read in Arabic). This in itself makes it difficult for a Muslim to accept the Bible as true Scripture, since its style in so many places is different from his holy book. Unlike the Bible for the most part, the Qur’an is written in a kind of rhythmic prose. This purportedly makes it easier to memorise. von Denffer uses the example of Surah 112 Al-Ikhlas:

Qul huwa llahu ahad

Allahu samad

Lam yalid wa lam yulad

wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad

Thus, an encounter with the Qur’an is similar to the experience of Paul on the Damascus Road when the Christophany (manifestation of the Risen Christ) revealed the Son of God in his life, transforming him therein. The Qur’an is its own self-authenticating miracle, the evidence that Islam is the revelation of God. We may compare the way the Resurrection of Jesus is presented as the authenticating miracle of God which demonstrates the truth of His claims to Divine Sonship, Romans 1:4. Again, Muslims do not see the Bible as making quite the same claims about itself (although Paul makes the claim for the gospel that it is the power of salvation, Romans 1:16).

3. The Nature of the Books of Moses, David and Jesus

3.1 The Character of Inspiration and Authorship

In many ways the subject matter of this section belongs under the previous heading, since the character and mode of the inspiration of the Qur’an is crucial to understanding why the Books of Moses, David and Jesus mentioned in the Qur’an do not conform to the Muslim model of Scripture. However, in order to give a more immediate comparison with the Christian Scriptures, it is pertinent to address the issue here.

Whilst there are examples of Divine dictation in the Christian Scriptures, notably the command to inscripturate the Decalogue, Exodus 34:27-28, such is not the norm with respect to the entire Bible. The Christian concept of Scriptural inspiration is theanthropic – a coterminous work of God and Man, the latter being protected from error by the influence of the Holy Spirit, a concept usually called supervision, referring to the condescension of God in revealing His mind and will through human instrumentation and personality. To give an analogy from music, a ballad played on an Irish harp gives the sound of the strings, but the melody it expresses is that of the composer. Likewise, the same is true of a dirge by the same composer performed on Scottish bag-pipes by another player. The tune, theme and performer may be different in each case, and the personality of the individual musician will be obvious in the performance, but the composer is the same in both cases, and with respect to the Scriptures, we can be sure that God has chosen adequate performers!

The Scriptures are ‘God-breathed’ (qeopneustos – theopneustos) 2 Timothy 3:16, but are simultaneously the genuine work of human beings, as indicated by the reference in 2 Peter 3:15-16 ‘…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote 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.’ Hence, Both God and Paul were the Authors of Paul’s epistles, the former supernaturally inspiring the latter. 2 Peter 1:21 expresses it perfectly – ‘For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.’

This view is difficult for Muslims to understand. The Christian idea of supervision is analogous to the concept of hadith in Islam – the words of the Prophet, often with commentary by the narrator, true, divinely protected from error, and expressing the mind and will of the Almighty, but not usually direct revelation from the mouth of God. Hence, to a Muslim, the Gospel of Matthew at best seems a mish-mash of hadith and direct revelation – the words of God the Father, Jesus and the Historian writing the book. The Christian apologetic writer William Campbell addresses this issue by presenting how, for example, Luke 8:19-21 would look if presented in Islamic fashion:

According to James, the half-brother of Jesus (may God be pleased with him) the occasion for the revelation of Luke 8:21 was as follows,

Now my mother and brothers and myself came to see Jesus, but we were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.’

And then the verse was revealed, ‘My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.’

This Hadith was transmitted by Luke and Mark in their books, which (along with those of Matthew and John) are the most valuable among the collections of Hadiths.)

Only the portion in bold would be regarded as Injil, and this would be recorded as a separate book from the hadith material.

Ahmad Deedat, viewed by many Muslims as their most effective anti-Christian apologist, presents the idea of ‘three grades of evidence’ – the Word of God, the Words of a Prophet of God, and the Words of a Historian. He goes on to claim

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind.

{It should be noted that Deedat ignores elements in the Qur’an where others than God are held to be speaking in the first person – the classic case being Zechariah and Mary in Surah 19 Maryam, as well as other texts where Iblis, the jinn who became Satan, the Quraish, the prophet Jesus, whom Islam denies to be divine, and others, all speak. Moreover, as explained in my other paper The Compilation of the text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia dispute, Muslims themselves hold that the Qur’an is incomplete without the Sunnah, revealed in the Hadith literature, which comments upon and explains the Qur’anic text. To deny the central import of the Sunnah is heresy, as can be seen from the words of a Muslim scholar on the subject:

…whoever believes in the Qur’an… must rely on… these reports of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet… a very large number of these Traditions form a valuable explanatory supplement to the Qur’an.

The nature of the Hadith is parallel to those very aspects of the gospels (and even epistles) which Deedat derogates – inspired historical comment and explanation. Whilst Evangelical Christians state that their source of authority is the Bible alone, Muslims always refer to their sources of authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, the complete authority for Islam is analogous to the Bible itself! Deedat is hung on his own petard.}

With regard to the Islamic view of the inspiration of the Qur’an, however, the nature and mode of inspiration was dictation, through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel. Essentially, the mode of revelation to Muhammad, apart from when the angel appeared to him, was usually one of trance. Again, we can see a major difference between the Christian and Islamic concepts of the mode and nature of inspiration. Apart possibly from the Apocalypse, the Christian concept is one whereby the agent of revelation is consciously involved in the formation of the scripture, although under divine guidance and protection from error. In the Islamic schema, however, the very fact that the recipient of revelation is in a trance indicates that he is merely a passive instrument of the divine will, like the pen of a writer, naturally so since a trance-like condition precludes conscious activity. The very word ‘Qur’an‘ probably derives from qara’a – to read or recite; the word iqraa – ‘speak’ is related to it. We see examples of this in the command to read or recite in the text itself, for example, the first text to be revealed, Surah: 96. Iqraa Ayah: 2. Hence the Prophet merely recited what had been dictated to him.

This is directly pertinent to our theme. In many ways the essence of Islam is the claim of Muhammad to be the ultimate prophet and apostle of God, in the line of Adam and Abraham. The collegiality of the divine messengers is a central tenet of Islamic faith. The nature of prophetic inspiration is necessarily the same with regard to all the messengers of God, as Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 163 implies (q.v. footnotes). Hence, if Muhammad was a passive instrument in the revelation of the Qur’an, it follows that the same was true of other prophets. They did not participate in the authorship of the Books associated with their names; rather, they simply recited what was dictated to them. This can be seen in Surah 57 Hadiid Ayah 27, with its reference to Jesus having the Gospel ‘bestowed’ (Arabic aty’na’hu) on him; note also the role Gabriel played in bringing revelation to Jesus:

Surah: 2. Baqara Ayah: 87

87. We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles;

We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit..

Hence, the Muslim idea is that Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, inspired Jesus the same way he revealed Scripture to Muhammad. It can be seen that a great deal of confusion is caused when Christians and Muslims tell each other that they both believe that Scripture comes by inspiration of the Holy Spirit; both the nature of inspiration and the identity of the Holy Spirit are very different in the distinct religious schemas. The references to the Book of Moses and the Psalms of David in the Qur’an likewise reflect this concept. Thus, for Muslims, the superscription in Psalm 51 ‘A psalm of David’, which claims authorship for David himself, and the text of which actually demonstrates this claim, illustrates that whatever the Biblical books may be, they are not the texts to which the Qur’an refers. For example, Ahmad Deedat states:

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the ‘Torah’ of the Jews and the Christians… Moses was notthe author of the ‘books’ attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David)… but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation… What about the Injeel?… of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus.

Mawdudi similarly states:

There exists a common misconception about the Torah (Taurat) and the Gospel (lnjil) for the people generally take the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) for the Torah, and the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament) for the Injil. The misconception creates doubts about Revelation itself and a question arises, ‘Are these books really the Word of God? And does the Holy Quran really confirm all their contents?’ As a matter of fact, the Torah, which the Quran confirms, is not the Pentateuch but is contained in it, and the Injil is not ‘the four Gospels’ but is within these books.

The Taurat consists of those commandments and injunctions which were given to Prophet Moses (Allah’s peace be upon him) during his Prophethood, which lasted for about forty years. Of these were the Ten Commandments which were inscribed on stone tablets and delivered to Moses on Mount Tur: as regards the remaining Commandments and injunctions he himself had put down in writing. Then he handed one copy of the Torah to each of the twelve tribes of Israel for guidance. One copy was entrusted to the Levites for safe custody, which along with the stone tablets, was deposited in the Ark.

That Taurat remained quite safe and sound as an entire book up to the first destruction of Jerusalem. But, by and by, the Israelites grew so indifferent to and negligent and unmindful of it that when the Temple of Solomon was under repair during the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah, the high priest came across it by chance but did not know that it was the Torah; he thought it was only a Law book and passed it on to the Royal Scribe as a curio. The latter presented it to king Josiah who tore his clothes and ordered Hilkiah and others to consult the Eternal about the terms of the book. (2 Kings, 22:8-13). Such was the condition of the Israelites when Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, and they lost for ever even the very few copies of the Torah which had long lain neglected in some forgotten niches. The Old Testament was compiled by Ezra, when the Israelites returned home to Jerusalem after their captivity in Babylon and built the Temple anew. Ezra gathered together some prominent men of his community, and with their help compiled the whole history of Israel which now comprises the first 11 books of the Bible. Of these Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy tell the life history of Prophet Moses and include those verses of the real Taurat which became available to Ezra and his assistants, who incorporated them in those books at appropriate places in the chronological order of their revelation. Thus it is obvious that the Pentateuch as a whole is not the Taurat but includes it. The real Taurat comprises those verses which are scattered all over the life story of Prophet Moses, and it is not difficult even today to locate and recognize them. Such portions where the author says, ‘God said to Moses,’ or Moses said ‘the Lord your God says,’ the Taurat begins, and where the narrative of the life story is resumed, there that part of the Taurat ends. At those places the author of the Bible has inserted certain things by way of explanation or commentary, and it is here that the ordinary reader fails to distinguish the real Taurat from the commentary. However, those who have an insight into the nature of Divine Scriptures, can distinguish, to some degree of exactness, the explanatory notes from the revealed verses.

According to the Quran, only such scattered portions in the Pentateuch are the Taurat and it confirms them alone. And this can be testified by putting together these verses and comparing them with the Quran. Here and there one might come across a minor difference in their details, but one cannot find even the slightest difference between the fundamental teachings of the two. Even today one can see clearly that both the Scriptures have come from the same source.

Likewise, the Injil is the name of those inspired discourses and sayings which Jesus (Allah’s peace be upon him) uttered as a prophet during the last couple of years of his life. We have no means now of ascertaining whether these pious utterances were recorded and compiled during the lifetime of Jesus. In the introduction to his translation of the Bible, Moffat says, ‘Jesus wrote nothing and for a time his immediate disciples felt no impulse to write any account of him. The data of the historical Jesus, therefore is based on the vivid recollections and traditions of the primitive Palestinian disciples. How soon their materials took written shape we cannot tell, but at least one written record of them was probably in existence by about A.D. 50.’ Anyhow, when, long after his recall, the stories of Jesus were compiled in the shape of four Gospels, (the period of the composition of Mark, the first to be composed was 65-75 A.D.), some of his written or inspired sayings were also inserted at appropriate places in the historical sketches. Thus it is obvious that the first four Gospels are not the Injil, the discourses and sayings of Jesus, but they contain it. . We have no means of recognizing them from the works of the authors except this; Wherever the authors say, ‘Jesus said so or taught so and so’ there the Injil begins and whence they resume the narration, there it ends. According to the Quran, only such portions are the Injil and these alone are confirmed by it. If these portions are compiled together and compared with the Quran, one will find no serious difference between the two, and, if somewhere a trivial difference appears, it can be removed very easily with unbiased thinking.

However – and this must be emphasised – this commonly-held belief among Muslims about the corruption of the Biblical text is not supported by the Qur’an itself. Nowhere does the Qur’an distinguish between the Zabur and the Biblical Psalms of David, or between the Taurat and the Pentateuch, or between the Injil and the New Testament. It never advocates that the original books of the Prophets associated with Moses, David and Jesus have ceased to exist or been textually distorted. As we shall see, the Qur’an throughout presumes that the books to which it refers remain extant and in the possession of the Jews and Christians, and continuing to be the authoritative holy scriptures of the earlier Abrahamic confessions among whom the nascent Muslim community co-existed. Whatever the nature and mode of revelation and prophetic inspiration, the Qur’an clearly holds that the books of the three prophets were actually those in contemporary use by the People of the Book.

3.2 The Content of the Prophetic Books

As we have seen, a fundamental belief of Islam is the unity of the prophets. Surah Al-i-Imran 3:67 claims that Abraham was a Muslim rather than a Jew or a Christian. As Muhammad is considered as an Abrahamic Apostle, perfecting but reiterating the kernel of the revelation given to those who came before him, it is essential to claim that all prophets were Muslims with identical messages – specifically Islam, and that this was the religion of the Patriarchs (Surah Baqara 2:135-136). Muhammad is presented as being in the Patriarchal tradition, and the prophets are seen as prototypes of the Last Prophet. Linked to this idea is the crucial concept of Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. Just as the prophets all brought the same message, it follows that the essential teaching of their scriptures is the same. If this is the case, then when Muslims discover something in the Bible which contradicts Islam, it necessarily follows in their minds that Jews and Christians have altered their Scriptures, since there is a uniformity in divine revelation, as can be seen from the Qur’anic exposition of the ministry of certain prophets. To a Muslim, whatever Muhammad preached must be, in essence, what Abraham, Moses and Jesus proclaimed. There cannot be any distinction in their messages. For example, they all preached about the Antichrist (Ad-Dajjal al-Masih).

At times we can hear echoes of Biblical themes and stories in the Qur’an, but the differences in the contents of the biographical and kerygmatic material in the latter do not match the former. A crucial difference is the concept of Prophetic impeccability in Islam – ‘isma – prophets are free from sin. Sunnis and Shia dispute over the extent of the privilege of ‘isma: the former apply it from the time the prophetic ministry begins, whilst the latter view it as effective from birth. Certainly, however, it would be impossible for a man to sin once his prophetic ministry was in operation. For this reason alone, Psalm 51, being a text of repentance and supplication for forgiveness of the sin of David with respect to Uriah the Hittite is incomprehensible to Muslims. There is no reference in the Qur’an to David’s adultery with Bathsheba or murder of Uriah. The very idea horrifies Muslims, and is used in their propaganda against the Bible.

Most obviously, the idea that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, or God Himself, clearly contradicts the Qur’an, which explicitly denies these assertions. The Qur’an also contains material about Jesus not present in the New Testament; for example, it refers to the miracles of Jesus as an infant, such as creating clay birds, Surah Al-i-Imran 3:49, and speaking whilst yet in the cradle, Surah Maryam 19: 29-30. There is no support in the canonical scriptures for these assertions. It is possible that these ideas originated with the visit to Muhammad of the Christian delegation from the Arabian state of Najran. In the sira (biography of the Prophet) of Ibn Ishaq it is stated that the group was sixty strong, and included the political leader of Najran, Abdu’l-Masih, an administrator called al-Ayham, and a renowned bishop and theologian named Abu Haritha. The Mawdudi states that verses 33-63 of Surah 3, Al-i-Imran, were revealed at Medina at the time of the visit. According to the sira, they informed the Muslims that Jesus was God; the son of God; the third person of the Trinity ‘…which is the doctrine of Christianity.’ They supported their claims by pointing to his miracles. These apparently included making ‘…clay birds and breathe into them so that they flew away; and all this was by the command of God Almighty, ‘We will make him a sign unto men.”

The delegation pointed out Jesus had no human father, and that He ‘…spoke in the cradle…’ Further, they argued that Jesus is ‘…the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded… if He were one he would have said I have done… but He is He and Jesus and Mary.’ The text goes on to say that the Qur’an (i.e. Surah Al-i-Imran) came down in answer to these assertions. The references to ‘clay birds’ derives from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and the ‘cradle’ story is taken from the so-called Gospel of the Infancy which is itself dependent upon the Gospel of Thomas.

The Qur’an asserts that holy war – jihad – is enjoined both by itself and by the Law and the Gospel. Whilst obviously the wars of the People of God in the Old Testament are somewhat analogous to this concept, especially the conquest of Canaan, there is no corresponding New Testament idea of sacred physical violence. The idea of ‘Crusade’ commands no support from the New Testament, and is indeed forbidden. Rather, the Christian ‘Holy War’ is specifically spiritual in nature – against demonic forces, not against human beings. Probably the most serious problem is that the Qur’an states that the advent of Muhammad was prophesied in both the earlier holy books. It is frequently claimed by many Muslims that Christian and Jews know this truth but have changed their Scriptures to conceal the predictions of Muhammad. Appeal is made to texts which impeach the character of Jews and Christians on the grounds that they are perverted transgressors. Yusuf Ali makes this assertion in his commentary. Considering the centrality of the prophethood of Muhammad for Islam, specifically in his role in bringing the Qur’an, we can see how glaring an omission this is for Muslims.

Nonetheless, whatever the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, there is no evidence that the former is aware of any distinction between either the content or identity of the Christian holy books and the Qur’anic Taurat, Zabur and Injil.

3.3 The Identity of the Gospel

The crux of this matter will be addressed in the next section. One problem is that the Qur’an speaks of a single Injil, yet Muslims are often puzzled by the presence of four gospels in the New Testament, all ascribed to the evangelists rather than directly to Jesus Himself. This in itself has led some Muslims to believe in the textual corruption of the Christian Scriptures. For example, Yusuf Ali says in his textual commentary

The Injil…spoken of by the Qur-an is not the New Testament. It is not the four gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel, which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught.

However, it is likely that the term Injil was used in a technical sense for the whole New Testament, as Torah can be used for the whole Tenak. This is especially likely when we consider that the earliest definitive contacts of Muhammad with Christians were with a monk in Syria called Bohira. The Syrian Church had a translation of the gospels into Syriac, called the Diatessaron, made by Tatian the Assyrian around 172 A.D. It is most probable that the existence of a single document with which Muhammad was familiar is responsible for the Qur’an presenting the Christian Scriptures in the singular.

In passing, it should be noted that Ahmad Deedat commits a faux pas in this respect, and seems actually to contradict the Qur’an. He says ‘In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.’ Yet the Qur’an implies that the Injil had indeed been reduced to written material, and since the Muslim view of authorship would require either Him or an assisting scribe to inscripturate the revelation, it would seem that Deedat will have to revise his assertion.

4. The Integrity of the Bible in the Qur’an and Hadith

4.1 Qur’anic Testimony for the Extancy and Integrity of the Bible

All Qur’anic references to the books of Moses, David and Jesus seem to assume that the original revelation was still with the ahl-i-kitab. It is inconceivable that the People of the Book could read the Scripture with the right reading unless they possessed the uncorrupted text. It is clear that the ahl-i-kitab still possessed the original revelations from God – and these must have been the texts which we call the Bible. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says of Surah 2 Baqara Ayah 87/89:

The Jews, who pretended to be so superior to the people without Faith – the Gentiles – should have been the first to recognize the new Truth – or the Truth renewed – which it was Muhammad’s mission to bring because it was so similar in form and language to what they had already received. But they had more arrogance than faith. It is this want of faith that brings on the curse, i.e., deprives us (if we adopt such an attitude) of the blessings of God.

A similar verse makes the same point. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says of this ayah

I think that by ‘the Book of God’ here is meant, not the Quran, but the Book which the People of the Book had been given, viz., the previous Revelations. The argument is that Muhammad’s Message was similar to Revelations which they had already received, and if they had looked into their own Books honestly and sincerely, they would have found proofs in them to show that the new Message was true and from God. But they ignored their own Books or twisted or distorted them according to their own fancies…

For the ahl-i-kitab to look ‘into their own Books honestly and sincerely’ and thereby discover the ‘proofs’ therein they must have still possessed the original true Books of God. The text nowhere indicates that they changed or distorted the truth of God, simply that they ignored such.

Surah 3:113 refers to the ahl-i-kitab who were continuing to recite ‘the revelations of Allah’. Surely, the ‘revelations of Allah’ which they recited were the Jewish holy books, i.e. the Bible (or at least the Old Testament – the reference is to the Jews of Medina) – indicating the extancy of the Scriptures of Moses and David. They scarcely recited the Qur’an, else they would not be called ahl-i-kitab, since they would have become Muslims. Later, v119 states that Muslims believe in the ‘whole Book’, which Mawdudi renders as ‘…all the revealed Books.‘, indicating, as he himself states, that the reference is to the Torah. The concept looks back to the idea of the Qur’an as the completion of the revelatory process which bestowed the earlier Scriptures. This view of continuing extancy is confirmed by texts indicating that both the Taurat and the Injil were still in contemporary existence at the time of Muhammad, and still being used by the People of the Book, the most telling being Surah 5 Maida Ayah 43ff. The text of v43 implies that the Torah is sufficient for judgment, not needing the Qur’an, and that it was extant ‘…they have the Torah…’ Moreover, v44 indicates that it was the same text by which the Prophets, and other officials of the Israelite religion judged the people. In saying this, it is naturally affirming that the contemporary holy book was the same revelation used in Biblical times. Further, it is identified as ‘Allah’s Scripture‘. With respect to v47, it is surely obvious that in order for Christians to ‘judge’ in this way, the true Gospel must still have been in common possession, and thus the Injil must be that to which Christians refer as the New Testament. Note that the text says ‘the Gospel wherein isguidance and a light’ – indicating the continued presence of the true Gospel. Similarly, Surah 5:69 bemoans the failure of the People of the Book to adhere to the Bible. In order for the ahl-i-kitab to ‘stand fast’ by the Torah and Gospel, such must have been extant in its original form. It is significant that Mawdudi identifies the Torah references as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. The text attacks them for failing in their conduct to follow their revelations, not for distorting the text thereof. Indeed, v71 goes on to warn the Jews and Christians that they have no ground upon which to stand, unless they follow the guidance in the Torah and Gospel. Given the fact that modern Muslim polemics engage in attacking practically every distinctive tenet in the Bible, and arguing that the texts are corrupted, one would have expected the Qur’an to say that the ahl-i-kitab will have no secure ground until they ignore the guidance in ‘their distorted‘ Torah and Gospel! The imperative in the Qur’anic text is incomprehensible if the Scriptures had indeed been falsified.

A very telling text in support of Biblical integrity is Surah 16 Nahl Ayah 43. The text calls upon pagans to question the possessors of earlier divine revelations about the prophets. Yusuf Ali’s Commentary on 16. 43 says;

If the Pagan Arabs, who were ignorant of religious and other history, wondered how a man from among themselves could receive inspiration and bring a Message from Allah, let them ask the Jews, who had also received Allah’s Message earlier through Moses, whether Moses was a man, or an angel, or a god. They would learn that Moses was a man like themselves, but inspired by Allah…

Mawdudi agrees with this interpretation:

‘… people who possess Admonition’ are the scholars of the people of the Books and others, who…had sufficient knowledge of the teachings of the revealed Books and were acquainted with the stories of the former Prophets.’

The point is, if the Torah had been corrupted by this time, it would surely be unhelpful to ask the People of the Book for help in this respect. What is even more startling and even more problematic for those Muslims purveying the idea of Biblical corruption is Surah 10 Yunus Ayah 95, where Muhammad himself is enjoined to question the ahl-i-kitab if he has any doubts. There would be no point in such an action unless the Scriptures they held were genuine and in common possession Similarly, the confession of faith in the Books of God in Surah 29 Ankaboot Ayah 46 is incomprehensible if the Biblical text had been distorted.

In several places the Qur’an accuses at least some of the ahl-i-kitab of concealing the truth of Scriptures, e.g. 2:101, 140, 146, 159, 174; 3:70, 71; 3:187; 6:91, 92. However, the emphasis in these texts seems to be on the Israelites suppressing in their own lives the authority of the Scripture by their misconduct. The Christians are probably not the subject in these verses. The text of Surah 6:91-92 is significant in this respect:

Surah: 6. An-aam Ayah: 91

91. Those are they whom Allah guideth, so follow their guidance. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee for it. Lo! it is naught but a Reminder to (His) creatures.

92. And they measure not the power of Allah its true measure when they say: Allah hath naught revealed unto a human being. Say (unto the Jews who speak thus): Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for mankind, which ye have put on parchments which ye show, but ye hide much (thereof), and by which ye were taught that which ye knew not yourselves nor (did) your fathers (know it)? Say: Allah. Then leave them to their play of cavilling.

Apparently, the Jews still possessed the Torah on parchments – as was their common practice in Biblical times.

4.1.1 Changed Words?

What references there are to changing words, as in 2:59; 2:211; 7:162; all seem to indicate that the Children of Israel did not abide by what was revealed, but rather followed their own desires, and in each case it is said that God punished them for so-doing. Surah 2 Baqara Ayah 58 is an example of this. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says:

This probably refers to Shittim. It was the ‘town of acacias,’ just east of the Jordan, where the Israelites were guilty of debauchery and the worship of and sacrifice to false gods (Num. xxv. 1-2, also 8-9); a terrible punishment ensued, including the plague of which 24,000 died. The word which the transgressors changed may have been a pass-word. In the Arabic text it is ‘Hittatun’ which implies humility and a prayer of forgiveness, a fitting emblem to distinguish them from their enemies…

The only ‘Ayah’ (verse) that may support the idea of distortion is Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 44. It should be noted that nowhere in this verse is there a claim of falsification of scripture; rather, as Yusuf Ali’s commentary explains, the reference is to Jews who opposed Muhammad by mispronouncing words:

A trick of the Jews was to twist words and expressions, so as to ridicule the most solemn teachings of Faith. Where they should have said, ‘We hear and we obey,’ they said aloud, ‘We hear,’ and whispered. ‘We disobey.’ Where they should have said respectfully. ‘We hear,’ they added in a whisper, ‘May you not hear,’ by way of ridicule. Where they claimed the attention of the Prophet, they used an ambiguous word apparently harmless, but in their intention disrespectful…. ‘Raina’ if used respectfully in the Arabic way, would have meant ‘Please attend to us.’ With a twist of their tongue they suggested an insulting meaning, such as ‘O thou that takest us to pasture!’ or in Hebrew. ‘Our bad one!

Yusuf Ali’s Commentary on 2:75ff says

The Jews wanted to keep back knowledge, but what knowledge had they? Many of them, even if they could read, were no better than illiterates, for they knew not their own true Scriptures, but read into them what they wanted, or at best their own conjectures. They planned off their own writings for the Message of God. Perhaps it brought them profit for the time being; but it was a miserable profit if they ‘gained the whole world and lost their own souls’ (Matt. xvi. 26). ‘Writing with their own hands’ means inventing books themselves, which had no divine authority.’

It is noteworthy that Yusuf Ali does not contend that the Jews changed the Torah. Rather, the Qur’an seems to imply that the Jews added to Scripture, and misinterpreted such. Moreover, there is not necessarily reference to all Jews everywhere here (it refers to some Medinan Jews) and certainly none to Christians.

4.2 The Testimony of the Sunnah Concerning the Bible

The testimony of the Sunnah is important for our understanding of the Qur’an, since the Sunnah of Muhammad is viewed by Islamic theologians as the sacred and ideal model. This concept derives directly from the Qur’an. Further, Muhammad’s speech was no ordinary converse; rather, it was divinely inspired. Muhammad was given the responsibility of explaining the Qur’an. The Sunnah of Muhammad was therefore the enacted exposition of the Qur’an, the essential hermeneutic of Islam’s Holy Book. Hence, the attitude and practice of Muhammad to the Scriptures used by the Jews and Christians of his time present an authoritative declaration of the trustworthiness or otherwise of these revelations.

4.2.1 Recitation of the Torah

There are several cases where Muhammad refers to the contemporary recitation of the Torah. There is nothing in these texts to suggest that Jews and Christians have corrupted the Bible. In one case the allegation is simply that they do not practice what is enjoined therein. For this hadith to have any meaning, the ahl-i-kitab must have still possessed the uncorrupted Bible. In another, Muhammad simply refers to the fact that the Jews sought to dazzle the Arabs with their knowledge of the Book in its original language and the latter were unable to refute their interpretations because of it. He does not say that the Book held by the Jews was false – indeed, he calls it the Torah.

4.2.2 The Presence of the Torah

There are a number of ahadith which refer to Muhammad calling for the Torah and having it read to him. Muhammad recognized the scrolls that were presented before him as Tawrat. These ahadith are incomprehensible unless the Torah was still extant and uncorrupted. Muhammad even instructed the Jews to act upon a moral imperative in the Torah (stoning for adultery). The same is true in a similar case. The respect and reverence Muhammad showed for the Torah in this situation precludes any idea of it being a distorted book. Indeed, he stated his faith in the book presented to him. In other cases it is clear that the Muslims had the Torah in their possession. This being so, unless the Muslims later lost the true Torah, it must have been the same book used by the Jews and Christians. Further, if the Torah had been corrupted, it is strange that they did not use this opportunity to expose the Jews for distorting the text. We have seen that the Qur’an holds that Muhammad was predicted in the Torah. A tradition elaborates on this belief. Whether Muhammad is indeed described is not the issue. The fact is that the genuine Torah was still available.

4.2.3 The Presence of the Injil

The earliest reference to the Gospel in the prophetic career of Muhammad is the story of his wife’s uncle, Waraqa, a Christian who translated the Gospel. Khadijah brought her husband to her uncle in order to assure him that his visions were not delusions or the onset of insanity. The different presentations of this story show that the true Injil was in the possession of Christians at this period. Likewise, the story of Salman, who is introduced as a believer in the two books, the Injil and the Qur’an, is clear testimony to the fact that the true Gospel was still extant at the time of Muhammad. Islamic eschatology upholds belief in the Second Coming of Christ, and a tradition states that at His return, Jesus will judge by the Qur’an, rather than the Injil. The emphasis here is on the fact that the Qur’an supersedes the Gospel, not upon its genuineness. The only text implying corruption is the following:

Abdullah ibn Abbas SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah narrated that Abdullah ibn Abbas said, ‘O group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet (peace be upon him) contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted them and written something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah,’ so as to have a minor gain for it.

Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book al-Qur’an) which has been revealed to you.’

In Islamic hermeneutics, as in Christian exegetical interpretation, the rule is that one interprets the lesser in terms of the greater, and there are far more ahadith testifying to the veracity and existence of the Torah and Injil than this one which may question such. Possibly, the reference is to Surah 4:44, where individual Medinan Jews are berated for corrupting isolated texts in their speech. However, the usual meaning of corruption is perhaps best explained by the following text:

Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As MISHKAT AL-MASABIH

Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) heard some people disputing about the Qur’an. Thereupon he said: It was because of this that those gone before you had perished. They set parts of the books against the others (whereas the fact is) that the Book of Allah has been revealed with one part confirming the others.

Therefore, do not falsify some parts with the others and speak only that which you know; that which you do not know, refer it to one who knows it well.

Transmitted by Ahmad and Ibn Majah.

Clearly, ‘falsification’ refers to misinterpretation of Scripture, especially if deliberate distortion, rather than the corruption of the actual text itself. Bukhari, in ar-Rad, says:

‘They corrupt the word’ means ‘they alter or change its meaning’. yet no-one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.

This confirms the fact that the accusations against Christians in the Qur’an and Hadith are simply that they misunderstood or misrepresented the doctrines of the Scriptures, not that they changed the actual text.

4.3 The Testimony of the Shari’ah Concerning the Bible

The testimony of the Shari’ah appears to accept the veracity of the Jewish and Christian holy books, since the official ruling states that they are the books of God. Likewise, with regard to miraculous healing, it is inconceivable that Jews and Christians would use the Qur’an, so the ‘revelation from Allah’ must refer to the Torah and Gospel, which therefore must be extant. It is noteworthy that the official jurisprudence on the issue nowhere alleges the distortion of the Jewish-Christian Scriptures. If the Christians were consciously swearing on a corrupted Scripture, it is doubtful that a Muslim court could take seriously the evidence offered.

4.4 The Testimony of Muslim Scholars

Muhammad ‘Abduh (Egypt) – the charge of corruption

… makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria or Europe, would have been obvious.

Mawlawi Muhammad Sa’id (Pakistan) –

Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But… not even one among all the verses of the Qur’an mentions that the Injil or Tawrat is corrupted… it is written that the Jews -… not the Christians… alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted…

Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi –

The ordinary Muslim people…believe through hearsay…that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community…whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands…? To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God…

5. Conclusion

It can be seen from our study of the sources of Islamic authority – the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Shari’ah that the view of the Bible promulgated by some Muslim polemicists is merely an inferential prejudice, nowhere upheld in the holy texts of Islam. The Qur’an and Sunnah uphold the veracity of the Christian Scriptures, and it is obvious that what references there are to the books known as Tawrat, Zabur and Injil clearly refer to the canonical Old and New Testaments. In fact, if a Muslim fails to believe in the previous revelations, he effectively apostatises. Yet it is the very fact that Muslim sacred writings doregard the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as true which causes the problem, since any Muslim can tell that they do not agree with the Qur’an in doctrine or in form. Hence the inference that the Jews and Christians have conspired to change their sacred texts.

On our part, Christians have sometimes failed to properly comprehend the nature and role of the Qur’an in Islam, and so have responded inadequately to Muslim criticisms of the Bible. Because they do not understand the Muslim point of reference, they do not know from where the Muslims are coming in their criticisms of the Bible, and naturally any answer to Islamic polemics suffers as a result. It is essential for Christian scholars to acquaint themselves with a proper appreciation of the Muslim concept of Scripture in order to express more adequately the truth of Biblical revelation. The irony is that Muslim sacred texts actually uphold the veracity of the Christian Scriptures. This in itself is a useful point to make to our Muslim friends, especially those involved in apologetics. One of the greatest evidences to present to Muslims that the Bible has not been corrupted is the assumption of the Qur’an that the ‘previous scriptures’ are both extant and reliable. After all, if the Gospel had indeed been changed at the Council of Nicaea, it is remarkable that nearly three hundred years after the event, the Qur’an never alludes to it, nor charges the Christians with corruption of text.

6. Bibliography

A. Guillaume, Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975

Ajijola, Alhaj A. D., The Myth of the Cross, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 3rd edition 1978

Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, 1984

Campbell, William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science, Arab World Ministries, USA, 1986

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, 1987 UK reprint, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham

von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1983

Dimashkiah, Abdul Rahman, Let the Bible Speak, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, 1995

Ghiyathuddin Adelphi, and Hahn, Ernest, The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and the Hadith, Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1977

Gibb and Kramers, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1974

Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism, SCM, London, 1974.

Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Nusrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, New Delhi-110 002, India, 5th Reprint 1993 (first published in Hyderabad, 1930).

The Holy Bible, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, USA, Eleventh Printing July 1980.

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, The Sources of Islam, T. & T Clark, Edinburgh

The Council of Nicaea: Purposes and Themes

Anthony N. S. Lane

---

In tackling this theme we will consider first the sources that are available to us concerning the Council of Nicaea, secondly the purpose for the calling of the council (looking especially at the events which led up to the council), thirdly the events of the council itself, fourthly the official documents of the council (creed canons and letter) and fifthly related letters written concerning the council. Finally we shall review this material in order to draw together some conclusions concerning the purposes and themes of the council.

---

I. The Sources for the Council

If any official minutes, or Acta, were kept of the Council of Nicaea, these have not survived. But fortunately, that does not mean that we are left in the dark. There are four different types of documents on which we can rely.

First, although there are no minutes, the Creed of the council and its twenty canons, or disciplinary decisions, are preserved in a variety of sources, as is a synodical letter that the council sent to the church of Alexandria. 1

Secondly, the council is described in a number of church histories from the period. Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian, concludes his famous Church History before the time of the council, but he does cover the events in his later Life of Constantine. 2 From the following century there are three important church histories which pick up from where Eusebius left off and which all, at or near the beginning, cover the events of Nicaea. These are by Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, 3) all of whom wrote in the 440s. Although they were writing more than a hundred years after the event, they were using contemporary documents, for which they are valuable sources.

Thirdly, although there are no minutes, three of those who were present and deeply involved in events later describe the council. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine, already mentioned, covers the council but completely ignores the theological issues at stake. 4 He does, however, describe the doctrinal discussions in an important letter to his church justifying his own behaviour at the council. 5 Athanasius also describes the events of the council in two of his later works. 6Finally, Eustathius of Antioch’s account is preserved by Theodoret in his Church History. 7 As Eusebius and Eustathius were bitterly opposed to one another their two rival partisan accounts are valuable for reconstructing the course of the debate.

Finally, there are a few other documents which have survived independently of the above, such as the letter from the earlier Council of Antioch and Constantine’s letter naming Nicaea as the venue for our council.

---

II. The Prehistory of the Council

Why was there a Council of Nicaea? The sources are clear that the Emperor Constantine called the council in order to bring an end to dissension within the church. In particular, he was concerned about two specific issues which were causing disagreement: Arianism and the date of Easter. 8 Other matters were settled at the council, but these were the two that prompted the calling of the council.

Since the second century there had been rival ways of calculating the date of Easter. 9 Such diversity was tolerable in the pre-imperial persecuted church. It was not tolerable for the new Christian emperor and his imperial church. Constantine was influenced by the old pagan idea of the pax deorum, the idea that the purpose of the state religion was to win the favour of the gods by offering them acceptable worship. Their side of the deal was to bring peace and prosperity to the empire. Constantine the Christian held to a Christianised version of this. It was his duty as emperor to ensure that the Christian God received pure worship from a harmonious and undivided church. Internal harmony is always a greater priority for the politician than the theologian and this was especially true where Constantine was concerned. For the emperor, the primary scandal with Arianism and the diverse dates of Easter was not the fact of error but the fact of division. 10

The question of the date of Easter needs no further elaboration, but the Arian controversy is more complex. A brief review of the events leading to the council is in order. While the precise dating and order of some of the events is uncertain, what actually happened is clear enough, which is all that is necessary for our purposes. 11

Some time around AD 318/9 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, was told about the unorthodox views of Arius, an influential presbyter in the same church. These views concerned the deity of Christ. Here is not the place for a full discussion of Arius’s views or their origin, about which there has been considerable discussion in recent years. 12 Fortunately, there is no serious question about the basic thrust of Arius’s teaching, which is all that needs concern us at present. Arius himself very accurately stated the issue in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, a leading bishop who supported him:

We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that he is of the non-existent. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. 13

The two debated points were whether or not the Son had a beginning and whether or not he was created out of nothing. Behind these is the fundamental issue of the deity of Christ, which Arius denied. For him the Son was not to be identified with God himself but is the first and greatest of God’s creatures. He was made ex nihilo, although Arius (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses today) also affirmed that all of the rest of God’s creation was made through the Son. Since time is an aspect of the created universe, which was made through the Son, the latter existed before all time. 14 But he is not eternal and ‘before his generation he was not.’ The same idea was also expressed in the Arian slogan ‘there was once [before time] when he was not’—~jn pote “ote ohuk ~jn. These are the key points, to which Nicaea responded. Arius was also accused of teaching that the Son was morally mutable and liable to sin and change, 15 that he is called God’s Word and Wisdom only loosely or inaccurately as courtesy titles 16 and that he has no perfect or even direct knowledge of the Father. 17 The first of these is the charge most often repeated and is answered in the Creed of Nicaea.

Alexander took action against Arius, calling a synod of bishops and requiring him to sign a confession of orthodoxy. Arius declined to do so and was excommunicated. Arius and his supporters travelled, seeking and gaining support. Alexander responded by sending out an encyclical letter to all bishops. 18 A council was held in Bithynia which declared Arius orthodox and demanded his restoration by Alexander. Arius also wrote a conciliatory letter to Alexander, with a manifesto of his beliefs. 19 Arius received support from Eusebius of Caesarea and from a council of Palestinian bishops, which protested to Alexander about his treatment of Arius and in turn received a stern reply. Arius thereupon wrote a letter to another Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, 20 whose influence was then considerable since Nicomedia had become the site of an imperial palace. ‘When Eusebius received the epistle, he too vomited forth his own impiety,’ and wrote an important letter to a like-minded bishop, Paulinus of Tyre. 21

At this point the situation was transformed. Since 312 the western empire had been ruled by the newly converted Constantine, the eastern half by the pagan Licinius. Relations between the two had deteriorated and Licinius began to oppress the church in his domain. Matters came to a head in 324 when Constantine defeated Licinius in battle, becoming sole emperor. At this stage Constantine encountered the Arian controversy. Ever since 312 Constantine had had to wrestle with the Donatist schism, which had split the church in Roman Africa (roughly modern Algeria and Tunisia). He had hoped that the eastern church could help with resolving this dispute. Instead, he found the eastern church itself split over the Arian question. He promptly dispatched his ecclesiastical advisor, the Spanish bishop Hosius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with a letter rebuking Alexander and Arius for their needless squabble and commanding them to agree to differ. 22

On arriving at Alexandria Hosius saw at once how serious was this dispute. Constantine the politician was concerned for harmony. Hosius the bishop and theologian was concerned for truth. Hosius was totally on Alexander’s side and they organised a council which met at Antioch, early in 325. A letter which appears to be from this council was first identified and published in 1905. 23 That it comes from this council was initially contested, but is now widely accepted. 24 The letter strongly repudiates Arianism, but without using the terms which were to be coined at Nicaea, a strong indication of its pre-Nicene date. All but three of the bishops present accepted the conclusions, the dissidents including Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian. These three were excommunicated but were also offered ‘the great and priestly synod at Ancyra as a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.’ This last point is the key to understanding Eusebius’s behaviour and role at Nicaea.

---

III. The Events of the Council

25

Constantine was not satisfied with the manner in which Hosius had summarily resolved the issue. He sent out a letter to all bishops inviting them to the coming council. The venue he changed from Ancyra to a more westerly location at Nicaea, for three reasons: ‘because the bishops from Italy and the rest of the countries of Europe are coming, and because of the excellent temperature of the air, and’ (the real reason) ‘in order that I may be present as a spectator and participator in those things which will be done.’ 26 He also ‘pledged his word that the bishops and their officials should be furnished with asses, mules, and horses for the journey at the public expense.’ 27

In due course the council opened on 19 June 325 not, as Socrates mistakenly held, on 20 May, 28 and lasted for two months. There is less certainty about the number of bishops present. There are imperfect copies of the list of bishops who signed at the end. These contain 228 names and do not include all of those known to have been present. 29 Reports of the council refer to ‘more than 250,’ 30 ‘about 270,’ 31 ‘300,’ 32 about 300, 33 ‘over 300,’ 34 ‘about 320,’ 35 and, finally, 318 bishops. 36 This last figure prevailed and became the norm. Its origin has been traced to the mystical significance of the number in Greek and to Genesis 14:14. The variation in numbers may be because not all of the bishops stayed for the duration of the council. Another explanation that has been given is that the Arian bishops were not counted, but only two remained obstinate out of an initial number of seventeen pro-Arians, 37 and the high figure of 318 is clearly meant to refer to the number assenting to the conclusions. There is a later Arabian tradition that over 2000 bishops were present. 38 This may be a simple error or may arise from counting all of those present, whether bishops or not. Theodoret describes how many of the bishops had been physically mutilated in earlier persecutions and comments that ‘the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.’ 39Eusebius also comments on the wide range of nations represented at the council, from countries as far away as Persia, Scythia and Spain. 40 While this may be true, the fact remains that all but a handful of the bishops were from the East, although this did not prevent the council from reaching conclusions highly congenial to the West.

What actually happened at the council? Some of the events are well documented. After his arrival, early in July, Constantine made an oration to the council at a special meeting in his palace in which he, as normal, laid considerable emphasis on the importance of harmony. 41 According to Theodoret, Constantine stressed the normative role of Scripture:

For the gospels, the apostolic writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue. 42

The question of Easter was amicably resolved. 43 The status of clergy involved in the Melitian schism was also resolved. 44Constantine met with Acesius, a bishop of the rigorist Novatian schism, which did not believe that those guilty of mortal sins should be restored to communion. Acesius approved the Creed of Nicaea and stated that it contained no new doctrine but the ancient faith. Constantine’s response to his rigorist stance was to urge him to ‘take a ladder and ascend alone to heaven.’ 45

Another noteworthy incident concerns the attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy. The precise proposal was to forbid those who were married at the time of their ordination from having intercourse with their wives, it being assumed that clergy would not marry after their ordination. The Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, one of whose eyes had been gouged out in the persecutions, earnestly opposed this, stressing that marriage itself is honourable and chaste and warning the council not to impose too strict a burden which would itself give rise to temptation and sin. 46

Constantine also arranged a splendid banquet at which, according to Eusebius, not one of the bishops was absent. Eusebius’s editor wryly comments that ‘one cannot help noting that the human nature of ancient and modern councils is the same,—much controversy and more or less absenteeism, but all present at dinner.’ 47 Finally, Constantine made a farewell speech to the council, in which he predictably stressed the benefits of peace and harmony. 48 Those at all familiar with the subsequent course of the Arian controversy will be aware how utterly ineffectual this exhortation proved to be.

One matter has not been mentioned: the discussion of the Arian issue and the production of the creed. For this we are largely dependent upon the three eye-witness accounts mentioned earlier. Eustathius states that ‘the formulary of Eusebius was brought forward, which contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy. The reading of it before all occasioned great grief to the audience, on account of its departure from the faith.’ 49 To which Eusebius does he refer? Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian, did present a creed as we shall see, but the description better seems to fit the stance adopted by the other Eusebius, of Nicomedia. This is confirmed by Athanasius’s account. He describes the arguments used by the Arian party, referring to them as ‘Eusebius and his fellows.’ He later refers to Eusebius of Caesarea, stating that he was ‘at first an accomplice of the Arian heresy.’ 50 Ambrose later speaks of a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia being read at the council and provoking a negative reaction. 51 It is not possible to be certain, but it is very likely that Eustathius and Athanasius are describing the arguments put forward by Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Arian party.

What then of the other Eusebius? He duly signed the creed and was so embarrassed at the apparent inconsistency of this (in the light of his earlier teaching) that he hastily wrote a tortuous letter of explanation to his church. 52 He is clearly apprehensive about the reception that he will receive on his return and writes warning them not to pay heed to any rumours that they may have heard. He cites two creeds, one that he had submitted to the council and the Creed of Nicaea. But why should Eusebius have submitted a creed to the council? The answer, which has been realised only since the identification earlier this century of the letter of the Council of Antioch, is that Eusebius had been excommunicated and had been granted at Nicaea ‘a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.’ 53 Eusebius, understandably, does not draw attention to this fact. Eusebius proceeds to affirm his full commitment to the doctrines of the creed that he had submitted. He also goes on to affirm that the teaching of the Creed of Nicaea is identical to his, save only the addition of the single word homoousios, which will be discussed below. He then proceeds to give a blatantly minimising interpretation of the Creed of Nicaea.

Whose idea was the introduction of the word homoousios? Athanasius describes how the bishops first tried to reject Arianism by the use of scriptural terms alone, but found that the Arians could twist whatever terms they used to an unorthodox meaning. So just as the Arians ‘uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms,’ the council responded by condemning them by ‘unscriptural terms pious in meaning.’ 54) But why the word homoousios in particular? Eusebius states that it was proposed by the emperor. 55 Given the former’s considerable unease with the term, he would hardly have enhanced its prestige by attributing it to the emperor unless this was accurate. But why should the emperor have proposed it? There is some evidence to support the theory that it was suggested to him by Hosius, his ecclesiastical advisor, possibly in alliance with Alexander of Alexandria. 56 Constantine played a dominant role at the council and this meant that those who had his ear, especially Hosius, were able to lead events to the conclusion that they desired. The outcome reflected the interests not so much of the emperor as of the western-Alexandrian alliance of Hosius and Alexander.

---

IV. The Official Documents of the Council

There are three documents that survive from the council: the creed, the canons and a letter to the Egyptian church. There is an alleged decree of the council on Easter which is not generally considered to be authentic. 57

(a) The Creed of Nicaea

The most important document from the council is undoubtedly the creed. The Creed of Nicaea, often referred to as ‘N,’ is not to be confused with what is today known as the Nicene Creed. The latter originates from the Council of Constantinople (381) and is substantially different. 58 It probably acquired its name because it was seen as a reaffirmation of the faith of Nicaea.

Eusebius, in his letter to his church, states that the council approved his creed with the addition of the single word homoousios. This in the past led some to the erroneous conclusion that Eusebius’s Caesarean creed formed the basis for N, but it is clear that Eusebius is referring to doctrine, not to the use of documents. 59 Nicaea, he alleges, taught no more than does the Caesarean creed with the addition of homoousios.

What, then, was the origin of N? It is now generally accepted that it was produced by starting with a local eastern creed (probably of Syro-Palestinian provenance) and adding to it a number of anti-Arian statements. 60 The actual text is as follows, with the anti-Arian additions in italics: 61

We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

And those who say ‘there once was when he was not,’ and ‘before he was begotten he was not,’ and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration—these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

A brief comment on the additions is in order. 62 ‘That is from the substance of the Father’ was added in order to clarify the meaning of ‘begotten from the Father.’ Eusebius of Nicomedia had earlier pointed out that even the dew drops are begotten by God (Job 38:28). 63 The added clause makes it clear that creation is not in mind. The same point is made by the addition ‘begotten not made,’ which makes the contrast explicit. ‘True God from true God’ was added because the Arians followed an older tradition and, citing John 17:3, distinguished between the Father (who is true God) and the Son (who is not). ‘Consubstantial with the Father’ introduces the word homoousios which is the most controversial of the additions. There is much debate about its meaning, but in the present context it should be seen as affirming the full deity of Christ, as do all of the other additions so far.

The statements anathematised had all been made by Arius and/or his followers or were at least attributed to them. The first two deny the eternity of the Son. The first was used by Arians and the second had been used by Arius himself. 64 The next two state that the Son was created ex nihilo or that he came to be from some source other than the Father. 65 So far we have the condemnation of the ideas that the Son had a beginning and was created out of nothing, the points which Arius himself (correctly) identified as crucial to the debate. 66 The last point, that the Son is subject to change or alteration, Arius was accused of teaching 67 but denied. 68 Perhaps Arius held that the Son was changeable by nature (as a creature) but changeless by God’s grace.

(b) The Canons 69

A simple summary of the canons will serve to give a feel of their character and will also make it clear what subjects are and are not covered in them:

1. Those who in good health have castrated themselves are banned from the clergy, but this does not apply to those castrated forcibly or for medical reasons.

2. Those converted from paganism should not be promoted to be presbyters or bishops immediately after their baptism.

3. Clergy are not to have women living with them, except for a relative or someone who is above suspicion.

4. Bishops should ideally be appointed by all the bishops of a province and at least by three with the written approval of the others. The metropolitan bishop of the province 70 has the right of confirming the proceedings.

5. Those excommunicated in one place are not to be admitted elsewhere. Each province should hold a synod twice yearly to consider such cases.

6. The traditional authority of the bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch is to be preserved. No one may become a bishop without the consent of his metropolitan.

7. The bishop of Aelia [Jerusalem] is to have his ancient honour, save only the dignity proper to the metropolitan.

8. Novatianist clergy who come over to the Catholic Church may retain their status after the laying on of hands, if they give a written undertaking to accept the rules of discipline of the Catholic Church. If a Novatianist bishop comes over where there is a Catholic bishop, he will have the rank of presbyter unless the bishop is willing to share the honour of his title.

9. If anyone has been ordained despite some sin which should have prevented it, with or without having concealed the sin, his ordination is not to be accepted.

10. Those who have been ordained despite having lapsed under persecution are to be deposed.

11. Those laity who lapsed without great pressure, if they genuinely repent are to be restored to communion in stages over a period of twelve years.

12. Those who renounced the army because of their faith and then return to it are to be restored to communion over a period of thirteen years, though the bishop may shorten the time for those who show especial sincerity.

13. Those at the point of death are not to be denied communion.

14. Catechumens who lapse are to be readmitted after three years as hearers only.

15. Clergy are not to transfer from city to city.

16. Clergy are not to be received in other churches but are to be returned to their own dioceses under pain of excommunication.

17. Any clergy who in future practise usury are to be deposed.

18. Deacons are not to give communion to presbyters, nor to receive it before bishops, nor to sit among the presbyters.

19. Followers of Paul of Samosata who seek to join the Catholic Church are to be rebaptised. Those who have been clergy may, if suitable, be ordained by the Catholic bishop.

20. On Sundays and during the season of Pentecost one should pray standing and not kneeling.

These are the twenty canons which today are accepted as genuine. Those are the only canons found in the earliest Greek and Latin collections, from the fourth and fifth centuries and it is precisely those canons that are found in medieval collections, both Greek and Latin. But there is an Arabic translation which contains eighty canons 71 or, in some manuscripts, eighty-four canons. What is the origin of these extra canons? Some of them are manifestly later than Nicaea, referring to events which are subsequent to 325 (such as the elevation of Byzantium to imperial and ecclesiastical honour or the appointment of bishops in Ethiopia) and rejecting heresies from later centuries (such as Monophysitism and Monothelitism).

How did these extra sixty canons come to be added? The answer is very simple. From early times it was the practice to collect the canons of different councils into one document. The canons of Nicaea came first and over time some copyists, deliberately or otherwise, neglected to mention the origin of subsequent canons from later councils, thus making it appear that these too were from Nicaea. An early example of this type of mistake came in 417-418 when Pope Zosimus claimed the right to hear appeals from Africa, citing as his authority a canon of Nicaea. The Africans were ignorant of this canon and appeals were made to the East for authentic copies, which confirmed that there were only twenty canons. Zosimus had cited a canon from the later council of Serdica, mistakenly attributing it to Nicaea. 72

There are other grounds on which it is alleged that Nicaea promulgated more than twenty canons. For example, Jerome states that we read that the Nicene Synod reckoned the Book of Judith as part of Holy Scripture. This is a reference not to a canon of the council but probably to the citation of the book as Scripture at the council. That this does not refer to any binding decision, such as a canon, is shown by the fact that later eastern fathers rejected the canonicity of the Book of Judith and Jerome himself questioned it. 73

(c) Letter of the council to Egyptian Church 74

This letter reports on the results of the council, mentioning the condemnation of Arius and of those who sided with him, the treatment of the Melitians and the settlement of the date of Easter.

---

V. Related Letters Written concerning the Council

(a) Letter of Constantine to the Alexandrian Church 75

The emperor also wrote personally to the Alexandrian church. He talks of those who had been blaspheming against the Saviour, teaching ‘contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures.’ He also stresses that ‘that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God; seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in the minds of so many dignified persons has effectively enlightened them respecting the divine will.’

(b) Letter of Constantine to those bishops not present at Nicaea 76

Here Constantine returns to his favourite emphasis on harmony. The council examined the issues, ‘until that judgment which God, who sees all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith.’ He proceeds to describe the agreement that had been reached on the date of Easter, stressing how unfitting it was to follow Jewish calendrical calculations in this matter and also how scandalous it had been for different Christians to celebrate Easter at different times. There is no mention of Arianism in this letter.

(c) Letter of Constantine about Arius’s Works 77

This letter relates to the condemnation of Arius, but it is not clear how soon after the council it was issued. In it Constantine orders all of Arius’s writings to be burnt. Anyone concealing a copy of any of his works and not being willing to surrender it is to be subject to the death penalty.

(d) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius of Caesarea concerning the Scriptures 78

This letter has no connection to the Council of Nicaea, but since it concerns Constantine and the Scriptures it is worthy of mention. Constantine wrote to Eusebius asking him to arrange for the production of ‘fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures, both legibly described, and of a portable size, the provision of which you know to be needful for the instruction of the Church.’ This command has nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of Scripture but is simply the provision of the funds necessary for the making of extra copies, needed for new churches being built in Constantinople.

---

VI. Conclusions

What was the purpose of the Council of Nicaea? It was called by the Emperor Constantine with the aim of bringing peace and harmony to the church. The issues that needed to be resolved were the date of Easter and the Arian controversy. The spectacle of public theological disagreement was injuring the Christian cause. ‘To so disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theatres.’ 79

Constantine’s concern was above all for unity and harmony. The bishops, while sharing this concern, placed a higher premium on theological truth. For them the resolution of the Arian affair had to preserve the truth of the Gospel as well as the unity of the church. Those who were concerned to maintain the full deity of Christ had every reason to be satisfied with the creed that emerged from the council. But the deity of Christ is just one of the components of the doctrine of the Trinity and judged by this fuller criterion Nicaea is less satisfactory. The doctrine of the Trinity also includes the clear distinction between Father and Son. Not only did Nicaea fail to state this clearly enough for some but some of its leading supporters, such as Eustathius, were not totally orthodox in this area. Nicaea, therefore, while it affirmed the full deity of Christ was not in any way a final resolution of the doctrine of the Trinity. That happened only after another half century of controversy.

What were the achievements of the council? The two original aims were met in that Arianism was condemned and the date of Easter was fixed. Other disciplinary matters were also resolved in the canons of the council.

What did the council decide about the Scriptures? Absolutely nothing. The issue was not raised in any form.

---

References

1. These will be cited from Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils vol.1 (London: Sheed & Ward and Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990) 1-19. Hereafter it will be cited simply as Decrees. They are also to be found in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Second Series, 14 volumes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971 reprint) 14:1-56. This series was originally published in the 19th century but will be used here because it has the twin advantages of being comprehensive in its coverage and widely available, even on CD ROM. Anyone with access to this series will be able to verify most of what follows below and also to follow up any points of particular interest. Hereafter it will be cited simply as NPNF. References to works cited will be as they are given in this edition, even though chapter numbers sometimes vary slightly from other editions. Some readers may find it easier to refer to J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius(London: SPCK, 1957) or to the later edition of this revised by W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987), where the numbering of items has been changed. Items that are found in this work will be cited as NE a/b, where a and b refer to the number of the item in the old and the new editions respectively.

2. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:61-73, 3:4-23 (NPNF 1:515-18,520-26).

3. Socrates, Church History 1:5-14 (NPNF 2:3-20); Sozomen, Church History 1:15-25 (NPNF 2:251-57); Theodoret, Church History 1:1-15 (NPNF 3:33-54). (Chapter numbers in Theodoret vary from edition to edition.

4. While Eusebius mentions the Arian controversy in Book 2, the account of the council in Book 3 makes no mention of Arius or the Arian controversy. A reader who knew only Eusebius’s Life of Constantine might not realise that the council had anything to do with the Arian issue.

5. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 33(NPNF 4:74-76); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10-12); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49-51); NE 301/291.

6. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition (NPNF 4:150-72 + 74-76) and his synodical letter To the Bishops of Africa (NPNF 4:489-94) include description of events at Nicaea.

7. Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).

8. These two reasons are mentioned by Athanasius, To the Bishops 2 (NPNF 4:490); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8); Sozomen, Church History 1:16 (NPNF 2:252f.).

9. For a brief account, cf. E. Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Chicago & London: St James Press, 1990) 696.

10. This is especially evident in Constantine’s letter to Alexandria prior to the council (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:64-72 (NPNF 1:515-18); Socrates, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 2:6f.); NE 297/287).

11. The order and dating followed here is that of R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) 129-51, which follows the work of H.G. Opitz who published an important collection of original documents. For a slightly different reconstruction, see R. Williams, Arius. Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1987) 48-61.

12. See, e.g., Williams, Arius, 95-178; Hanson, Search, 3-128.

13. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283. For the same ideas, cf. Socrates, Church History 1:5 (NPNF 2:3); Theodoret, Church History 1:1 (NPNF 3:34).

14. The NPNF translations frequently confuse this point by inserting the word time where it does not appear in the Greek. Some modern works are guilty of the same error.

15. Socrates, Church History 1:6,9 (NPNF 2:4,12); Theodoret, Church History 1:3,7f. (NPNF 3:35f.,45f.).

16. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:4).

17. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:4).

18. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:3-5); NE 292/282.

19. Athanasius, The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284.

20. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.

21. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:42).

22. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:64-72; Socrates, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 2:6); NE 297/287.

23. NE 298/288.

24. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Longman, 1972 – 3rd edition) 208-11.

25. For accounts of the events, see T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge (MA) & London: Harvard University Press, 1981) 214-19; Hanson, Search, 152-72; C.J. Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents, to the Close of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871) 270-447 (H. Leclercq’s French translation of the second edition of the German original, Histoire des Conciles d’après les documents originaux, vol.1 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1907) is fuller); Kelly, Creeds, 211-30,249-54; I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1963) 53-68; G.C. Stead, ‘“Eusebius” and the Council of Nicaea,’ Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973) 92-98, reprinted in his Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers (London: Variorum, 1985) item 5; Williams, Arius, 67-72.

26. NE 299/289. Nicaea was close to the imperial palace at Nicomedia.

27. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43).

28. Kelly, Creeds, 211; Decrees, 1. Socrates, Church History 1:13 (NPNF 2:19) is followed by Hanson, Search, 152; Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 59.

29. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 296f.

30. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:8 (NPNF 1:522).

31. Eustathius in Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).

32. Athanasius, Councils 43 (NPNF 4:473), Defence against the Arians 23 (NPNF 4:112); Constantine in Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14).

33. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 2:3 (NPNF 4:152) and History of the Arians 66f. (NPNF 4:294f.).

34. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8), inaccurately citing Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:8; Constantine in Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13);.NE 303/293.

35. Sozomen, Church History 1:17 (NPNF 2:253).

36. Athanasius, To the Bishops 2 (NPNF 4:489) (a later work); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10); Theodoret, Church History 1:6,10 (NPNF 3:43,48).

37. Cf. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10); Sozomen, Church History 1:20f. (NPNF 2:255); Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:44).

38. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 270f.

39. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43).

40. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:7 (NPNF 1:521), quoted also by Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8).

41. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:10-13 (NPNF 1:522f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:19 (NPNF 2:254f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43f.).

42. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:44).

43. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:14 (NPNF 1:523); Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13); Sozomen, Church History 1:21 (NPNF 2:256); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:47). Cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 298-332.

44. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:12f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:24 (NPNF 2:256f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:46f.).

45. Socrates, Church History 1:10 (NPNF 2:17f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:22 (NPNF 2:256).

46. Socrates, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 2:18); Sozomen, Church History 1:23 (NPNF 2:256).

47. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:15 (NPNF 1:523f.). Cf. Sozomen, Church History 1:25 (NPNF 2:257).

48. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:21 (NPNF 1:525f.).

49. Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).

50. Athanasius, To the Bishops 5f. (NPNF 4:491f.).

51. Ambrose, The Christian Faith 3:15:125 (NPNF 10:260).

52. In Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10-12); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49-51); NE 301/291.

53. NE 298/288.

54. Athanasius, To the Bishops 5f. (NPNF 4:491f.

55. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:11); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49); NE 301/291.

56. Kelly, Creeds, 251-53. Williams, Arius, 69f., represents Eusebius of Caesarea as the architect of the unanimous acceptance of homoousios. This is not plausible given the tone of Eusebius’s letter.

57. Decrees, 4. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 93-95,259f.,295f. accepts the decree. There is also the list of signatories (Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 296f.). For other spurious documents, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 439-47.

58. Kelly, Creeds, ch.10.

59. Kelly, Creeds, 217-26.

60. Kelly, Creeds, 227-30.

61. Decrees, 5. Cf. NPNF 14:3-7.

62. Cf. Kelly, Creeds, 234-54; Hanson, Search, 163-72; Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 69-92.

63. Theodoret, Church History 1:5 (NPNF 3:42).

64. Athanasius, Councils 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284; Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.

65. The denial that the Son came from any other hypostasis or ousia is ambiguous and potentially confusing. See Hanson, Search, 167f. It could be taken to equate the two words and thus deny that the Trinity are three hypostases. Since the majority of the bishops at the council held to the doctrine of three hypostases they are unlikely to have taken it that way. All that it is actually denied is that the Son takes his origin from some hypostasis or ousia distinct from the Father, not that Father and Son are two hypostases.

66. See at n.13, above.

67. See n.15, above.

68. Athanasius, The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284; Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.

69. Decrees, 6-16. Also in NPNF 14:8-42; NE 300/290. Cf. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 95-117.

70. Roughly the same as a modern archbishop.

71. For the captions of these, see NPNF 14:46-50. None of them relate in any way to the question of the canon of Scripture.

72. For this and the previous paragraph, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 355-67; NPNF 14:43-45.

73. For this paragraph, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 367-75, esp. 370f.

74. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:12f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:46f.); NE 302/292; Decrees, 16-19; NPNF 14:53f.

75. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13f.); NE 303/293.

76. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:17-20 (NPNF 1:524f.); Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14-16); Theodoret, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 3:47f.).

77. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14).

78. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:16); Theodoret, Church History 1:15 (NPNF 3:53).

79. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:5).

A New Chronology

Synopsis of David Rohl’s book “A Test of Time” by John Fulton

---

The concept of time for us today is taken to be an absolute unchangeable system. We measure time from the fixed point of Christ’s birth so that this is the one thousand, nine hundred and ninety-seventh year since he was born. The ancients, however, could not look forward to Christ’s birth; instead, they worked on a regnal dating system where events happened in the Nth year of the reign of a particular king.

For most of the Old Testament, we can find a good deal of archaeological evidence in the Middle East to corroborate the historical record e.g.: Moabite, Canaanite, Persian, Assyrian and Babylonian artefacts and excavation. This is not surprising as these neighbouring states had considerable interaction between them. However, from the period of the United Monarchy under Saul, David and Solomon back, only the Egyptian chronology and archaeology is good enough to corroborate the biblical record and here there has been supposedly very little evidence for the existence of Saul, David, Solomon, the Judges, Moses and Joshua or the Patriarchs. This has led some scholars, such as Professor Thomas L. Thompson of Copenhagen University in 1992, to say:

“If we reflect on how easy it is to challenge the historicity of not only a David or Solomon but of events in the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah … the very substance of any historical project that attempts to write a history of the late second or early first millennium BC in Palestine on the basis of a direct integration of biblical and extra biblical sources … must appear not only dubious but wholly ludicrous.”

This was true until the recent work of David M. Rohl in his book A Test of Time: The Bible:- From Myth to History’ (Century, London 1995 – ISBN 0 7126 5913 7), of which this paper is a summary. Very simply stated, the problem is to correlate the archaeological ages, the Egyptian pharaonic chronology and the biblical chronology of early Israelite history with the absolute Christological timescale.

The biblical chronology is as follows, based on the widely-accepted work of Edwin Thiele:

1ST & 2ND TIMELINES – BIBLICAL & EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGIES

The Egyptian chronology is based partly on finds during excavation of the sites of ancient Egypt. These include tablets and statues with inscriptions, pottery fragments, tomb relics and hieroglyphic inscriptions. Also of great worth in determining the chronology are the works of early historians, who often used ancient records not available to us today. As the archaeological evidence of Egypt is more extensive than that of any other contemporary civilization, the chronology of Egypt is used as the basis on which the archaeological ages and the chronologies of neighbouring civilizations are built. The ages concerning us are:-

3RD TIMELINE – ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES

Therefore we have:-

1. Egyptian History and Chronology

2. Israelite History and Chronology

3. Archaeological Ages

These are combined to form part of an integrated whole, the conventional timescale of the ancient world as we know it:

4TH TIMELINE – INTEGRATION OF 1ST, 2ND & 3RD

In order to integrate the knowledge gained from different civilizations into the timescale as a whole, we need to have common dates that can be used to link known events in two or more civilizations. Examples are battles or marriage alliances between kings. This done, the relation of these different nations can be ascertained.

There were three basic cross-links made by 19th century Egyptologists to synchronise Israelite and Egyptian history.

• The sacking of Thebes in 664 BC by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal as punishment for a revolt led by Pharaoh Taharka of the 25th Dynasty of kings in Egypt. Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other sources make this a very firm date, fixing the history of Egypt after this time. This date is beyond contention.

• The identification of Pharaoh Shishak (who is recorded in I Kings 14:25,26 and II Chronicles 12:2-9 as having conquered Jerusalem when Rehoboam was king of Judah) with Pharaoh Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty.

• The identification of Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great, a 19th Dynasty ruler) as the pharaoh of the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt.

The absolute dates for Shishak/Shoshenk I were calculated from the biblical chronology, i.e. counting back regnal years to Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon. From this date, the date for Ramesses II was calculated by counting back the regnal lengths of the pharaohs between Ramesses and Shoshenk I. Other Egyptian kings were spread to fill in the gaps between these dates and other data, e.g. from the Ebers Calendar and Leiden Papyrus used to support the chronology.

The problem then arose that when archaeologists searched for materials from the periods, Late Bronze Age to Iron Age IIC, there was little or no evidence of any kind to lend credence to the early biblical account right up to the division of the monarchy. This means that for many years, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and large parts of Kings and Chronicles were relegated to the realm of mythology rather than historical fact. There was no evidence of the major events of Israelite history recorded in the Bible ever occurring. There were little or no data supporting an Israelite nation of several millions in Egypt, no evidence of the Exodus and none of a conquest of Canaan in the relevant archaeological strata of the Late Bronze Age. The Early Iron Age when Saul, David and Solomon were supposed to have reigned in such splendour was a relatively impoverished time with certainly no evidence of the great building works of Solomon that are recorded in the Bible. This has led many archaeologists of this period to doubt the historicity and validity of a large part of the Bible. What has happened? New evidence now revealed shows how the early Egyptologists, in their eagerness to find archaeological proof for the biblical record, made key assumptions which were wrong.

Ramesses

The first of these was the identification of Ramesses II as the pharaoh of the oppression based on the text of Exodus 1:8-11 which tells of the new pharaoh forcing the Hebrews to build the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. Ramesses II was a great building pharaoh and did build Raamses in Goshen (called Pi-Ramesse or city of Ramesses’). However, this is likely to be the same as saying that the present city of York was built by the Romans; the Romans never actually called their city York but Eboracum. The modern city of York gets its name from the Viking town Yorvik built on the same site. A biblical redactor writing after the event would naturally refer to the city built by the Israelites with the name Raamses to make it familiar to all his contemporaries.

It is remarkable that to identify the pharaoh of the oppression with Ramesses II, the period of the Judges must be reduced by 200 years, which is directly opposed to the biblical narrative. In Judges 11:26, Jephthah (one of the last of the Judges) states that the timespan from the first settlement in Transjordan during the Conquest to his own time, is 300 years. Also in I Kings 6:1, the time from the Exodus to the building of the temple by Solomon in 966 BC is recorded as 480 years, complementing the Judges date. These both place the Exodus around 1450 BC but Ramesses II reigned in the 13th Century (1279 – 1213 BC) under the conventional chronology. Genesis 47:11 also states that Jacob and the Patriarchs settled in the region of Ramesses’. This, however, is centuries before there was a pharaoh named Ramesses, let alone one who built a great city named after him. These early Egyptologists overlooked or ignored the biblical evidence in favour of equating Ramesses II with the pharaoh of the oppression.

Furthermore, the identification of the biblical Shishak (I Kings 14:25,26 and II Chronicles 12:2-9) with Pharaoh Shoshenk I has now been shown to be very shaky. It is based on a misreading of hieroglyphs to read that he captured the kingdom of Judah’. Shoshenk did indeed march north into Palestine but into the region of the Northern Kingdom of Israel; no mention is made of the capture of Jerusalem in this campaign.

The two main pillars of early Egyptian chronology have thus been shown to be unreliable and so the only firm date for tying this period to any timescale is 664 BC, the sacking of Thebes.

However, recent work has now come up with some very interesting finds. These start with archaeological conundrums or puzzles which, detailed in David Rohl’s book, shorten the entire length of the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) of Egypt (conventionally dated 1069-664 BC) by 200 years. In essence, there were a lot more co-regencies and parallel dynasties than was previously thought.

Secondly, research has revealed that Ramesses II was known in the Middle East by the hypocoristicon or nickname of Ss’. This comes from Hittite and Egyptian sources. The Egyptian S’is oftenn pronounced Sh’ in Hebrew and like Hebrew and Arabic, no vowels are used but some records indicate that the name ShSh’ is pronounced Shysha’. The ancient Hebrews may then have added the k’ as this would have given Ramesses the nickname Shysak’ which in Hebrew means the one who crushes underfoot’, a very appropriate title.

Thirdly and most convincing of all is a finding at the Theban Ramesseum. Ramesses II, in the eighth year of his reign, plundered the city of Shalem or Salem, which we know today as Jerusalem. He is therefore the only pharaoh recorded as having plundered this city and his nickname is Shysha!

Finally, there are three important ancient genealogies:-

• The graffito genealogy of Khnemibre in the Wadi Hammamat.

• The statue genealogy of Nespaherenhat in the Cairo Museum.

• The Memphite genealogy of the High Priests of Ptah, now in Berlin.

These all indicate that the length of the TIP has been artificially overestimated in the original piecing together of the Egyptian chronology. These evidences and more have enabled a new chronology to be established by David Rohl in his book which is summarised below:-

5TH TIMELINE – THE NEW CHRONOLOGY

The effect of all this archaeological research is that the biblical chronology, rather than being squeezed’ to fit into the accepted archaeological timeframe, is now being proved to be very accurate. The biblical timeframe is being verified by a whole wave of new data from the Middle East which under the new chronology of Egypt ties in extremely well with the biblical account.

Solomon

The first evidence of this is in the subsequent relocation of the Solomonic period to the Late Bronze Age. This was an age of wealth and prosperity in the Levant, reflecting the biblical narrative of the wealth of Solomon’s reign. Previously, Solomon was placed in a period of general impoverishment – the Early Iron Age. The contemporaries of Solomon in Egypt are now shown to have been Haremheb and Seti I. Excavations at Megiddo for this period, which I Kings 9:15 records as being built up by Solomon, revealed a Late Bronze Age palace 50 metres long with two-metre thick walls, a royal treasure-room with a magnificent hoard of treasures and the richest collection of Canaanite carved ivory yet discovered’ in Palestine (Yigael Yadin of the University of Jerusalem). One of these ivory pieces depicts a king on his throne flanked by two sphinxes with his queen before him. The queen is presenting the king with lotus flowers, a typical Egyptian scene. In I Kings 10:18-20, Solomon is said to have had a throne flanked with lions’. We also know that he married an Egyptian princess (I Kings 3:1). Could this piece, now in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, represent Solomon and his Egyptian queen at the height of their power? The architecture of Late Bronze Age Megiddo is identical to that described in the Bible as being performed by Phoenician craftsmen (I Kings 6:36).

In I Kings 9:15, Solomon is recorded as having built the Millo’ around Jerusalem. This was a massive stone terrace, erected to increase the building area on top of the City of David. This amazing construction was extensively excavated by Dame Kathleen Kenyon; however, due to the chronological problems already discussed, it was wrongly dated to a couple of centuries before Solomon. This has now been revised under the new chronology and given a date in the Late Bronze Age, contemporary with Solomon, the biblical builder.

Furthermore, it is stated in I Kings 7:8 and II Chronicles 8:11 that Solomon built a palace for his Egyptian wife in Jerusalem. The only Egyptian architectural remains ever to be found in Jerusalem now date in the new chronology to the Late Bronze Age II A/B. Previously, it was considered a mystery as to where they had come from and who had been responsible for them.

Saul and The Amarna Tablets

In 1887, 380 clay tablets were discovered in Egypt at a place called Tell el-Amarna and have come to be known as the Amarna tablets. These tablets were letters from foreign rulers, mainly of city-states but also of the more powerful northern kingdoms of present-day Syria, Turkey and Cyprus, as well as what was once Babylonia and Assyria. They were written to the Egyptian pharaoh of the day; this was Amenhotep IV who soon changed his name to the famous Akhenaten.

Under the old chronology these tablets contained little to interest Bible scholars; however, under the new chronology they are dated to the late 10th century of Saul and David, providing an amazing confirmation and even expansion of the biblical narrative. The tablets were carried to Egypt, transcribed onto papyrus from the original Akkadian/Cuneiform script into heiroglyphs for the pharaoh to read and then the original tablets stored at Amarna to be discovered some 3000 years later.

Akhenaten was the 18th Dynasty ruler who sought to change the entire religion and culture of Egypt to the worship of one deity, the sun-god Re, in the form of the Aten sun disc. Under his rule, however, Egypt became militarily weak and was brought to the brink of revolution. The superpower of the day was crippled, allowing a new power base to emerge in the Levant under the rule of firstly Saul, then David. This culminated in the reign of Solomon, with enough consolidated power to force a marriage alliance between himself and a later pharaoh’s daughter.

The Amarna tablets paint a picture of a tribal Palestine ruled by various city-state rulers of Canaanite, Philistine and Israelite/Hebrew origin as well as the larger state of Amurru/Aram to the north, very much corroborating the biblical picture of Samuel. They tell us that the coastal plains were in the hands of Philistines of Indo-European origin, dominated by city-state rulers with Indo-European names who communicate with Pharaoh Akhenaten in the Amarna letters. The Bible tells of the coastal plains being out of the control of Saul and under Philistine rule (p.207, fig. 244). The city of Gezer in the Amarna letters is under Canaanite rulers; Gezer in the Bible is under Canaanite rule until given to Solomon as a dowry by Pharaoh in I Kings 9:16.

Mentioned several times in the tablets are the Habiru’ people, who are stateless wanderers outside the rule of the city-states of Palestine and Syria, often employed as mercenaries by these rulers to protect their interests. Their lifestyle closely resembles that of the biblical Hebrews and yet posed problems for scholars under the old dating system as to why groups of Hebrews should be wandering in Palestine 100 years before the Exodus! Now, however, these are the Hebrews of David who finally enter the service of Achish, king of Gath, who quarters them in Gath. David and his Hebrews, portrayed as soldiers of fortune as in I Samuel 27:1-6!

In the Amarna letters, Jerusalem is ruled by Jebusites, a Hurrian elite race. In II Samuel 5:6,7, this is also the case until the city is conquered by David. The name of the ruler of Jerusalem is given in the Amarna letters as Abdiheba, a mixed Semitic/Hurrian name. The Amarna tablets tell of the whole region of Syria dominated by kings of Amorite stock including a king Aziru. The Bible in II Samuel speaks of this kingdom being Aram and the king being Hadadezer, one of David’s enemies. Aziru is considered to be the accepted shortening or hypocoristicon of a longer, more formal name. Given that Hadad was a prominent god of the Arameans and that -Aziru (or -ezer) means helper of’, it can be seen that the Amarna letters use the shortened name of the Aramean king Helper of Hadad’ or Hadadezer, a startling biblical confirmation.

The hill country to the north of Jerusalem is dominated in the Amarna letters by a king who shows scant respect for the Egyptian pharaoh. His hypocoristic or shortened name is Labayu, translated as Great Lion of (N)’ where N is a god’s name. The career of the Labayu in the Amarna letters is strikingly similar to that of Saul and this is an alternative name for the biblical Saul, the great lion’ of Yahweh.

Another clue to Saul’s other name is found in Psalm 57 where his bodyguards are called lebaim’, a unique word in the Old Testament meaning great lions’. It is amazing then that as David hides from Saul’s men in the cave of En-Gedi (I Samuel 24) he pens Psalm 57:4:-

“I am in the midst of lions (Hebrew ‘lebaim’); I lie among ravenous beasts – men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords.”

Labayu in the Amarna letters was active in fighting against the Philistines on the coastal plain to the south-west but was unable to conquer their cities. He was finally killed on Mount Gilboa by a Philistine confederacy. A rebellious king, he even wrote to Pharaoh to warn him not to meddle in his affairs. In letter EA 252 (p208 fig. 245), Labayu writes:-

“If an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man who struck it?”

It is truly astounding to have in our possession a letter from King Saul. EA 252 was studied in 1943 by the great American archaeologist William Albright. He concluded that the writer knew little of the Akkadian language and that it was idiomatically pure Hebrew, i.e. written in Hebrew first by the king whose beginnings were insignificant (from the house of Benjamin and the least of its families’ – I Samuel 9:21) and then translated into Akkadian to be sent to Pharaoh. The untutored Labayu/Saul writes to warn off Pharaoh!

A number of other Amarna tablets attest to this king’s disruption of the area. EA 289 states:-

“Are we to act like Labayu when he was giving the land of Shechem to the Habiru?”

Habiru/Hebrews means wanderers’ and was a term of contempt used by the other Palestinian leaders. The Jews called themselves Israelites except when speaking of David’s Hebrews who were a mercenary group of drifters. Indeed, the Hebrews of David may be seen as a different group of Israelites e.g. I Samuel 13:3-5:-

“Jonathan smashed the Philistine pillar which was at Gibeah and the Philistines learnt that the Hebrews had risen in revolt. Saul had the trumpet sounded throughout the country and the whole of Israel heard the news: ‘Saul has smashed the Philistine pillar and now Israel has incurred the enmity of the Philistines.'”

This event is mentioned by Labayu as he writes to the Pharaoh in EA 252, to say that he was recapturing his home town which was taken by the Philistines, even after it had been agreed in the presence of the governor from Egypt that this would not happen!

In EA 254, Labayu’s third letter to Pharaoh, he reprimands his own son for consorting with the Habiru/Hebrews without his knowledge. This is also told in I Samuel 20:30,31.

The deaths of Saul and his sons, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malkishua are recorded in I Samuel 31. They occur at the battle of Mount Gilboa in a clash with the Philistines. After gathering at the fountain of Jezreel, the Israelites retreated into the mountains so that the Philistines could not make use of their chariots and cavalry. How the Philistines were successful in pursuing Saul up the mountains is not clear in the Bible but the Amarna tablets answer some intriguing questions. In EA 250, a ruler of a city-state reports to Pharaoh that Saul’s surviving sons have asked for help to inflict revenge on a city called Gina (biblical En-Ganim) for killing their father. Also, in EA 245, Biridiya, Philistine ruler of Megiddo, writes to say that when he arrived on the battle field, Labayu was already dead and so could not be taken alive and sent to Egypt for public execution as Pharaoh had wanted.

In a map of the battle 1, it can be seen that Saul took up position facing the Philistines over the steep, northern slopes. To the south of his position atop Mount Gilboa lay the gentle slopes of the Vale of Gina and the town of Gina. It is envisaged that the men of Gina had been positioned to guard the southern slopes but that they betrayed Saul and allowed the Philistine archers and chariots to outflank and surprise Saul’s army. Then, when the Philistine ruler Biridiya arrived on the battlefield with the main Philistine army, Saul and his sons were already dead. In the biblical account, Saul was mortally wounded by Philistine arrows; rather than being taken alive, he fell on his own sword to kill himself.

David

After the death of Saul/Labayu, we know from the biblical account that Saul’s son Ishbaal/Ish-Bosheth and David vied for power (II Samuel 3:1). Ishbaal fled across the Jordan after the death of his father and from there he wrote to Pharaoh the tablet EA 256 (in the British Museum) which reads:-

“Say to Yanhamu, my lord: Message of Mutbaal, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord. How can it be said in your presence, Mutbaal has fled. He has hidden Ayab’? How can the king of Pella flee from the commissioner, agent of the king, his lord? As the king, my lord, lives, as the king my lord lives, I swear Ayab is not in Pella. In fact, he has been in the field (i.e. on campaign) for 2 months. Just ask Benenima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask Yishuya.”

There are several points of note in this extract:-

• Yanhamu is the official representative of Pharaoh in Palestine.

• Mutbaal is the Canaanite form of Ishbaal, son of Saul. Both mean Man of Baal’.

• Pella is one of the Israelite strongholds across the Jordan.

Who, however, is the Ayab that Pharaoh speaks of? It has been ascertained by linguists that Ayab is none other than Joab, commander of David’s Hebrew army! Furthermore, it has been worked out that Benenima is Baanah, one of Israel’s chieftains, Dadua is a form of the name David, king of Judah and Yishuya is the name Jesse (Heb. Yishay), the father of David.

As well as confirming the names of these characters, the Amarna letters even contain the name Goliath in its Akkadian form Gulatu (in EA 292 and 294)!

David’s power begins to rise after the death of Saul; after seven and a half years, he is king of all Israel. As his power increases, we read in the Amarna letters desperate pleas for help from Pharaoh against the rampaging Hebrews. Most poignant of all comes from the Jebusite king of Jerusalem, Abdiheba. In EA 288 he writes that he is an island amidst a sea of violence as cities fall to the Hebrews round about him. The fall of Lachish is recorded and Pharaoh is reminded that he has done nothing to help. The king asks to be brought to Egypt with his brothers for safety. However, there never was a rescue as in 1003 BC, David conquered Jerusalem; nothing is ever heard from Abdiheba again in the Amarna letters!

The Amarna letters are not a recent find but have been around for over a century. However, due to the chronological misinterpretation, they were not seen as letters dating from the time of Saul and David. Even then, it greatly puzzled scholars as to how strikingly similar the Palestine of the Amarna letters was to the biblical Davidic picture, because they thought that the letters dated from 100 years before the Exodus. Now with the new dating, the similarities are there because the Amarna letters describe the United Monarchy period of Israelite history. The time gap was simply an illusion of the conventional chronology.

Another document and astronomy confirm the new chronology date for the Amarna period as a record survives of a solar eclipse near sunset at Ugarit in April/May. In 1988, using powerful mainframe computers, it was determined that the only date in the whole 2nd millennium BC when this could have happened was 9th May 1012 BC. This is 350 years earlier than the reign of Amenhotep III was previously dated and backs up the new chronology of David Rohl.

It is interesting to note that the only other mention of David found to date is the Tell Dan Stela/Tablet, dated to the mid-9th century BC and mentioning the House of David’. In this light, the Amarna tablets are clearly an incredible find but the greatest amongst them must be the letter from the Israelite king Saul to Pharaoh, written by the untutored Benjamite king in Hebrew and then translated roughly into Akkadian to be sent off to Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth at that time. EA 252 is surely a priceless artefact!

Moses and The Israelites

One of the most troubling problems for biblical archaeologists was the lack of archaeological evidence for Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. Prior to the Exodus, there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites in Egypt, yet little or no evidence of their existence has been found, even though the sojourn is recorded as lasting for centuries in the Scriptures!

The biblical chronology dates the birth of Moses to around 1527 BC. In the new chronology of Egypt, the pharaoh on the throne of Egypt was Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty.

The early Christian historian Eusebius in his work Evangelicae Preparationis’ quotes from a book Peri Ioudaion’ (Concerning the Jews) by the Jewish historian Artapanus. This work of Artapanus has not survived down to the present but is also quoted in Clement’s Stromata’. Artapanus, writing in the 3rd century BC, had access to ancient records in Egyptian temples and perhaps even the famous Alexandrian library of Ptolemy I.

Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres. Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres died and lead the Israelites to freedom. It may be only a Mosaic story with similarities to the biblical account, yet the only pharaoh with the name Khenephres was Sobekhotep IV, who took the name Khaneferre at his coronation. He reigned soon after Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty, as mentioned above, the pharaoh in power at Moses’ birth!

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews’, with access to very old manuscripts and writing in AD 93, also mentioned Moses’ Ethiopian or Kushite war. Here, Moses led an Egyptian army down the Nile valley, past the Third Cataract, deep into Kush (modern Ethiopia). In the British Museum is a stela (page 261, fig. 289) which tells of a 13th Dynasty pharaoh undertaking a campaign south into the region of Kush. That pharaoh is none other than Khaneferre, the step-father of Moses according to Artapanus. He is the only 13th Dynasty pharaoh who is recorded as having campaigned into Upper Nubia or Ethiopia. At Kerma on the Nile an official Egyptian building was found, outside of which was discovered a statue of Khaneferre, so dating this building to the 13th Dynasty. This is many hundreds of kilometres south of the known boundaries of 13th Dynasty Egypt and may have been a governor’s residence’. It would have been built to secure Egyptian interests in the area after the military victory of the Egyptians led by Moses, as this was the only Kushite war at that time with Egypt. As Moses was a prince of Egypt and was 40 years old according to the Bible when he fled to Arabia, he could certainly have led this military operation – an Israelite leading an Egyptian army to war! If this part of Josephus’ account is true then it adds weight to the rest of his account of the life of Moses and also gives us some firmer evidence of the existence of this charismatic leader!

Avaris

Excavations have been continuing for over 30 years near the Egyptian village of Tell ed-Daba. Here in the Nile Delta region, a large Middle Bronze Age settlement has been uncovered. This is the region of Goshen and the excavation is at the location of the biblical city of Raamses or Pi-Ramesse, the city of Ramesses II (Exodus 1:11). Settlement here spans a period from the 12th to the 20th Dynasties of Egypt. The ancient city at its peak covered an area of ten square kilometres, making it one of the largest cities of the ancient world. It existed for 800 years before being abandoned, when its stones was used to build Tanis.

The city of Pi-Ramesse or Raamses is, of course, famous because it was here that the early Israelites settled as they sojourned in Egypt and here also that they were enslaved. Raamses, however, was not the original name for the city built by the Israelites but as discussed earlier, was a later redaction. The city of Pi-Ramesse was indeed built by the 19th Dynasty ruler Ramesses II (the Great) but, below it, the Austrian team led by Manfred Bietak uncovered a much older city called Avaris which was the actual city built by the Israelites, long before any pharaoh Ramesses had ever reigned.

Avaris was built on a series of sandy hillocks to avoid the annual floodwaters of the Nile. The people who lived in Avaris, however, were not Egyptian but Asiatic Palestinian or Syrian.

The finds there included numerous pottery fragments of Palestinian origin. Several factors about the graves were particularly fascinating:-

• 65% of the burials were of children under 18 months of age, the normal for this period being 20-30%. Could this be due to the killing of the male Israelite children by the Egyptians, recorded in Exodus 1:22?

• A disproportionately high number of adult women as opposed to adult men are buried here, again pointing to the slaughter of male Israelite babies.

• There are large numbers of long-haired Asiatic sheep buried which indicate these people to be shepherds.

• Large numbers of weapons found in the male graves indicate the warlike nature of the people.

The continuing archaeological discoveries here in the ancient city of Avaris mirror exactly the early Israelites revealed in the Old Testament. For two centuries no evidence was found for the Israelites when looking in the strata of the 19th Dynasty. Now that the chronologies have begun to be amended and the sojourn in Egypt placed in the 12th and 13th Dynasties, we have a wealth of archaeological evidence corroborating the biblical account.

Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum 2 resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name that each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:-

• Menahem – a Menahem is recorded as the 16th king of Israel in 743-738 BC

• Issachar and Asher – both Patriachs of Israel and sons of Jacob.

• Shiprah – the name carried by one of the Israelite midwives who were instructed in Exodus 1:15-21 to kill Israelite newborn males.

That 50% of the names are Israelite means that there must have been a very large group of them in the Egyptian Delta at that time, corroborating the testimony of Exodus 1:7 which alludes to how numerous the Israelites became. Also, the female slaves outnumber the male slaves on the papyrus by about 3 to 1, again hinting at the culling of male Hebrew children. There was no military campaign into Palestine in the 13th Dynasty to account for these large numbers of slaves.

The Tenth Plague to be sent on Egypt just before the Exodus was the plague on the first-born, recorded in Exodus 12:29,30. At the end of stratum G/1 at Tell ed-Daba or the ancient city of Avaris 3, archaeologists found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible disaster had been thrown. These death pits were not carefully organised internments; the bodies were simply thrown in on top of one another. Could these be the burial pits of the first-born Egyptians? What is more, immediately after this disaster, the remaining population left Avaris en masse; this fits perfectly with the Exodus of the Israelites following the final terrible plague.

A completely new settlement of Avaris by a purely Asiatic people occurs approximately 50 years after the Exodus. These people are not Egyptianised’ like their predecessors the Israelites who had resided in Egypt for many generations. These are identified in Egyptian history as Hyksos hordes from Arabia – the biblical Amalekites. They invaded Egypt at the end of the 13th Dynasty, ravaging the country, establishing their own rule and appointing their own king to reign in the north of the country. They received tribute and levy from the rest of the land, dominating Egypt for more than two centuries. Their barbarity is shown in Avaris where ritual burials of young women have been uncovered, evidence of a cruel religious rite. Also, these Hyksos invaders plundered the tombs of previous pharaohs, their tomb relics being found in the Hyksos graves.

Although not directly confirming the biblical account, it does pose the question as to how these people were able to invade, settle and dominate the most powerful country on earth at that time. The Bible, of course, provides the answer as in Exodus 14:28 it records the complete destruction of Pharaoh’s army as the waters closed in over them after Moses parted the sea. Egypt without an army would be completely open to invasion by the Hyksos hordes.

The identity of the pharaoh of the Exodus is an interesting conundrum. The Bible dates the Exodus to 1447 BC. The new chronology suggests that the pharaoh at that time was Dudimose. A writer in Ptolemaic Egypt called Manetho records the invasion of the Hyksos hordes. He is quoted by Josephus as he writes:

“Tutimaos: In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.”

Tutimaos is of course pharaoh Dudimose. The Hyksos invaders were confident of victory and could seize the land without striking a blow because Egypt’s army had perished! Again, a remarkable corroboration of the biblical chronology.

Joshua

Following the Exodus, the Israelites wandered in the desert of Sinai for 40 years. The book of Exodus closes with Moses’ death and the story of the conquest of the Promised Land begins in the book of Joshua. Until David Rohl’s new chronology, there was thought to be little evidence of the conquest in archaeology because the conventional chronology dated the conquest to the Early Iron Age IA. However, under the new chronology, the conquest is in the Middle Bronze Age IIB. Here there is a multiplicity of evidence, giving insight into the events recorded in the Bible.

The first major event recorded in the book of Joshua is the capture of Jericho. Excavations at Jericho have been carried out for almost 100 years but the most exacting work was done by Dame Kathleen Kenyon of the Institute of Archaeology, London, in 1952. With the old chronology, the history of Jericho which she found did not correlate to the accepted timing of the conquest. She found a substantial Middle Bronze Age city with a large outer wall 12 feet thick on top of a glacis or steep slope which was plastered smooth so that any enemy could not get a foothold to come near the wall. The slope was held in place by a large revetment wall of heavy field stones built along the bottom of the glacis. Beyond this wall was a deep ditch. The ditch was found to be filled with the remains of the bricks of the city wall.

The walls of Jericho had indeed come tumbling down’ (Joshua 6) and they had in many places filled the defensive ditch at the foot of the steep glacis slope, so enabling the Israelite troops to storm the city. Also found in Jericho were many large earthen jars of carbonised or burnt grain, indicating that the city had been captured rapidly and not after a long siege and famine, as there were lots of supplies. The city, after a sudden capture, had been burned to the ground as is recorded in Joshua 6:24. A layer of ash, in places up to a metre thick, was found, indicating the scale of the fire. Before the redating of the conquest to the Middle Bronze Age, the reason for the destruction of Jericho was unknown. However, now it can easily be viewed as the result of that which Joshua 6:24 speaks of. The city of Jericho after the conquest remained a desolate ruin for several centuries. I Kings 16:34 maintains that Jericho was not rebuilt until the reign of king Ahab in around 850 BC, 550 years later. This is now in the Late Bronze Age and is at the exact time that archaeologists have placed the building of a much smaller settlement at Jericho.

Of the other cities mentioned as having been captured and burned by the invading Israelites in the book of Joshua, excavation of their sites has revealed that 80% of them were destroyed by fire in the Middle Bronze Age, including Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, Debir, Arad and Hebron.

Another interesting find from the excavation of Jericho and other sites in Palestine are numerous scarabs with the name of the Anakite king Sheshai’ who ruled in the Middle Bronze Age. Joshua 15:14 and Judges 1:10 both record that Caleb defeated King Sheshi of Hebron during the conquest.

In 1992, the joint Israeli/Spanish mission were digging at the ruins of Hazor, the largest city of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age. They found a tablet on which was recorded the name of the powerful king of the city 4. That name was Jabin, the same as the king of Hazor who Joshua defeated as recorded in Joshua 11:1,10! Again, Hazor was found to have been completely destroyed during the Middle Bronze Age as recorded in the biblical account of the conquest.

Archaeology at Shechem, one of the most prominent sites in the early biblical history of Israel, has revealed a remarkable consistency with the biblical account. Here Abraham rested under the Oak of Moreh (Genesis 12:6), here Jacob erected an altar to El, the God of Israel’ (Genesis 33:18-20). Joshua set up a large stone here as a memorial to the covenant God made with Israel (Joshua 24:25,26). Abimelech, son of Gideon, burned the people of Shechem alive in punishment for their rebellion against him, as they sheltered in their massive temple-fortress (Judges 9:46-49).

A temple dating to Middle Bronze Age IIB, the time of Joshua, has been found there. It has been identified as that in which the people of Shechem sheltered from Abimelech. The sacred stone which Joshua erected (Joshua 24:25,26) has been found and now stands for tourists to see; it was discovered in the earlier part of this century by Ernst Sellin who re-erected it in its place. This action was viewed with skepticism by many under the old chronology where the conquest was dated to the Early Iron Age. However, there can now be little doubt that this large white rock is indeed the stone erected by Joshua, standing to this day to witness the renewing of the covenant over 3000 years ago.

Sojourn

The length of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt is now taken by many biblical scholars as around 215 years. The key verse in the determination of this is Exodus 12:40. In the Masoretic text, this verse says:-

“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.”

However, the Masoretic Hebrew text dates from the 4th century AD and the earliest surviving copy is from the 10th century. The Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) was made under Ptolemy I in the 3rd Century BC and the earliest copy is centuries older than the oldest full Masoretic text we possess. It records the full version of Exodus 12:40 as:-

“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt and Canaan, was 430 years.”

This rendering of the verse is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, again older than the Masoretic text. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews’ (XV:2), writing in the 1st century, also gives the length of time from Abraham entering Canaan to the Exodus as 430 years. Therefore, in the Masoretic text, it is safe to say that the words “and Canaan” – i.e. the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – have been omitted in transcription over many centuries. Furthermore, I Chronicles 7:22-27 records ten generations from Joshua back to Joseph’s son Ephraim, who was a boy of around five years when Jacob arrived in Egypt. Taking a standard average generation length of 20 years, we again arrive at a sojourn time of approximately 200 years. Josephus (op.cit.) records that from the time of Jacob’s entry into Egypt until the Exodus there was a period of 215 years. Adding this to the Exodus date of 1447 BC from Edwin Thiele’s biblical chronology, we arrive at a date of 1662 BC for Jacob’s arrival in Egypt. Alternatively, by adding 430 years, we arrive at a figure of 1877 BC for Abraham’s arrival in Canaan.

Famine

Joseph was therefore appointed vizier of Egypt, second only to pharaoh, in the 12th Dynasty, according to the new chronology and specifically in the long reign of Amenemhat III.

Do we have any evidence of famine during the reign of Amenemhat III? Remarkably, we do! The Egyptians depended on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate and fertilise the Black Land’ of the Nile Valley and Delta. When the flood waters subsided, the enriched soil was then ploughed and sown for a reliable harvest. The German Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius, in 1844, worked at the Second Cataract of the Nile, at the ancient sites of the twin fortresses of Semna and Kumma. Here he found records for the heights of the Nile floods during the reign of Amenemhat III. The average height was eleven to twelve metres above the normal river level, which would have given a good harvest.

However, by the twelfth year of his reign, the floods recorded were around seventeen metres; this increased the silt deposited on the Delta and therefore gave richer, more abundant crops – the years of plenty’. This continued for seven to eight years. Then there is recorded a series of extra-high floods averaging 21 metres. This would have brought down three or four times the normal volume of water to the Delta. By the time the floodwaters receded, it would have been too late in the year to plant the crops, so resulting in a number of years of famine! It is interesting to note that Pharaoh’s dream, as recorded in Genesis 41:1-4, tells of seven fat and seven thin cows, representing the years of plenty and famine; both came up’ from the Nile, indicating that the Nile would have something to do with the famine! The grain produced in the Nile Delta was exported all over the Levant, so it is little wonder that the rest of the area suffered during the famine and Joseph’s brothers came to buy grain in Egypt.

Around the time of Amenemhat III, the power of the pharaohs was severely compromised by a number of baronies or local chieftains who controlled large parts of Egypt. Being quite rich, they could afford quite elaborate tombs to be buried in. Near the village of Beni Hasan, 39 of these tombs were found cut into a cliff face; the last dated to a period approximately 20 years before Amenemhat III. In this tomb, that of a chieftain called Khnumhotep III, was found a scene depicting a trading party of Asiatics arriving in Egypt 5. This party is very similar to the Midianite caravaneers to whom Joseph’s brothers sold him when he was brought to Egypt (Genesis 37). The inscription below one of these reliefs reads, The chief of the hill country, Abishai’ – a good biblical name! These caravaneers are wearing very colourful garments, again showing that it was the custom in the Levant at this time to wear such colourful clothes, cf. Joseph’s coat of many colours, presented to him by his father Jacob!

During the reign of Amenemhat III, these local chieftains or nomarchs ceased to build their tombs, indicating that they had had their power removed. At the same time, Amenemhat III rose to be one of the most powerful pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty. The reason for this is recorded in Genesis 47:13-21 where even the wealthy were forced to sell their land and possessions to Pharaoh in exchange for grain during the famine. So, the power of the local bigwigs was broken and Pharaoh reigned supreme in Egypt thanks to the works of Joseph.

Amenemhat’s pyramid in which he was buried at Hawara stands beside the ruins of one of the most impressive buildings of the ancient world – the Egyptian Labyrinth – built during his reign. This has thousands of storerooms and the reason for its building can be determined under David Rohl’s new chronology. This was Joseph’s administration centre, set up to organise the distribution of grain during the famine. It was only fitting that Pharaoh should wish to be buried beside the very means by which he had obtained absolute power in Egypt. Also nearby is an impressive water work undertaken during the time of Amenemhat III. A canal from the Nile to Lake Moeris (Birket Karun today) in the region of Faiyum was built to channel excess water from the annual Nile flood into this basin to help lower the Delta flood waters. Its modern name is Bahr Yussef – the waterway of Joseph! All these can now be looked at as the building works undertaken under the supervision of Joseph the Israelite.

The historians Herodotus, Manetho and Diodorus Siculus come together to agree that the Egyptian labyrinth was an amazing construction. Herodotus writes in the Hellenist period (Book II, 148):-

“I have seen it and indeed no words can describe its wonders. Though the pyramids were greater than words can tell and each one of them a match for many great monuments built by the Greeks, this maze surpasses even the pyramids.”

Jacob’s House in Egypt?

When Jacob and his family arrived in Egypt, the Bible numbers them at around 70 people. The excavations at Tell ed-Daba (ancient Avaris) show a small village dating to this time when Jacob settled in the land of Goshen (stratum G/4). An analysis of the human remains found at the site in this stratum by the Austrians Winkler and Wifling have shown that:-

• The male population derived from outside Egypt, probably from Syria or Palestine.

• The females formed a separate distinct ethnic group, originating from the Egyptians of the Nile Delta region.

This is consistent with an influx of foreign males, the early Israelites, who married the local Egyptian women; it therefore closely parallels the biblical account.

Underneath the palace of Joseph at Avaris (which we will come to shortly) in the lower stratum, dating to the time of the earliest settlement here, we have a building of Syrian design, classified by the Austrian team as a Mittelsaal Haus’ or Central Hall house’. This building was of quite modest proportion. The tombs unearthed during the excavation of the garden of this house contained numerous Asiatic artefacts, indicating the occupants to be of Syro-Palestinian origin. From this it is possible to say:-

• The earliest inhabitants of the settlement were not Egyptian.

• A man of some importance dwelt here.

This house, so different from the design of contemporary 12th Dynasty Egyptian houses, could possibly be the house Jacob built and lived in when he first arrived in Egypt and settled in Goshen.

Joseph’s Palace

Following the death of Jacob, the Bible records that Joseph went to live with his father’s family (Genesis 50:22). At this time, Joseph had ascended to the position of the second most important man in Egypt. It would be expected, therefore, that a large palace would be built for him. Immediately over Jacob’s house in the period of early Avaris, Bietak and his team found a magnificent Egyptian-style palace, dating to the 13th Dynasty. It is extensive with many rooms and a large garden, no doubt built for a very important man 6. In the garden, a tomb was uncovered of typical Egyptian style. It was found to be almost empty, having been broken into long ago. However, this was no ordinary tomb robbery as the robbers’ had taken everything, including the body! Normal robbers only remove valuables.

The Bible records that Joseph was embalmed after his death and laid in a coffin, with instructions that he be taken with the Israelites when they left Egypt; this was duly done (Genesis 50:22-26). However, Bietak did discover the desecrated remains of a twice life-size colossus or statue of the occupant of the tomb and palace. Over his right shoulder is a throw stick’, representing a holder of office and authority. The figure is Asiatic. The face has been mostly cleaved off and there are marks on the head where someone has tried to split the stone 7. Someone went to a lot of trouble to destroy the statue of Joseph; this is not surprising as the Egyptians were plundered and humiliated in the Exodus, which might very well prompt a vengeful attack on an Israelite statue! After this (stratum G at Avaris), the city is deserted for 50-70 years, to be resettled by the new Hyksos invaders setting up a base here after subduing Egypt.

Around the time of the Exodus, the Egyptians had a habit of making clay figurines of their enemies , inscribed with various curses. The figurines were then broken to activate the curse on the people whom they represented. 8. One of these execration texts found at Sakkara and now housed in the Brussels Museum dates to the late 12th and early 13th Dynasty, the time of bondage of the Israelites. On it are inscribed the names of none other than Jacob and Joseph himself, written in his non-Egyptian name! This is a dramatic confirmation of the existence of the biblical characters and also the anti-Israelite feeling as they were enslaved, leading up to the Exodus.

Conclusion

The Bible does not call itself a history book but it records the dealing of the real God with real people as they lived real lives in real times. It is important then that the biblical records of the Patriarchs and the early Israelites be lifted out of the category of fable and recognized as true stories. Where the Bible touches history, as it does in many places, then more and more the Word of God is coming out as remarkably accurate. To quote David Rohl, who is an agnostic, at the end of his book:-

“Without initially starting out to discover the historical Bible, I have come to the conclusion that much of the Old Testament contains real history.”

The events recorded in the Bible are not small events but include the building and destruction of cities and the movement of nations, as well as wars and battles affecting thousands of people’s lives. It details the rise and fall of empires as well as the parts played by individuals in that history. Although we may never come up with archaeological evidence for minor bit players’ in the story, major events should not be hard to find. What David Rohl and others are doing is looking at obvious evidence which has always been there and re-interpreting it in the light of new data to find that the broad brush-strokes of history portrayed in the Bible are very accurate. We are no longer waiting for one artefact to prove that the Israelites really were in Egypt but now we see their traces as very clear. The conquest is obvious, as are the reigns of Solomon, David and Saul. Our God did not deal with his people in secret but, as always, in the open for all to see (Acts 26:26). The legacy of how he led his people to create history is there to be discovered.

David Rohl’s book is essentially a new look at old discoveries to see the big picture’. However, as further work is done, more of the background to how the people of the Bible lived will be made known. Even now, hundreds of new discoveries are about to be published to further expand our knowledge of biblical history. Archaeologists have thousands more sites to dig but as they do this, they dig up new evidence in support of the historicity of the Bible.

Appendix – The Ebla Tablets

In 1964, Dr. Paolo Matthiae, professor of Near East archaeology at the University of Rome began to excavate Tell Mardikh in north-western Syria. It soon became clear that they were excavating the ruins of the ancient city of Ebla. In 1975, as the dig progressed down to Early Bronze Age levels, a remarkable find was made in the form of nearly 20,000 clay tablets which constituted the royal archives of the city. These tablets date back to the middle of the 3rd millenium BC, almost 4,500 years ago. They are written in Sumerian wedge-shaped cuneiform script which is the world’s oldest known written language. Deciphering these tablets, Professor Pettinato, also of the University of Rome, found the language used to be what he called Old Canaanite’ even though the script was cuneiform Sumerian. This very ancient language is closer in vocabulary and grammar to biblical Hebrew than any other Canaanite dialect’, including Ugaritic; this therefore gives evidence as to the age of the Hebrew language.

This mass of information from Ebla will take years to digest but already it is very exciting. The city was a large one of 260,000 inhabitants; it traded widely over the known world at that time. A flourishing civilisation existed with many skilled craftsmen in metals, textiles, ceramics, and woodwork. It existed 1,000 years before David and Solomon and was destroyed by the Akkadians in around 1600 BC.

To date, only about one third of the Ebla tablets have been translated. Already, however, Eber has been named as one of its kings. Eber was the great-great-great-great-grandfather of Abraham (Genesis 10:21). Could this Eber, King of Ebla, be the same Eber of the Bible? Other names found, later to be used by biblical men, include Abraham, Esau, Saul, Michael, David, Israel and Ishmael. The supreme god of Ebla was called Yah’, a shortened version of Yahweh’; so, some residual knowledge of the one true God was left at this time before Abraham. Another god was called El’, short for Elohim’, used later by the Hebrews as the generic name for God.

Tablet 1860 names the five cities of Genesis 14:2 in the same order, i.e. Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar. Up until the discovery of the Ebla tablets, the existence of these biblical cities was questioned; yet, here they are mentioned as trade partners of Ebla. This record predates the great catastrophy involving Lot when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Also included in the archive are very early Canaanite creation and flood stories which very closely resemble that of the Bible. This is not surprising as these people would have descended from the generation after the flood and so would have had a common history of these events!

These tablets provide much evidence of early life in Syro-Palestine and give a rich background to the lives of Abraham and the Patriarchs. It will be truly amazing once the excavations are completed and the tablets fully deciphered.

Postscript

As with all new research, David Rohl’s work needs to be carefully examined in order to be sure that the conclusions he has reached are sound and do not contradict clear evidence which is in opposition to it. As many of those who read this website will not be in a position to critically evaluate the arguments due to lack of knowledge and familiarity, we thought it would be useful to include a short summary of some correspondence which we have undertaken with both the author and Professor Kenneth Kitchen of Liverpool University. Professor Kitchen is a widely respected authority on the TIP and his book The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt’ (Warminster 2nd ed. 1986, augmented reprint 1996) was the first publication that brought together all the available evidence on the TIP and worked it into a whole framework of dating for the period. This was by all estimations a landmark publication; Professor Kitchen’s contributions to Egyptology are of undoubted significance, irrespective of whether or not the conventional chronology is proven to require adjustment, as is suggested by David Rohl’s work.

There now follow some of the main points raised by Professor Kitchen in reply to David Rohl’s book and, alongside them, David Rohl’s responses to those points. In order to explain a little more for those unfamiliar with the material, the main conclusion of David Rohl’s book with regard to redating was that the 21st and 22nd dynasties of pharaohs, instead of following on one from the other, actually occurred partly simultaneously, requiring a shrinking down of the conventional dates. This is a crucial part of the argument and so a large part of what follows concerns this overlapping of the two dynasties. Much of the detail has been left out in order not to confuse and it is therefore of necessity very brief. Those who have an interest are encouraged to study the topics in more depth. The books by David Rohl and Professor Kitchen, referenced in the main text, provide ample material and references for the hungry mind.

Professor Kitchen

David Rohl

The founder of the 22nd Dynasty, Shoshenk I, dedicated a statue to his immediate predecessor, Psusennes II, the last king of the 21st Dynasty. This obviously shows that the 21st and 22nd Dynasties did not overlap at all.

This inscription is certainly not conclusive. We know of two kings named Psusennes but are still in the dark as to which came first. Within the framework of the conventional chronology, it is assumed that the Psusennes recorded on this statue must be Psusennes II but there is no hard evidence on which to base this conclusion. Indeed, if Har-Psusennes turns out to be Psusennes I it is actually further proof that Dynasties 21 and 22 were contemporary.

Shoshenk I’s son Osorkon I married the daughter of Psusennes II, again demonstrating the continuity of the two dynasties. This is recorded on statue BM8 in the British Museum. The inscription does not inform us which king Osorkon it concerns. His identification is again dependent on the assumption that the two dynasties were continuous. It can easily be argued that if we are dealing with Osorkon II then the same evidence shows them to overlap.

There is a single line of high priests of Amun in Thebes and of Ptah in Memphis, both of which pass right through the change between 21st and 22nd Dynasties, removing any possibility of overlapping the two dynasties.

These lines of succession are, as before, totally dependent on key assumptions which are wrong. The data used are found on burial dockets which give the year of a king’s reign without specifying which king it is referring to. Once the underlying assumptions are shown to be wrong, the edifice comes crashing down.

An inscription from the reign of Merenptah of the 19th Dynasty relating to the annual inundation of the Nile shows conclusively that any folding-up of the dynasties is impossible. The data concern a specific point in a 1460-year cycle which can be accurately located in absolute time. There is thus no room for moving the dynasties around because of this firm date.

Professor Kitchen has not seen the inscription himself; he has referred to an article written by a man who has also not seen the inscription but only a facsimile of it. The published reading of the text is quite wrong and has been checked personally by David Rohl when in Egypt. The correct reading actually supports the revision of the dynasties as the fixed point referred to in the inscription has itself been wrongly dated due to the misreading.

1. p.218, fig. 259

2. p.276, fig. 310

3. p.293

4. p.317, fig.338

5. p.292

6. p.358, fig. 382

7. p.364, fig.390

8. p.351, fig.376

Does the Bible or the Qur’an have stronger historical corroboration?

The Qur’an

Does the Bible or the Qur’an have stronger historical corroboration? How would you support your argument, using specific examples?

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

---

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Authority of the Qur’an

3. The Revelation of the Qur’an

4. The Inspiration of the Qur’an

5. The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

   1. Its Holiness

   2. Its Superior Style

   3. Its Literary Qualities

   4. Its Pure Arabic

6. The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

   1. The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

   2. The “Sword” found in the Qur’an

7. The Collation, or Collection of the Qur’anic Text

   1. The Periods of Revelation

   2. The Method of Collection

      1. Zaid’s Collection

      2. Competing Collections

   3. The Standardisation of One Text

   4. The Missing Verses

      1. Sura 33:23

      2. The Verse on Stoning

   5. The Variations Between the Codices

      1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

      2. Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

   6. Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

8. The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

9. Errors Found Within the Qur’an

   1. Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

      1. Moses

      2. Yahya

      3. Trinity

      4. Ezra

   2. Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors

      1. Mary & Imran

      2. Haman

   3. Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

      1. Ishmael

      2. Samaritan

      3. Sunset

      4. Issa

      5. Mountains

      6. Alexander the Great

      7. Creation

      8. Pharaoh’s Cross

      9. Other Scientific problems

   4. Absurdities

      1. Man’s Greatness

      2. Seven Earths

      3. Jinns & Shooting Stars

      4. Solomon’s power over nature

      5. Youth and dog sleep 309 years

      6. People become apes

      7. Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

      8. Jacob’s smell & sight

      9. Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man

   5. Grammatical Errors

10. The Sources of the Qur’an

    1. Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

       1. Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

       2. Cain and Abel

       3. Abraham

       4. Mt Sanai

       5. Solomon and Sheba

       6. Mary, Imran and Zachariah

       7. Jesus’s Birth

       8. Heaven and Hell

    2. Stories Which do not Correspond with the Biblical Account

       1. Harut and Marut

       2. The Cave of 7 Sleepers

       3. The Sirat

11. Conclusion

12. References

---

A: Introduction

How many of you have been in a conversation with a Muslim, and you find that soon there are irreconcilable differences between you? You ask the Muslim why he or she says the things they do, and they respond that they only repeat what they have learned from the Qur’an. In reply you claim that what you believe also comes from the Word of God, the Bible. It doesn’t take long before you realize that neither side can agree because the authority for what you believe and say is at a variance to what they believe and say. Our Bible contradicts much of what their Qur’an says, and this fact alone will continue to negate many worthwhile conversations which we may wish to indulge in.

So, what is the solution? If two documents are in contradiction, the first thing to do is ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately. And if not, then we must conclude that one of the two documents is false. Therefore, before we get into serious dialogue with a Muslim we must ask the question of whether the authority for our respective beliefs (the Qur’an and the Bible) can stand up to verification, and whether they can stand up to a critical analysis of their authenticity.

This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from revealed truth, which they find in their respective scriptures. Consequently, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is a task that no-one should take lightly, and I don’t intend to do so here. For that reason, I have decided not to attempt a simplistic analysis concerning the authority of the Qur’an and the Bible in one single paper. Instead I will begin by dealing with the authority of the Qur’an in this paper and then turn my attention to the authority for our own scriptures, the Bible, in a follow-up paper.

In no way do I claim to know all the answers, nor will I be so pretentious as to assume that I can exhaustively argue the question of authority for both the Qur’an and the Bible in these two papers. These studies are nothing more than mere “overviews,” with the hope that they will stimulate you to continue studying these very important areas in your own time, so that you too will “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we observe the two faiths, we see immediately that they are in conflict with one another concerning their scriptures. Muslims believe that their scripture, the Qur’an, is the ‘final revelation,’ while Christians believe only the Bible (including the Old and New Testaments) can claim true authority.

If we were to delve into the contents of each scripture we would find that the two are at variance with one another in a number of areas: stories have changed, characters are missing and entire sections do not exist in one but do in the other.

In order to delineate which is correct, we will need to take each revelation separately and ask whether it can stand up to scrutiny, whether it can hold firm under critical analysis, and whether it can claim to be indeed the true revelation from God. Let us then start with the authority for the Qur’an

Normally when one begins any research into the Qur’an, the first question which should be asked is how we know that it is what it claims to be, the final word of God? In order to answer that question we would need to go to the sources of the Qur’an to ascertain its authenticity.

As you well know, going to the sources of the Qur’an is much more difficult then one would usually assume, as we have so little data with which to use. In another paper (The problems with Sources of Islam) I have dealt with the problems which exist when confronted by the dearth of material on the sources of the Qur’an, so I won’t repeat those arguments here.

Suffice it to say, that the only real source we have for the Qur’an is the book itself, and what Muslim Traditions tell us concerning how that book came to be created. Because of their late compilations (200-300 years after the event), and the contradicting documentation which we now possess prior to 750 C.E., I find it difficult to consider either of them as valid or authentic as source material.

However, since we are attempting to compare the Qur’an with our own scriptures, I will, for the time being, set aside my prejudices, and assume, for argument’s sake, that the traditions are correct. In other words, I will take the position of current orthodox Muslim scholarship and presume that the Qur’an was compiled in the years 646-650 C.E., from material which originated with the man Muhammad before his death in 632 C.E.

It is from this premise that I will attempt to respond to the question of whether the Qur’an can claim to be the final and most perfect revelation of God’s word to humanity.

---

B: The Authority for the Qur’an

The Arabic word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the root ‘qara’a’, which means “to read” or “to recite.” This was the command which the angel Gabriel supposedly asked Muhammad three times to do when he confronted him in July or August 610 C.E. in the Hira cave, situated three miles north-east of Mecca (Mishkat IV p.354).

According to Muslims the Qur’an is the final revelation from Allah. In Arabic the Qur’an is also referred to as ‘Al-Kitab’ (the book), ‘Al-furkan’ (the distinction), ‘Al-mas’haf’ (the scroll), and ‘Al-dikhr’ (the warning), as well as other names.

For those who like statistics, you may be interested to know that the Qur’an consists of 114 chapters (suras), made up of 30 parts, 6,616 verses (ayas), 77,943 words, and 338,606 letters. According to Islamic scholars 86 of the suras were revealed in Mecca, while 28 suras were revealed at Medina. Yet, as portions of some suras were recited in both places, you will continue to find a few of the scholars still debating the origins for a number of them. The suras vary in length and are known by a name or title, which are taken from the general theme of that sura, or a particular subject, person or event mentioned in it. This theme may not necessarily appear at the beginning of the sura, however.

Each verse or portion of the sura is known as an ‘aya’, which means “miracle” in Arabic. Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an was his sole miracle, though the Qur’an did not exist in its written form during his lifetime. In fact much of the controversy concerning the chronology of the Qur’an can be blamed on the fact that he was not around to verify its final collation. But more about that later. To begin with, let’s start with the question of revelation: how does Islam understand this concept, and could their view on it be one of the reasons we don’t see eye-to-eye concerning our two scriptures?

---

C: The Revelation of the Qur’an

Islam, like Christianity, believes that God (Allah) desires to communicate with humanity. But, unlike Christianity, Islam tells us that Allah is remote, so he must not reveal himself to humanity at a personal level. It is for that reason that Allah is forced to employ appointed prophets, who are known as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are mere humans and so finite, though they are given a special status, and consequently protected by God.

Because Allah is so transcendent and unapproachable, revelation in Islam is simply one-way: from God to humanity, via the prophets. While each prophet supposedly fulfilled his mission by producing a book, the final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is that given to the final prophet Muhammad: the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, Muslims believe, is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation, which are found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. Muslims point to sura 85:21-22 which says “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe 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 for comparison between one version and another).

According to Muslim tradition, these ‘revelations’ were sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens at the time of the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (‘lailat al Qadr’) (Pfander, 1910:262). From there it was revealed to Muhammad in instalments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and must be revered as such.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for nazil revelation of the Qur’an, comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. There are no outside witnesses before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony; nor are miracles provided to substantiate his claims.

In fact, the evidences for the authority of God’s revelation, which the Bible emphatically produces are completely absent in the Qur’an, namely, that the revelation of God must speak in the name of God, Yahweh, that the message must conform to revelation which has gone before, that it must make predictions which are verifiable, and that the revelation must be accompanied by signs and wonders in order to give it authority as having come from God. Because these are missing in the case of the prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, for those of us who are Christians, it seems indeed that it is the Qur’an and not the Bible which turns out to be the most human of documents.

Yet, Muslims continue to believe that the exact Arabic words which we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven. This, according to them, makes the Qur’an the “Mother of books” (refer to sura 43:3). Muslims believe there is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, in both suras 2:23 and 10:37-38 we find the challenge to, “Present some other book of equal beauty,” (a challenge which we will deal with later).

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 masters 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 up to any criticism. Yet, what are we to do with the many contradictions, the factual errors and bizarre claims it makes? Furthermore, when we look more carefully at the text that we have in our possession today, which is supposedly that 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 four co-existing codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy, all of which have deviations and deletions between them.

Another problem concerns its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we may not question its content, much of which, according to Muslim Tradition, originates from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years), and so consists of basic rules and regulations for social, economical, and political structures, many of which have been borrowed from existing legal traditions of the Byzantine and Persian cultures, leaving us with a seventh-ninth century document which has not been easily adapted to the twentieth century.

As Christians, this question is important. 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 (such as worship styles, music, dress, all of which can and are being contextualized in the variety of cultures which the church finds itself today).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies. 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 (the process of 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.

This, I feel is the crux of the problem between Islam’s and Christianity’s 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 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.

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. 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 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!

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. 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. Therefore, 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, as it brings God’s infinite revelation down from its transcendent pedestal, and presents it within the context of finite humanity. 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, as they are both considered to be 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 possibly compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira of the prophet 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 though the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning how He lived. On the other hand the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with here and there 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.

It may be helpful to use this argument to introduce Jesus to a Muslim, rather then begin with His deity, as it explains the purpose of Jesus before attempting to define who He is; in other words explaining the why before the how.

---

D: The Inspiration of the Qur’an

That then leads us into the question of inspiration. We have already said that God (or Allah) requires agents in the form of prophets to communicate his truth to his creation. Yet how does Allah communicate his thoughts and will to these prophets? How is revelation carried out?

The Arabic term which best explains the process of revelation is the word ‘Wahy’, which can mean ‘divine inspiration.’ According to the Qur’an the primary aim of Wahy is two fold:

1. to prove Muhammad’s call to prophet-hood (according to suras 13:30 and 34:50), and

2. to give him authority to warn people (according to sura 6:19).

Concerning the inspiration of the previous prophets, we are told very little.

In sura 42:51 we find Wahy explained as such:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills, for He is most high, most wise.”

According to the above sura there are three methods by which Allah communicates to his creation:

1. by direct inspiration

2. from behind a veil and

3. through a messenger (the implication is that of an angelic being).

Since the Qur’an tells us little concerning how Muhammad received his revelations, we refer to those who compiled the Sira of the prophet, men like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Athir, and the Turkish writer ‘Ali Halabi to get a clearer insight. Their writings list seven forms of the experience of Wahy by Muhammad, some of which are quite revealing:

1. While the Wahy (inspiration) lasted, according to his wife Aisha, there were the sounds of bells ringing as he sweated profusely. He would become greatly perturbed and his face would change (Sahih Muslim). Muslim Tradition tells us that sometimes he would shiver and swoon, his mouth would foam, and he would roar like a camel (Mishkat IV p.359). At other times when the inspiration descended there was the sound near his face like the buzzing of bees (from ‘Umar ibnu’l Khattab), while at other times he felt a tremendous headache (from Abu Hurairah). Many times it seemed to his friends that he swooned and looked like someone intoxicated (Pfander 1910:346).

2. Wahy came to him in dreams.

3. Inspiration also came to him in visions while he was awake.

4. At times he saw an angel in the form of a young man (Pfander 1910:345).

5. At other times he saw angels in angelic form (sura 42:51).

6. During one evening (known as the Mi’raj) he was raptured through the Seven Heavens (according to the Hadith, Muhammad was taken to the highest heaven where he received the command to pray five times a day).

7. Allah spoke to him from behind a veil (sura 42:51).

When we look at all these examples of inspiration a picture begins to form, of a man who either had a vivid imagination, or was possessed, or suffered from a disease such as epilepsy. Muhammad, according to ‘Amr ibn Sharhabil, mentioned to his wife Khadijah that he feared he was possessed by demons and wondered whether others might consider him possessed by jinn
(Pfander 1910:345).

Even during his childhood Muhammad was afflicted with similar problems, causing concern to his friends who felt he had “become afflicted” (Pfander 1910:347).

Anyone acquainted with occult phenomena would be aware of the conditions of those who participate in seances. Occult phenomena in childhood, daydreams, the hearing of voices and calls, nightly meditations, excessive perspiration during trances and the subsequent exhaustion and swoon-like condition; as well as the ringing of bells are quite common. Even the
intoxicated condition resembles someone who is in a reasonably deep trance.

Also revealing is the report by Al Waqidi that Muhammad had such an aversion to the form of the cross that he would break everything brought into the house with a shape of the cross on it (Nehls 1990:61).

What we must ask is whether these manifestations point to true occurrences of inspiration, or whether they were simply a disease, or a condition of demonization? Historians inform us that certain great men (many of whom tended to be great warriors, such as Julius Caesar, the great Roman general, as well as the emperor Peter the Great of Russia, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor), all exhibited the same symptoms mentioned above. But none of them claimed to be prophets or apostles of God, nor did their followers offer them such status.

While we want to be careful not to revel in trivial speculation, we must remember that the above statements concerning Muhammad’s condition did not originate from sources outside of Islam. These were statements by his friends and relatives, and those who most firmly believed in his claim to be the seal of the prophets. I am not an expert on these matters, so I leave it to you to decide whether the facts which we have learned concerning the condition of Muhammad at the time he received his revelations, can lead us to the conclusion that what he received were truly inspired.

---

E: The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

Moving on, we now tackle the book itself, and ask whether its supposed qualities give it the right to claim a unique position alongside those of the previous scriptures.

E1: Its Holiness

While Muslims hold a high view for all Scriptures, including the Old and New Testaments, they demand a unique and supreme position for the Qur’an, claiming its ascendancy over all other scriptures, because, according to them, “initially, it was never written down by men and so was never tainted with men’s thoughts or styles.” As we mentioned earlier, it is often referred to as the “Mother of Books” (taken from sura 43:3).

Since the Qur’an is such a highly honoured book, it therefore is treated as if it, in itself, is holy. To enquire into its source is considered blasphemy. In most mosques which I have attended, no one would be permitted to let their Qur’an touch the floor. Instead, every individual was urged to use ornately decorated book-stands to rest their Qur’an on while reading from its contents. My Muslim friends were horrified to learn that Christians not only stacked Bibles alongside other lesser books, but that they wrote notes in the margins as well.

The function of the Qur’an, then, seems to be in opposition to that of the Bible. This points out another clear distinction between the two faiths view on revelation.

Take the example of an old man I met in a Pennsylvania mosque, who was highly revered due to his ability to quote, by memory, any passage from the Qur’an (and thus had the title of Hafiz). Yet, I never saw him lead any discussions on the Qur’an. A young Saudi Arabian man was given that responsibility. When I asked, “Why?” I was told that the old gentleman didn’t understand Arabic well (memorizing thus doesn’t command understanding).

It shocked me to find a man who had spent years memorizing the Qur’an, yet had no yearning to understand the content of its message. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims find little desire to translate their most holy book? Merit is found in the rote reading of the Qur’an in Arabic, and not in its message.

Another example is that of a friend of mine here in London who considered the Qur’an the epitome of beauty, and offered me certain suras as examples. Yet, when I asked him to translate the texts he could not.

Some of the Pakistani students at the university I attend who could quote certain passages, admired the beauty of the text, but had great difficulty in explaining the meaning. I found it disconcerting that the “beauty of the Qur’an” had such an influence, yet its “beauty” seemed, in fact, to discourage its understanding, which becomes an enemy to its mystique.

Here then is the key which points to the difference between the scriptures of the Christians and that of the Muslims. The fact that Muslims accord the Qur’an a place of reverence and worship, while memorizing its contents without necessarily understanding it, sparks of idolatry, the very sin (“Shirk”) which the Qur’an itself warns against, as it elevates an object to the same level of reverence as Allah (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

In much of the Muslim world leather amulets worn on the body are sold outside the mosques (sometimes called Giri-giri). Within these amulets one can find folded pieces of paper with an aya, or verse from the Qur’an written on them. These verses supposedly have power to ward off evil spirits and diseases. For these Muslims the very letters of the Qur’an are imbued with supernatural power.

Christianity stands against this view of God’s written word. We believe that the power and authority for the scriptures comes not from the paper it is written on, but from the words it expresses. We believe that the Bible is merely the testimony of God’s revelation to humanity, and so is not holy in and of itself. It is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Therefore, its importance lies in its content, rather than in its physical pages, just as a newspaper is read and thrown away, though the news it holds may remain imprinted on the readers mind for years to come.

Perhaps, the criticism by Muslims that Christians abuse the Bible is a result of this misunderstanding of its purpose. Once we understand the significance of the scriptures as nothing more than a repository of God’s word, we can then understand why Christians feel no injunction against writing in its margins, or against laying it on the floor (though most of the Christians I know would not do so out of respect for its message).

The high regard for the Qur’an carries over into other areas as well, some of which need to be discussed at this time.

E2: Its Superior Style

Many Muslims claim that the superiority of the Qur’an over all other revelations is due to its sophisticated literary style. They quote suras 10:37-38, or 2:23, or 17:88, which say: “Will they say ‘Muhammad hath forged it? Answer: “Bring therefore a chapter like unto it, and call whom ye may to your assistance, besides Allah, if ye speak truth.”

This boast is echoed in the Hadith (Mishkat III, pg.664), which says:

“The Qur’an is the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world… This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.”

Muslims conclude that since there is no literary equivalent in existence, this proves that the Qur’an is a “miracle sent down from God, and not simply written by any one man.”

Ironically, we now know that many stories and passages in the Qur’an were borrowed, sometimes word-for-word, and sometimes idea-for-idea, from Second century apocryphal documents of Jewish and Zoroastrian origin (to be discussed later in this paper).

To support this elevated belief in their scripture, many Muslim Qur’anic translators have an inclination to clothe their translations in a style that is rather archaic and ‘wordy,’ so that the average person must run to the dictionary to enquire their meanings. Yet, these translations were not conceived hundreds of years ago. This is merely a ploy by the translators to give the text an appearance of dignity and age which, they hope, will in turn inspire trustworthiness.

In response, we must begin by asking whether the Qur’an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from Muslim Tradition that the Qur’an which we have today was not written by Muhammad but was collated and then copied by a group of men who, fourteen to twenty years after the fact, took what they found from the memory of others, as well as verses which had been written on bones, leaves and stones and then burned all evidence of any other copies. Where is the miracle in that?

More current research is now eradicating even this theory. According to the latest data, the Qur’an was not a document which was even given to Muhammad. Much of what is included in the Qur’an were additions which slowly evolved over a period of 150-200 years, until they were made a canon sometime in the eighth or ninth century. If this is true, and it looks to be the best theory which we have to date, then the authority for the Qur’an as a miracle sent down from heaven is indeed very slim.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s ask whether the Qur’an can be considered unique in its style and makeup.

The logic of the claim to its uniqueness, according to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, is spurious as:

“… It no more proves its inspiration than a man’s strength demonstrates his wisdom, or a woman’s beauty, her virtue. Only by its teachings, its principles, and content can a book be judged rightly; not by its eloquence, elegance, or poetic strength” (Shorrosh 1988:192).

Furthermore, one must ask what criteria is used for measuring one literary piece against the other. In every written language there must be a “best piece” of literature. Take for example the: Rig-Veda of India (1,000- 1,500 B.C.), or the eloquent poems in Greek, the Odyssey and the Iliad by Homer, or the Gilgamesh Epic, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead from Egypt, all which are considered classic masterpieces, and all of which predate the Qur’an.

Closer to home: would we compare Shakespeare’s works against that of the Qur’an? No! They are completely different genres. Yet, while few people today dispute the fact that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are the best written in the English language, no-one would claim they were therefore divine.

To show the futility of such an argument, it would not take a very brilliant person to quote from classical pieces of literature in rebuttal. They could use such examples as the prayer written by Francis of Assisi (from the 12th century), or the prayer of Thomas Aquinas (in the 13th century), or portions of our own scripture, such as the 23rd Psalm and other Psalms, or even point to the imagery found in the gospel of John, or the sophistication evidenced in the letter to the Romans, or the chapter on Love in 1 Corinthians 13. These could all make the claim to be superior to the Qur’an and some of them definitely are, but that is not the point. We know the authors of each of these pieces of literature, humble men all; men who would shudder if we would consider their writings somehow elevated to that of the divine.

To make this distinction more clear, compare for example:

1. sura 76:29-30 (sura or 16:93) and I Timothy 2:4, Luke 15:3-4, John 10:14,18.

2. sura 111 and Francis of Assisi’s prayer (see Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims, example no.11, pg.75).

3. suras 4:74,84; 5:33; 48:16-17 and Matthew 5:3-12. sura 109 and Psalm 23.

4. sura 24:2 and John 8:3-12.

5. suras 2:222-223; 4:11,24,34,176 and Ephesians 5:22-25.

6. sura 9:29 and I Corinthians 13:4-7.

7. sura 33:53, 56-57 and Matthew 20:25-28.

8. suras 55:46-60; 56:22-26,35-38 and Revelation 21:1-8, 22-27; 22:1-6.

You may feel that the selection of the suras has been unfavorable in contrast to the quotations from the Bible and the prayer, and you are correct. But you must remember that the claim of the Qur’an is to “produce a chapter like it.” A chapter would mean any chapter, and certainly, as I have done here, those chapters which are similar in kind and content.

I am aware that the reverse could be done, that Biblical texts could be taken and opposed in similar fashion, but for what purpose? We make no claim, as has the Qur’an, that the Bible is superior to all pieces of literature.

In fact many statements and events described in the Bible are historical records, including quotations uttered by opponents of God, which do not necessarily reflect the consent, thought and will of God. Taken out of context such texts can and frequently are abused to support just about any view or opinion. Our intent here is to consider whether indeed the Qur’an has a superior style, such that it is unique among the scriptures of God. From what you now know, you, then, must decide.

E3: Its Literary Qualities

But what about the Qur’an’s supposed literary qualities?

While Christian or secular Arabic speakers are likely to appreciate the Qur’an’s poetic qualities, when anyone who is familiar with the Bible picks up a Qur’an and begins to read it through, there is the immediate recognition that he or she is dealing with an entirely different kind of literature than what is found in the Bible.

Whereas the Bible contains much historical narrative, the Qur’an contains very little. Whereas the Bible goes out of its way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Qur’an remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Bible, consisting of a library of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 years, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject and theme.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, interposed many times with little relationship to the preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that it is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it!

The German secular scholar Salomon Reinach in his harsh analysis, states that:

“From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it.” (Reinach 1932:176)

McClintock and Strong’s encyclopedia concludes that:

The matter of the [Koran] is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered. (McClintock and Strong 1981:151)

Even the Muslim scholar Dashti laments the literary defects of the Qur’an, saying:

“Unfortunately the Qur’an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged.”

He concludes that:

“All students of the Qur’an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation, as in ‘Ali ibn Taleb’s lost copy of the text” [Dashti 1985:28].

When reading a Qur’an, you will discover that the 114 suras not only have odd names for titles (such as the Cow, the Spoils, the Bee, or the Cave), but their layout is not at all in a chronological order. Size or length had more to do with the sequence of the suras than any other factor, starting with the longer suras and ending with the shortest. Even within the suras we find a mixed chronology. At times there is a mixture of Meccan and Medinan revelations within the same sura, so that even size is not an infallible guide in dating them.

Another problem is that of repetition. The Qur’an was intended to be memorized by those who were illiterate and uneducated since they could not read it. It therefore engages in the principal of endless repetition of the same material over and over again [Morey 1991:110]. This all leads to a good bit of confusion for the novice reader, and gives rise to much suspicion concerning its vaunted literary qualities.

In contrast to the Bible, which was written over several hundred years by a variety of authors, and flows easily from the creation of the world right through to the prophecies concerning the end of the universe; the Qur’an, supposedly written by just one man, Muhammad, during a span of a mere 20 years, seems to go nowhere and say little outside of the personal and political affairs of himself and his companions at one particular time in history.

With no logical connection from one sura to the next, one is left with a feeling of incompleteness, waiting for the story to give some meaning. Is it no wonder that many find it difficult to take seriously the claim by the Hadith that the Qur’an is “a book second to none in the world,” worthy of divine inspiration?

E4: Its Pure Arabic

Muslims believe that the Arabic language is the language of Allah. They also believe that the Qur’an, because it is perfect, is the exact representation of Allah’s words. For that reason only the Arabic Qur’an can be considered as authoritative. It, therefore, follows that those who do not know Arabic are still required to read and memorize the Qur’an in the Arabic language, as translations can never replace the language of Allah. Yet, is the Qur’an the Arabic document which Muslims claim it to be?

The answer is unequivocally “NO!” There are many foreign words or phrases which are employed in the Qur’an, some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others which do.

Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the [Koran], has gathered some 300 pages dealing with foreign words in the Qur’an, many of which must have been used in pre-Qur’anic Arabic, but quite a number also which must have been used little or not at all before they were included in the Qur’an. One must wonder why these words were borrowed, as it puts doubt on whether “Allah’s language” is sufficient enough to explain and reveal all that Allah had intended. Some of the foreign words include:

1. Pharaoh: an Egyptian word which means king or potentate, which is repeated in the Qur’an 84 times.

2. Adam and Eden: Accadian words which are repeated 24 times. A more correct term for “Adam” in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning “mankind.” “Eden” would be the word janna in Arabic, which means “garden.”

3. Abraham (sometimes recorded as Ibrahim): comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent would be Abu Raheem.

4. Persian words

   1. Haroot and Maroot are Persian names for angels.

   2. Sirat meaning “the path” has the Arabic equivalent, Altareeq.

   3. Hoor meaning “disciple” has the Arabic equivalent, Tilmeeth.

   4. Jinn meaning “good or evil demons” has the Arabic equivalent, Ruh.

   5. Firdaus meaning “the highest or seventh heaven” has the Arabic equivalent, Jannah.

5. Syriac words: Taboot, Taghouth, Zakat, Malakout are all Syriac words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

6. Hebrew words: Heber, Sakinah, Maoon, Taurat, Jehannim, Tufan (deluge) are all Hebrew words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

7. Greek words: Injil, which means “gospel” was borrowed, yet it has the Arabic equivalent, Bisharah. Iblis is not Arabic, but a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos.

8. Christian Aramaic: Qiyama is the Aramaic word for resurrection.

9. Christian Ethiopic: Malak (2:33) is the Ethiopic word for angel.

---

F: The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

Another claim by Muslims for the authority of the Qur’an is its universal application for all people and for all time. Yet is this the case?

There are many who believe that the Qur’an follows so closely the life and thought of the Arab world during the 7th-9th centuries, that indeed it was written for that specific environment, and not as a universal document for all peoples. suras 16:103; 26:195; and 42:7 point to its uniquely Arabic character.

In fact, the Qur’an, rather than being a universal document served to provide personal advantages for Muhammad. Examples of this can be found in suras: 33:36-38 (Zayd and Zaynab), 50-52 (rotation of wives and special privilege of Muhammad), 53-54 (privacy of Muhammad, and non marriage to his widows) and 66:1 (abstaining from wives or honey?-see Yusuf Ali’s note no.5529). Why would a document written for the benefit of all of humanity refer to personal incidents of one man? Do we find similar examples in the previous scriptures and prophets?

Indeed, it seems that Muhammad was the right prophet for the Arabs. He took their culture and universalized it. Take for instance these three examples:

1. The Arabs gloried in their language; Muhammad declared it the divine language, maintaining that the everlasting tablets in heaven recorded the original revelations in the Arabic script. Yet, he seemed to forget the fact that all the previous scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek and not Arabic.

2. The Arabs gloried in their traditional practices and customs of the desert; practices such as predatory war, slavery, polygamy, and concubinage. Muhammad impressed upon all these usages the seal of a divine sanction. Yet it is these very areas which have proved such a stumbling-block to the western world ever since, as they reflect little of the ethos of the preceding scriptures; an ethos which guides the laws and practices of much of the modern world today.

3. The Arabs gloried in the holiness of Mecca. Muhammad made it the only portal whereby men could enter paradise. Yet there is no extra-Qur’anic documentation that Mecca was much more than a small nondescript hamlet until well into the 7th century. It was not situated on the coast, nor did it have an adequate water supply, like its neighbour Taif, which, unlike Mecca, was well-known as a rest-stop on the caravan routes.

Therefore, one can say that Muhammad took the Arab people just as he found them, and while he applied some new direction, he declared much that they did to be very good and sacred from change (Shorrosh 1988:180).

There are other examples of a specific Arabic influence on the Qur’an; two of which are the status of women, and the use of the sword.

F1: The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

Women in the Qur’an have an inferior status to that of men. While the Qur’an permits women to participate in battle, it also allows a Muslim husband to cast his wife adrift without giving a single reason or notice, while the same right is not reserved for the woman. The husband possesses absolute, immediate, and unquestioned power of divorce (suras 2:224-230 and 33:49).

Women are to be absolutely obedient, and can be beaten (or scourged) for being rebellious in sura 4:34 (Yusuf Ali adds “lightly,” yet the Arabic does not allow this inclusion). No privilege of a corresponding nature is reserved for the wife. Men have double the inheritance of women (sura 4:11,176). In addition to the four wives allowed by law, a Muslim man can have an unlimited number of slave girls as concubines (or sexual partners) according to sura al-Nisa 4:24-25.

Even paradise creates inequalities for women. suras 55:56; 56:36 and 78:33 state that paradise is a place where there are beautiful young virgins waiting to serve the “righteous” (sura 78:31). These virgins, we are told, will have beautiful, big, lustrous eyes (sura 56:22); they will be Maidens who are chaste, who avert their eyes out of purity (sura 55:56, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5210), and have a delicate pink complexion (sura 55:58, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5211). Nowhere are we told what awaits the Muslim women of this world in paradise: the Muslim mothers and sisters. One wonders who these virgin maidens are, and where they come from?

With Qur’anic pronouncements such as we have read in the preceding chapters it is not surprising that much of the Muslim world today reflects in its laws and societal makeup such a total bias against women?

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the twenty-three countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only ten to twenty percent of all workers), seventeen are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the eleven countries with the worst record for disparagement of opportunity between men and women, ten are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in three Muslim countries: Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57).

Another revealing statistic shows that of the twelve states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, seven are Muslim states. The bottom three listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

While one may justifiably argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries, using the Qur’an as their foundation treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

With this kind of data before us we need to ask whether the Qur’an is God’s absolute word for all people for all time, and if so, then why only half of the world’s population (its males) receive full benefit from its laws, while the other half (its women) continue in an unequal relationship?

Does not the previous revelation, the Bible, have a more universalistic and wholesome concern for women? Take for instance Ephesians 5:22-25 where we find the true ideal for a relationship, saying: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.” This scripture demands a sacrificial love by the husband, one which puts the interests of the loved one before that of his own. This sacrificial love is best explained in 1 Corinthians 13:1,4-8.

It is understandable, then, why so many people in the West see Islam as an archaic and barbaric religion, which forces people back into the mentality of the middle ages, where women had no rights or freedoms to create their own destiny, and where men could do with their wives as they pleased.

F2: The “Sword” Found in the Qur’an

Concerning the ‘sword’ in the Qur’an, the testimony of Islam today is that of a religion which condones violence for the sake of Allah.

Though many Muslims try to deny this, they have to agree that there are ample examples of violence found not only within the Qur’an, but also exemplified within the life of the prophet Muhammad.

While in Mecca, Muhammad was surrounded by enemies, and while there he taught his followers toleration, according to sura 2:256, which says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error…” As a minor player, surrounded by enemies he did well to receive this ‘convenient’ revelation. But the call for toleration changed when his power was established in Medina, once the charter had been written which regulated life between the various differing groups.

Muhammad needed a livelihood for himself and those who had come with him from Mecca. Thus he undertook a number of “expeditions,” sending groups of his soldiers out to raid Meccan caravans in order to find booty.

Though there was a rule in the Hijaz at that time not to fight during the “holy month,” Muhammad, nonetheless sent a number of his troops to raid an unsuspecting trading caravan. This caused havoc in his own camp because a Meccan had been killed in the month in which bloodshed was forbidden. Promptly another ‘convenient revelation’ came which authorized the attack (read sura 2:217).

Later on, in 624 C.E., after having been in Medina for two years, a Meccan caravan of 1,000 men was passing close to the south-west of Medina. Muhammad, with only 300 men went out to attack it at the battle of Badr. He defeated the Meccans, and consequently received tremendous status, which helped his army grow.

The Medinans participated in further battles, some of which they won (i.e. the battle of the trenches) and others which they lost (the battle of Uhud). In fact, Muhammad himself is known to have conducted 27 battles and planned 39 others.

Muslims, however, continue to downplay any emphasis on violence within the Qur’an, and they emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War was only a means of defence, and was never used as an offensive act. Sahih Muslim III makes this point, saying, “the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity” (Sahih Muslim III, pg.938).

In the Mishkat II we find an explanation for Jihad:

“[Jihad] is the best method of earning both spiritual and temporal. If victory is won, there is enormous booty and conquest of a country which cannot be equalled to any other source of earnings. If there is defeat or death, there is ever-lasting Paradise and a great spiritual benefit. This sort of Jihad is conditional upon pure motive, i.e. for establishing the kingdom of Allah on earth (Mishkat II, pg.253) Also in Mishkat II we learn with regard to Jihad, that: Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said: To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger, and the remainder is for you (Muslim, Mishkat II, pg.412).”

The claim that Muslims acted only in self-defense is simply untrue. What were Muslims defending in North Africa, or Spain, France, India, Persia, Syria, Anatolia or the Balkans? These countries all had previous civilizations, many of which were more sophisticated than that of Islam, yet they all (outside of France) fell during the conquests of Islam in the first few hundred years, and their cultures were soon eradicated by that of Islam. Does that not evidence a rather offensive interpretation for Jihad?

We can understand the authority for this history when we read certain passages from the Qur’an, which, itself stipulates a particularly strong use of violence. The full impact of invective against the unbeliever can be found in sura 9:5 which says, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…” Of like nature is sura 47:4 which says, “When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…”

Similarly sura 9:29 states: “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden… until they pay tribute…” And in sura 8:39 we find, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression. And there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”

The murder of between 600-700 Banu Kuraiza Medinan Jewish males by the sword, and the slavery of their women give testimony to this sura (Nehls pg.117)

According to the Dictionary of Islam we read:

“When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim statethe payment of Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained “protection” and became Dhimmis, provided they were not idolaters, anddeath by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax.”

(Dictionary of Islam, pg.243).

War is sanctioned in Islam, with enormous rewards promised to those who fight for Allah, according to sura 4:74. Later in verse 84, Muhammad gives himself the divine order to fight. This is the verse which is the basis for calling Islam “the religion of the sword” (Shorrosh 1988:174).

In sura 5:33 the Qur’an orders those who fight Allah and his messenger to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off; or they can be expelled out of the land. In sura 48:16-17, we read that all who die “fighting in the ways of the Lord” (Jihad) are richly rewarded, but those who retreat are sorely punished.

The first blood shed under Muhammad was carried out by a blind disciple named Umair, who stabbed and killed a woman named Asma while she slept suckling her baby because she had criticized Muhammad with poetic verses. Upon hearing of this Muhammad said “Behold a man that hath assisted the Lord and His prophet. Call him not blind, call him rather ‘Umair,’ the seeing.” (Nehls pg.122).

Therefore, when those of us who are Christians read these suras, and see the example of the prophet himself, we find a total rejection of the previous teachings of Jesus who calls us to live in peace and put away the sword. We then are incredulous when we hear Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace. The record speaks for itself.

For those countries who aspire to use Islamic law, statistics prove revealing. According to the 1994 State of the World Atlas, while only five northern countries (i.e. western) are categorized as “Terror States” (those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture), twenty-eight of the thirty-two Muslim states fall into this category (except UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63).

Furthermore, it seems that most Muslim countries today are following the example of their prophet and are involved in some sort of armed conflict. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the western countries, yet only four Muslim countries out of the thirty-two have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only six out of the thirty-two have offered a list of sex offenses, and only four of the thirty-two have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate the claim which they make: that western states have a higher degree of degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the fourteen countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” nine of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-western Christian country.

Why, we wonder, are so many Muslim countries embroiled in so many wars, many of which are against other Muslims? Muslims answer that these are not good examples because they are not authentic Muslim states. Yet, can we not say that to the contrary, these countries do indeed follow the examples which we find so readily not only within the text of the Qur’an, but within the life of the prophet, and in the history of the first few centuries of Islam. Muhammad’s life, and the Qur’an which he gave to the world, both give sufficient authority for the sword in Islam. While this may cause the 20th century western Muslim to squirm uncomfortably, it cannot be denied that there is ample precedent for violence within their scriptures and within their own history. What we choose to ask, however, is whether the witness of violence within Islam exemplifies the heart of a loving and compassionate God, one who calls Himself merciful; or whether it rather exemplifies the character of 7th century Arabia, with all its brutal desert tribal disputes and warfare?

Compare the opposing concept of Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one kilometre, go with him two kilometres. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:38-44)

So what can we say about the authority of the Qur’an? Can we say it is a divinely inspired book sent by Allah for all of humanity, for all time? Can it claim supernatural as well as literary qualities, which not only place it above other revelations, but point to its divine origins? Much of what I have offered you here points to the fact that the Qur’an lacks in all three qualities, and seems to reflect more the life and times of its supposed mediator than that of the heart of a universal God. The idolatrous tendency of Muslims towards the Qur’an, as well as the confusion of its literary makeup, and the special conditions given to Muhammad, point to a book put together by one man, or as we now know, a group of much later men, than an inspired piece of God’s revealed word.

If one were to contrast the 66 books of the Bible written over hundreds of years by at least 40 different authors, with the Qur’an which came through one man, Muhammad, during his lifetime, there would be no contest as to which was the superior literature. In the final analysis, the Qur’an simply does not fit the breadth of vision, nor the literary style or structure of that found in the Old and New Testament. To go from the Bible to the Qur’an is to go from the superior to the inferior, from the authentic to the counterfeit, from God’s perspective to that of an individual, caught up and controlled by his own world and times.

I end this section with a quote from an expert on the Qur’an, Dr. Tisdall, who says:

“The Qur’an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.” (Tisdall 27)

---

G: The Collation, or Collection, of the Qur’anic Text

We now take the discussion concerning the authority for the Qur’an away from its makeup and ask the question of how it came to us. We will give special emphasis on the problems which we find with its collation. We will also ask why, if it is the Word of God, so much of its content is not only self-contradictory, but is in error with the facts as we know them? From there we will then consider where the Qur’an received much of its material, or from where many of its stories were derived. Let’s then begin with the alleged collection of the Qur’anic text.

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect in its textual history, that there are no textual defects (as they say we have in our Bible). They maintain that it is perfect not only in its content and style, but the order and script as we have it today is an exact parallel of the preserved tablets in heaven. This, they contend, is so because Allah has preserved it.

Therefore, the Qur’an, they feel, must be the Word of God. While we have already looked at the content and style of the Qur’an and found it wanting, the claim to its textual purity is an assertion which we need to examine in greater detail.

G1: The Periods of Revelation

According to Muslim Tradition the “revelations” of the suras (or books) were received by the prophet Muhammad, via the angel Jibril (Gabriel) within three periods. The first is referred to as the 1st Meccan period, and lasted between 611-615 C.E. During this time the suras contain many of the warnings, and much of the leading ideas concerning who Allah is, and what He expected of His creation (i.e. suras 1, 51-53, 55-56, 68-70, 73-75, 77-97, 99-104, 111-114).

The 2nd period, referred to as the 2nd Meccan period (between 616-622 C.E.) had longer suras, dealing with doctrines, many of which echoed Biblical material. It was during this time that Islam makes the claim of being the one true religion (i.e. suras 6-7, 10-21, 23, 25-32, 34-46, 50, 54, 67, 71-72, 76).

The third period, referred to as the Medinan period (between 623-632 C.E.) centered in Medina and lasted roughly ten years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. There is a distinct shift in content during this period. Divine approval is given for Muhammad’s leadership, and much of the material deals with local historical events. There is a change from the preaching of divine matters, to that of governing. Consequently, the suras are much more political and social in their makeup (suras 2-5, 8-9, 22-24, 33, 37, 47-49, 57-59, 60-66, 98, 110).

G2: The Method of Collection

While there is ongoing discussion concerning whether Muhammad ever received any revelations, there is considerably more skepticism concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have today is indeed made up entirely of those revelations which he did supposedly receive.

Many Muslims ardently contend that the Qur’an which is in our hands today was in its completed form even before the death of Muhammad, and that the collation of the texts after his death was simply an exercise in amassing that which had already existed. There are even those who believe that many of the companions of the prophet had memorized the text, and it is they who could have been used to corroborate the final collation by Muhammad’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit. If these assertions are true, then indeed we do have a revelation which is well worth studying. History, however, points to quite a different scenario, one which most Muslims find it difficult to maintain.

Muslim Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so had made no preparations for the gathering of his revelations, in order to place them into one document. Thus, according to tradition, it was left up to Muhammad’s followers to write down what had been said.

Al Bukhari, a Muslim scholar of the 9th-10th century, and the most authoritative of the Muslim tradition compilers, writes that whenever Muhammad fell into one of his unpredictable trances his revelations were written on whatever was handy at the time. The leg or thigh bones of dead animals were used, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, and bark. And when there was nothing at hand the attempt was made by his disciples to memorize it as closely as possible.

The principle disciples at that time were: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, all of whom were close companions of Muhammad.

According to Sahih Bukhari, during the years following Muhammad’s death, passages of the Qur’an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur’an’s automatic completion as a revelation, now that its mediator had passed away, compelled a companion of the prophet named Hazrat Omar to suggest to the current caliph, Abu Bakr, that the existing revelations be collected.

Initially the aging caliph demurred, as he was not willing to do what the prophet had not done. However, he later changed his mind, due to the crisis caused by the death of the reciters at Yamama. The secretary of Muhammad, Zaid ibn Thabit was commissioned by Abu Bakr to collect the sayings of the prophet and put them into a document.

G2i: Zaid’s Collection

Zaid’s reply, according to Bukhari, is interesting. He is purported to have said that it would have been easier if they had demanded that he shift a mountain then collect the suras of the Qur’an. The reason for this rather odd statement becomes obvious when we find that, in his search for the passages of the Qur’an he was forced to use as his sources the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, bark, and the memories of the prophet’s companions (Bukhari, vol.6, pg.477).

This shows that there were no Muslims at that time who had memorized the entire Qur’an by heart, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an by heart, Zaid would only have had to go to any one of the companions and write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from these men who had memorized certain segments. He also had to refer to rather strange objects to find the ayas he needed. These are hardly reliable sources for a supposed “perfect” copy of the eternal tablets which exist in heaven.

What evidence, we ask, is there that his final copy was complete? It is immediately apparent that the official copy of the Qur’an rested on very fragile sources. There is no way that anyone can maintain with certainty that Zaid collected all the sayings of the prophet. Had some of the objects been lost, or thrown away? Did some of the ayas die with the companions who were killed at the battle of Yamama? We are left with more questions then answers.

In Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, page 478) Zaid is quoted as saying that he found the last verses of sura 9 (verses 128 and 129) from a certain individual. Then he continues by saying that he found this verse from no-one else. In other words there was no-one else who knew this verse. Thus had he not traced it from this one man, he would not have traced it at all!

This leads us to only one possible conclusion: that we can never be sure that the Qur’an which was finally compiled was, in fact, complete! Zaid concedes that he had to find this one verse from this one man. This underlines the fact that there was no-one who knew the Qur’an by heart, and thus could corroborate that Zaid’s copy was complete.

Consequently the final composition of the Qur’an depended on the discretion of one man; not on the revelation of God, but on an ordinary fallible man, who put together, with the resources which he had available, what he believed to be a complete Qur’an. This flies in the face of the bold claim by Muslims that the book is now, and was then, complete.

Zaid’s text was given to Hafsah, one of the wives of Muhammad, and the daughter of Umar, the 2nd Caliph. We then pick up the story with the reign of Uthman, the 3rd Caliph.

G2ii: Competing Collections

In Sahih Bukhari, (vol. 6, pg.479) we read that there were at this time different readings of the Qur’an in the different provinces of the Muslim world. A number of the companions of Muhammad had compiled their own codices of the text. In other words, though Zaid had collated the official text under Abu Bakr, there were other texts which were circulating which were considered
authoritative as well.

The two most popular codices were those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, whose  manuscript became the standard for the area of Iraq, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, whose manuscript became standard in Syria.

These and other extant codices were basically consistent with each other in their general content, but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts such that no two codices were entirely the same (which we’ll talk about later).

In addition, the texts were being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world. During the 7th century, Arabic was composed in a so-called scriptio defectiva in which only the consonants were written. Since there was no vowels, the vocalization was left to the reader. Some verbs could be read as active or passive, while some nouns could be read with different case endings, and some forms could be read as either nouns or verbs.

G3: The Standardization of One Text

Consequently, during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph, a deliberate attempt was made to standardize the Qur’an and impose a single text upon the whole Muslim community.

The codex of Zaid ibn Thabit, taken from the manuscript of Hafsah, was chosen by Uthman for this purpose, to the consternation of both Mas’ud and Ibn Ka’b. Zaid ibn Thabit was a much younger man, who had not yet been born at the time Mas’ud had recited 70 suras by heart before Muhammad.

According to Muslim tradition Zaid’s codice was chosen by Uthman because the language used, the ‘Quraishi dialect,’ was local to Mecca, and so had become the standard Arabic. Tradition maintains that Zaid, along with three scholars of the Quraishi tribe of Mecca, had written the codice in this Quraishi dialect, as it had been revealed to Muhammad in this dialect. Linguists today, however, are still at a quandary to know what exactly this Quraishi dialect was, as it doesn’t exist today and therefore cannot be identified. Furthermore, the dialect which we find in the present Qur’an does not differ from the language which was current in other parts of the Hijaz at that time. While it makes for a good theory, it has little historical evidence with which to back it up.

A further reason for the choice of Zaid’s codice, according to tradition, was that it had been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, and so had not attracted the publicity as one of the varying texts, as had the codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Ironically, by virtue of their popularity, Mas’ud’s and Ka’b’s codices were rejected as sources for the final Qur’an and supplanted by the codice of an individual who neither had the notoriety, nor the experience, and whose text (as we shall soon discover) had never been selected as authoritative by the prophet, as had the other two.

Consequently, copies of Zaid’s codice were then sent out and dispersed throughout every Muslim province, while all the other manuscripts were summarily destroyed.

It is evident from this discussion that the final choice for an authoritative text had little to do with its authenticity, but had more to do with the fact that it was not a controversial manuscript. It is also evident that there were no two Qur’ans which existed at that time which were exactly alike. This tradition tells us that other whole copies did exist, yet not one of the other texts were spared the order for their destruction. We must conclude that the destruction of the other manuscripts was a drastic effort to standardize the Qur’anic text. While we may have one standard text today, there is no proof that it corresponds with the original. We can only say that it may possibly be similar to the Uthmanic recension, a recension which was one of many. Yet, what evidence is there that in all instances it was the correct one? We don’t know as we have no others with which to compare.

G4: The Missing Verses

This then brings up another difficult problem: how can we be sure that what Zaid ibn Thabit included in his codice (or manuscript) contained the full revelation of Muhammad’s revelation? The fact is we simply cannot. We are forced to rely on Muslim tradition to tell us. Yet, interestingly, it is Muslim tradition which informs us that Zaid himself initially cast doubt on his own codice.

G4i: Sura 33:23

According to Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, pg.79), despite the fact that Zaid’s text had been copied out and sent to the seven different cities, Zaid suddenly remembered that a verse which the prophet had quoted earlier was missing from his text. Zaid is quoted as saying that this missing verse was verse 23 of sura 33, which says, “Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.” So he searched for the verse until he found it with Hussaima ibn al Ansari.

Thus, we find that after the copies had been sent out claiming to be the only authentic and complete copies of the Qur’an available, Zaid, and he alone, recorded a verse which was missing; a verse which, once again, was only found with one man. This resembles the previous occasion where a verse was only found with one man.

The conclusion is obvious: initially all of those seven copies which were sent out to the provinces were imperfect. But even more concerning is the fact that it was due to the recollection of one man, and the memory of another that the Qur’an was finally completed. Once again it is obvious that there simply could not have been any man at that time who knew the whole Qur’an by heart. This is yet another instance which contradicts the argument posed by Muslims that the Qur’an had been memorized by certain men during the early days of Islam.

But of more importance is the troubling question of whether there were perhaps other verses which were overlooked or were left out. The answer to this question can be found in another of the authoritative traditions, that of Sahih Muslim.

G4ii: The Verse on Stoning

Muslim maintains that key passages were missing from Zaid’s text. The most famous is the verse of stoning. All the major traditions speak of this missing verse. According to Ibn Ishaq’s version (pg. 684) we read:

“God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, ‘We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.”

Therefore, according to Umar, the stoning verse was part of the original Qur’an, the revelation which Allah sent down. But now it is missing. In many of the traditions we find numerous reports of adulterous men and women who were stoned by the prophet and his companions. Yet today we read in the Qur’an, sura 24:32 that the penalty for adultery is 100 lashes. Umar said adultery was not only a capital offence, but one which demanded stoning. That verse is now missing from the Qur’an, and that is why Umar raised this issue.

Muslims will need to ask themselves whether indeed their Qur’an can claim to be the same as that passed down by Muhammad to his companions? With evidence such as this the Qur’an in our possession today becomes all the more suspect.

G5: The Variations Between the Codices

Yet that is not all. Another glaring problem with Zaid’s text is that it differed from the other codices which coexisted with his.

Arthur Jeffery has done the classic work on the variants of the early codices in his book Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an, printed in 1937. The three main codices which he lists are those which we have referred to earlier, and include:

1. Ibn Mas’ud (‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud) (died 653), from Kufa, in Iraq. It is he who is reported to have learned 70 suras directly from Muhammad, and was appointed by Muhammad as one of the first teachers of Qur’anic recitation (according to Ibn Sa’d). Mas’ud became a leading authority on the Qur’an and hadith in Kufa, Iraq. He refused to destroy his copy of the Qur’an or stop teaching it when the Uthmanic recension was made official.

2. Ubayy b. Ka’b (died 649) a Medinan Muslim who was associated with Damascus, Syria. Prior to that he was a secretary for the prophet, and was considered by some to be more prominent than Mas’ud in Qur’anic understanding, during the prophet’s lifetime. Ubayy’s codice had two extra suras. He destroyed his codice after the Uthmanic recension.

3. Abu Musa (died 662), a Yemenite, though his codice was accepted in Basra, where he served as governor under Umar. His codex was large and it contained the two extra suras of Ubayy’s codex, and other verses not found in other codices (Jeffery, pp.209-211).

In addition to these three Jeffery classifies 12 other codices belonging to the companions of the prophet, which were considered as primary.

One of these Ali b. Abi Talib (d.661) a cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, is said to have been the first to collect the Qur’an after the prophet’s death, and to have arranged the suras in some sort of chronological order.

According to Jeffery, there were thousands of variations between the different codices.

G5i: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

Take for instance the codice of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, a very close companion of the prophet, according to the traditions. As we know it was he who refused to hand over his manuscript after the order went out from Uthman for all existing copies to be burned.

There is much evidence today to show that, in fact, his text is far more reliable than Hafsah’s manuscript, which we know to be the one collated by Zaid ibn Thabit. Ibn Mas’ud alone was present with Muhammad when he reviewed the content of the Qur’an every year during the month of Rammadan.

In the well-known collection of traditions by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.441), we read these words:

“Ibn Abbas asked, ‘Which of the two readings of the Qur’an do you prefer?’ [The prophet] answered, ‘The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.’ Verily the Qur’an was recited before the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas’ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.”

Thus no-one knew the Qur’an better then he did. In the same tradition by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.442) it says:

“No sura was revealed but I [Mas’ud] knew about it and what was revealed. If I had known anyone knowing more of the book of Allah than me, I would have gone to him.”

Ibn Mas’ud lays claim here to be the foremost authority of the text of the Qur’an. In fact, it is Sahih Muslim (vol. 4, pg.1312) who informs us that Mas’ud knew seventy suras by heart, and was considered to have a better understanding of the Qur’an then the other companions of the prophet. He recited these seventy passages before the prophet and the companions, and no-one disputed with him.

In Sahih Bukhari (vol. 5, pgs.96-97) we read that Muhammad himself singled out Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as the first and foremost authority on the Qur’an.

According to Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.444) Mas’ud learned his seventy suras while Zaid was still a youth. Thus his authority should have been greater as he knew so much of the Qur’an long before Zaid became a man.

Arthur Jeffery in his book points out several thousand variants taken from over thirty “main sources.” Of special note are those which he found between the codex of Ibn Mas’ud and that of Zaid ibn Thabit. He also found that Mas’ud’s codex agreed with the other codices which existed at the expense of Zaid’s text (while we don’t have the time to go into all the variations, it might be helpful if you could obtain a copy of Arthur Jeffrey’s book: Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an).

According to Jeffery, Abu Mas’ud’s Codex was different from the Uthmanic text in several different ways:

1. It did not contain the Fatiha (the opening sura, sura 1), nor the two charm suras (suras 113 and 114).

2. It contained different vowels within the same consonantal text (Jeffery 25-113).

3. It contained Shi’ite readings (i.e. suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19) (Jeffery 40,65,68).

4. Entire phrases were different, such as:

   1. sura 3:19: Mas’ud has “The way of the Hanifs” instead of “Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam.”

   2. sura 3:39: Mas’ud has “Then Gabriel called to him, ‘O Zachariah'”, instead of the Uthmanic reading: “Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary.”

   3. Only his codice begins sura 9 with the Bismilah, while the Uthmanic text does not (“bismi ‘llahi ‘l-rahmani ‘l-rahim” meaning, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”).

5. Finally, the order of the suras in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex is different from the Uthmanic text in that Mas’ud’s list arranges the suras more closely in order of descending length.

G5ii: Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

Ubayy Ka’b’s codex also had variations. Though there are those who disagree, it seems to have been less important than Ibn Mas’ud’s, as it was not the source of any secondary codices.

It included two suras not found in the Uthmanic or Ibn Mas’ud’s texts: the surat al-Khal’, with three verses, and surat al-Hafd, with six verses (Jeffery pg. 180ff). Al-Fadl b. Shadhan is said to have seen a copy of Ubayy’s 116 suras (rather than the 114 of Uthman’s) in a village near Basra in the middle of the 3rd century A.H. (10th century C.E.).

The order of suras in Ubayy’s codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman’s.

G6: Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

These variations in the codices show that the original text of the Qur’an cannot have been perfect. The fact that a little known secretary (Zaid ibn Thabit) was chosen as the final arbiter of the Qur’anic text points to possible political interference. The admission by this secretary that the task of collating the verses was unduly daunting and his consequent pronouncement that one verse was initially missing from his finished text (sura 33:23) while another verse, according to authoritative sources, is still missing (the stoning verse) puts even more suspicion on its authenticity.

On top of that, the many variations which exist between Zaid’s text and those of supposedly more authoritative collators (Mas’ud and Ka’b) can only add to the perception of many today that the Uthmanic Qur’an which we supposedly have today leaves us with more doubt than assurance for its authority as the perfect word of God.

Yet that is not all. We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur’an had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph’s standard for a single approved text even after Uthman’s death. This was carried out by al-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, which were later reduced to seven readings.

If the other codices were in existence today, one could compare the one with the other to ascertain which could claim to be closest to the original. Even Hafsah’s copy, the original from which the final text was taken, was later destroyed by Mirwan, the governor of Medina. But for what reason???

Does this act not intimate that there were problems between the other copies, possibly glaring contradictions, which needed to be thrown out? Can we really believe that the rest were destroyed simply because Uthman wished to have only one manuscript which conformed to the Quraishi dialect (if indeed such a dialect existed)? Why then burn the other codices? If, as some contend today, the other codices were only personal reminisces of the writers, then why did the prophet give those codices so much authority during his lifetime? Furthermore, how could Uthman claim to judge one from the other now that Muhammad was no longer around?

There are certain scholars today who believe that Zaid ibn Thabit and his co-workers could have reworked the Arabic, so as to make the text literately sophisticated and thus seemingly superior to other Arabic works of its time; and thus create the claim that this was indeed the illiterate Muhammad’s one miracle.

There are others, such as John Wansbrough from SOAS, who go even further, contending that all of the accounts about companion codices and individual variants were fabricated by later Muslim jurists and philologers. He asserts that the collection stories and the accounts of the companion codices arose in order to give an ancient authority to a text that was not even compiled until the 9th century or later.

He feels that the text of the Qur’an was so fluid that the multiple accounts (i.e. of the punishment stories) represent “variant traditions” of different metropolitan centres (such as Kufa, Basra, Medina etc.), and that as late as the 9th century a consonantal textus receptus ne varietur still had not been achieved. Today, his work is taking on greater authority within scholarly circles.

Unfortunately we will never know the real story, because the originals (if indeed they ever existed) which could have told us so much were destroyed. All we have are the copies written years after the originals by those who were then ordered to destroy their originals. There are, therefore, no manuscripts to compare with to give the current Qur’an authenticity, as we have with the Bible.

For those who may wonder why this is so important, let me provide an example: If after I had read this paper out-loud, everyone was to then write down all I had said from memory when they returned home, there would certainly be a number of variations. But we could find out these variations by putting them all together and comparing the many copies one against the other, as the same errors would not be written at the same place by everyone. The final result would be a rendering which is pretty close to what I had said originally. But if we destroyed all of the copies except one, there would be no means of comparing, and all precision would be lost. Our only hope would be that the one which remained was as close to what I had said as possible. Yet we would have no other rendering or example to really know for sure.

Consequently, the greater number of copies preserved, the more certitude we would have of the original text. The Qur’an has only one doctored manuscript to go on, while the New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts in existence, from a variety of backgrounds, from which to compare!!! Can you see the difference?!

It is therefore quite clear that that which is known as the Textus Receptus of the Qur’an (the text considered authoritative in the Muslim world today) cannot lay claim to be the Textus Originalis (the genuine original text).

The current Qur’anic text which is read throughout the Muslim world is merely Zaid’s version, duly corrected where necessary, and later amended by al-Hajjaj. Consequently, the ‘official’ text as it currently stands was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardization of a preferred text at the initiative of one caliph, and not by a prophetic direction of divine decree.

In conclusion one can safely say that there is relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. There is, however, no evidence to support the cherished Muslim hypothesis that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, as so many Muslims claim (For further reading see Jam’ al-Qur’an, by Gilchrist).

Yet, even if we were to let the issue rest, concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have now is the same as that which Muhammad related to his followers, we would still need to ask whether its authority might not be impinged upon due to the numerous errors and contradictions which can be found within its pages. It is to that question that we now proceed.

---

H: The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

The abrogation of Qur’anic verses presents a problem for Muslims today. As we all know, a man can make mistakes and correct them, but this is not the case with God. God has infinite wisdom and cannot contradict himself. Abrogation flies is the face of sura 6:34 (and 10:65) which state:

“…There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.” An even more damaging pronouncement is made in sura 4:82 which reads, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies.”

Muslim authorities try to explain the internal contradictions in the Qur’an by stating that certain passages of the Qur’an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later than themselves. The verses which replace them are referred to as Nasikh. Yet, there is by no means any certainty as to which disagreeing verses are mansukh and which are nasikh, since the order in which the Qur’an was written down was not done chronologically but according to the length of the suras.

From the preceding section we have found that even the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then could we know which were the more authoritative?

The law of abrogation is taught by the Qur’an in sura 2:106,108, stating: “We substitute one revelation for another…” This is echoed in sura 17:86, which reads, “If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration.” In sura 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Jalalu’d-Din estimated the number of abrogations at between 5 to 500. Others say it stands closer to 225. What this shows us is that the science of abrogation is an inexact science indeed, as no-one really knows how many of the verses are to be abrogated. Underlying this claim of abrogation is another concern: How can a divine revelation be improved upon? Would it not have been perfect from the start?

Yusuf Ali in his defense of abrogation claims that there is a need for progressive revelation within scripture, saying: “its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time”. Christians believe in progressive revelation as well, as God reveals and changes His will for a people as they change culturally over a period of generations. The problem with suras 2:106, 17:86 and 16:101 is that they do not refer to revelations given prior to Muhammad, but refer uniquely to the Qur’anic verses themselves. One cannot claim progressive revelation within a space of only 20 years (this was the time in which the Qur’an was written). The period found in the previous scriptures spans 1,500 years! People and cultures change in that amount of time. Thus the revelations would reflect those changes. To demand the same for a revelation of a mere 20 years suggests that God is not all-knowing. The only other option can be that the recorder made corrections, and then came up with a revelation to authenticate those corrections. While you decide, let’s look at some of these abrogations.

Some examples of these abrogations are:

1. In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the Qibla, the direction of prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, and back to Mecca.

2. The inheritance laws in suras 4:7; & 2:180, provides an equal share for women and men, and then is doubled for men in sura 4:11.

3. The change of night prayers from a full night in sura 73:2-4, to a half or less, or whatever was easy to do in sura 73:20.

4. The change of punishment for adulteresses, beginning with life imprisonment, found in sura 4:15, and then changed to 100 strokes by flogging, according to sura 24:2. Remember that these two examples make no mention of the previous ‘missing’ aya which prescribes the stoning for those who commit adultery. It is also interesting to note that Homosexuals were let off if they repented, according to sura 4:16, though this same allowance was not given for heterosexuals.

5. The change of the retaliation laws where retaliation for the crime (murder) was confined to people of equal rank (i.e. slave for slave) in sura 2:178, then it was to be carried out only against the murderer by the heir, sura 17:33 (note: Ali adds Qisas and forgiving to the Arabic).

6. The change of the days of creation from 6 (7:54; 25:59) to 8 (41:9-12).

7. The change of the hierarchy of prophets, where they were initially equal (suras 3:84;2:285;2:136) and then some are elevated above the others, sura 2;253 (see Ali’s note:289).

8. The changes in intercession; at first done by angels and Muhammad (suras 42:5; 24:62), and then were not acceptable to Allah (suras 74:48; 63:5; 34:23).

9. The Sword verses: the Call to “fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them” (sura 9:5); or “strike off their heads in battle” (sura 47:5); or “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (sura 9:29); or “Fight then… until the religion be all of it Allah’s” (sura 8:39); or “a grievous penalty against those who reject faith” (sura 9:3). These all contradict “There is no compulsion in religion” (sura 2:256).

10. Sura 2:184 first allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast by feeding an indigent. The following verse (185) allows no compensation.

11. Widows were to keep themselves apart for 4 months and 10 days after their husband’s death (sura 2:234), which is then changed to one year (2:240).

12. Sura 2:106 contradicts sweeping changes which follow: in the Qibla (vss.115,177,124-151), pilgrimage rites (vs.158), dietary laws (vss.168-174) law of talio (vss.178-179), in bequests (vss.180-182), the fast (vss.182-187), and the pilgrimage again (vss.196-203).

13. Sura 16:101 contradicts changes which follow in dietary laws (vss.114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124).

14. Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him (sura 87:6-7), is then changed to withdrawing that which Allahs wills to withdraw (i.e. revelations) (17:86).

15. Allah commits himself as law to act mercifully, which implies cause and effect (sura 6:12), yet later in the same sura we find that “If Allah willed, he could have brought them all together to the guidance… Whom Allah will he sendeth astray, and whom he will he placeth on a straight path” (vss. 35 & 39).

16. Concerning predestination, in sura 57:22 we find the words, “No evil befalls on the earth, nor on your own souls but it is in a book before We bring into existence.” And in sura 76:29-31 it says, “..whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord, Yet ye will not, unless Allah willeth… He maketh whom He will to enter His mercy…” Both of these contradict sura 42:30, which states, “Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned.”

17. In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

18. Muhammad was the first to bow down to Allah (i.e. the first Muslim) (sura 6:14,164; 39:12). Yet these passages forget that Abraham, his sons and Jacob were former Muslims (sura 2:132) as were all the earlier prophets (sura 28:52-53), and Jesus’ disciples (3:52).

19. Allah curses all liars, yet permits Muhammad to break an oath (sura 66:1-2), and though Allah alone may be worshipped, he demands Satan and the angels to worship Adam, with the result that Satan is eternally punished because he refused to do so (sura 2:32).

20. An abrogation evidenced by Muslims today is the claim that the Bible (which they admit is a revealed book) has been altered and corrupted. Yet sura 10:65 reads, “There is no changing in the Words of Allah,” and sura 6:33,34 reads, “There is none that can alter the decisions (revelations) of Allah.”

21. In sura 17:101 we find 9 plagues (or signs), whereas in sura 7:133 only 5 are listed (note Ali’s footnote no.1091 which adds the rod and leprous hand from verses 107 and 108, as well as the drought and short crops of verse 130 as plagues, to make up the nine).

22. In sura 51:57 we find that Jinn were created to worship Allah, yet in sura 7:176 we find that the Jinn were created for Hell.

23. In sura 17:103 we are told that Pharaoh was drowned with his army, yet in sura 10:90-92, upon admitting to the power of God, he is rescued as a sign to others.

24. Angels are commanded by Allah to bow down to Adam in suras 15:29-30; 20:116, which they do, yet Allah prohibits anyone worshipping any but him (suras 4:116; 18:110).

25. Lust is condemned in sura 79:40-41, yet in sura 4:24-25 Allah permits polygamy, divorce, and the use of female slaves as concubines (one needs to ask why a man needs a concubine if not to satisfy his lust). Furthermore, for those who are faithful lust is the primary, and unlimited reward in heaven (suras 55:46-78; 56:11-39). Surely if lust is wrong on earth and hateful to a Holy God, it cannot be pleasing to him in paradise.

26. On that same note, wine is forbidden while on earth (sura 5:91), yet rivers of wine await the faithful in paradise (suras 47:15; 76:5; 83:25)

27. Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved.

28. In sura 4:157 we read that Jesus did not die, yet in sura 19:33 we read that not only did he die, but he arose again! (note: Yusuf Ali has no rebuttal here, but in his footnote no.2485 refers to sura 19:15, which repeats the same words for Yahya, and then refers the reader to sura 4:157-a vivid example of using a Nasikh verse to abrogate one which is Mansukh in order to get out of a “jam”).

Some of these may not be serious contradictions, were it not for the claim that the Qur’an is “nazil” which means “brought down” from heaven without the touch of human hand. This implies that the original “un-created” preserved tablets in heaven, from which the Qur’an proceeds (sura 85:22), also contains these abrogations. How can they then claim to be Allah’s eternal word?

Equally disturbing is what this implies concerning the character of God. For, if Allah in the Qur’an manifests himself as the arbitrary God who acts as he pleases without any ties even to his own sayings, he adds a thought totally foreign to the former revelation which Muhammad claimed to confirm. Indeed, these abrogations degrade the integrity of the former revelations which were universally applicable to all peoples, for all time. The Qur’anic abrogations on the other hand fit the requirements of one specific man and his friends, for one specific place, and one specific time.

---

I: Errors Found Within the Qur’an

For centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur’an has been preserved in its original Arabic form since the beginning of time itself, and preserved intact from the period of the “sending down” of the book to Muhammad, right on down till the present. They have been taught that the text which we read now was uniquely inspired, in that there were no intermediary agents who could possibly pollute the integrity of the script.

At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur’an must be the Word of God, as no one but Allah could have created and preserved such a perfected text. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar willing to make any critical analysis of its content or of its structure, as to do so would usually be detrimental to his or her health. However, when an analysis is made by a Western scholar upon the Qur’an, that analysis is roundly castigated as being biased from the outset, and even “satanic,” and therefore, unworthy of a reply.

But that does not stop the analysis from being undertaken, for the Qur’an when held up to scrutiny finds itself lacking in many areas.

As we have already discussed, we find problems with its sources, its collation, its literary makeup, its supposed uniqueness, and problems even with its content. It is not difficult to find numerous contradictions within the Qur’an, a problem which Muslims and the Qur’an has attempted to alleviate by conveniently allowing for the ‘law of abrogation.’ But even more devastating towards the integrity of this supposed perfect ‘divine book,’ are the numerous errors which are found in its pages. It is therefore to those errors which we will now turn in our continuing quest to ascertain whether, indeed, the Qur’an can claim to be the true, and “perfect” Word of God, as Muslims have so often maintained since the very inception of their faith.

I1: Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

Many errors are found in the Qur’an which contradict the Biblical account. In the previous section we discussed a number of these contradictions in some detail, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say, that because the Qur’an followed these scriptures and made the claim to protect them (suras 6:34; 10:65; and sura 4:82) its integrity is put into doubt when it fails to adhere to the content of the very scriptures it claims to protect and confirm. Some contradictions I will mention, however, because they give doubt to the veracity of its content.

I1i: Moses

The first concerns the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s wife (in sura 28:9). This story contradicts the Biblical Exodus 2:10 version, which states that it was Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted Moses. It is important to note here that had Pharaoh’s wife adopted Moses, he would have consequently been adopted by Pharaoh himself, making him heir to the throne. This fact alone makes the subsequent story of Moses’s capture and exile rather incredulous.

I1ii: Yahya

According to the Qur’an, no-one bore the name of Yahya before John the Baptist (sura 19:7). Yet, we find that name mentioned in the Old Testament (2 Kings 25:23) implying that it was a well known name hundreds of years before the writing of the Qur’an.

It is interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his translation of sura 19:7 tries to circumvent this problem by translating this aya as, “on no-one by that name have We conferred distinction before.” Yet, the word ‘distinction’ does not appear in the Arabic at all. Is a translator permitted to change a text like this to correct an error? Obviously not! Ali is playing a dangerous game here. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims refer to all English translations as simply interpretations. In his note (no.2461) Ali attempts to explain the problem by assuming that “Allah had, for the first time, called one of His elect by that name.” It would have been better had he left the text stand as it was written.

I1iii: Trinity

The Qur’an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. The author of sura 5:116 mistakenly thought that Christians worshipped three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). But Christians don’t worship this doctrine of the Trinity at all! There was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Choloridians, who had a concept of the Trinity which included Mary, who would have been in Arabia during the time of Muhammad. They are possibly the source for this obvious error.

Another error is also found in sura 5:73-75, where the Qur’an says, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three…” Obviously the accusation is against Christians, yet Christians do not believe God is one of three! We believe that God is one. Yusuf Ali does a grave injustice in his translation by adding the phrase, “Allah is one of three in a trinity.” The words “in a trinity” do not exist in the Arabic text! Ali puts it into his translation in an attempt to avoid the rather obvious mistake that Christians believe in three gods.

I1iv: Ezra

The Qur’an in sura 5:72 makes the mistake of claiming that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I2: Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors:

Some errors point to internal contradictions within the Qur’an itself. I have dealt with these in another paper as well, and so will only list them here to jog your memory.

I2i: Mary & Imran:

One of the best known errors is that concerning the confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur’an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in suras 19:28; 66:12; 20:25-30), though the two, Mary and Miriam, lived 1,570 years apart.

I2ii: Haman

Another well known passage is that of Haman. In the Qur’an Haman is referred to as a servant of Pharaoh, who built a high tower to ascend up to the God of Moses (sura 28:38; 29:38; 40:25,38). But the Babel tower occurs 750 years earlier (Genesis 11), and the name Haman is correctly found in the story of Esther in Babylon, 1,100 years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali believes that the reference here is simply that of another Haman, yet Haman is not an Egyptian name, but uniquely Babylonian.

I3: Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

There are other stories in the Qur’an which do not stand up to the secular data which is available. These errors are possibly the most damaging for the credibility of the Qur’an as the perfect ‘Word of God’ because their veracity can be measured against the test of observable data, which is by definition neutral and binding.

I3i: Ishmael

The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham’s nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob’s twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham’s third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur’an.

I3ii: Samaritan

The Qur’an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term ‘Samaritan’ was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to “Samiri” and Pickthall to “As Samirii,” Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it “Samaritan.” Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, “bends over backwards” to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean “Shemer,” which denotes a stranger, or “Shomer,” which means a watchman, the equivalent of “Samara” in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of “Periklytos,” or the word “Machmad” which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

I3iii: Sunset

In sura 18:86 it states, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness.” It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring.

I3iv: Issa

The name for Jesus in the Qur’an is given as “Issa.” Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly “all-knowing” Qur’an has no mention of it.

I3v: Mountains

Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For pre-scientific man this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would have seemingly, a stabilizing effect on the earth. Yet we now know this logic to be quite inaccurate. Mountains do not render the earth’s crust stable. In fact, the very existence of mountains is evidence of instability in the earth’s crust, as they are found and pushed up by the colliding of tectonic plates (i.e. the migration of Arabia toward Iran has resulted in the Zagros range, France pushing against Italy produced the Alps, and the Indian plate nudging Tibet has given us the Himalayas).

I3vi: Alexander the Great

In sura 18:83-100 we find the story of Dhu al Qarnayn, who is known as the Greek conqueror, Alexander the Great. According to this sura, his power was given to him by Allah (aya 84), which some Muslims contend is an assertion that he had the same prominence as a prophet. But of even more importance to our discussion is the contention, according to this sura, that he was  credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out (aya 96).

It is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander’s exploits. From their writings we know that Aristotle was his tutor. Yet, these historians equivocally make him out as a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death at the early age of 33. They show that he was an idolater, and actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. How, therefore, could he be considered to have the same prominence as a prophet, or even, as aya 84 clearly asserts, that Allah was the agent for his power?

Yet, what is even more troubling, there is no historical evidence anywhere that he built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which, indeed, would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders or engineers in the history of mankind.

When we find the Qur’an so inaccurate in regard to Alexander, whose history is well known, we hesitate to accept as valuable or even as reliable the statements of the Qur’an about other matters of past history.

I3vii: Creation

Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore, in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles.

I3viii: Pharaoh’s Cross

In sura 7:124 we find Pharaoh admonishing his sorcerers because they believe in the superiority of Moses’s power over theirs. Pharaoh threatens them with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, and then says they will all die on the cross. But their were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practised by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after Pharaoh!

I3ix: Other Scientific problems

1. Sura 16:66 mentions that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. What does this mean?

2. In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?

3. sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?

4. sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).

5. sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the “farthest Mosque” during his journey by night (the Mi’raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir ‘Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad’s death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

I4: Absurdities

There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur’an.

I4i: Man’s Greatness

Sura 4:59 states,”Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.” This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man’s greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God’s image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

I4ii: Seven Earths

Sura 65:12 reads, “It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths.” We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

I4iii: Jinns & Shooting stars:

Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur’an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.

How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non-material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?

I4iv: Solomon’s power over nature:

1. Birds and ants King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah’s army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).Note: According to the historical record, Abrah’s army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).

2. Jinn The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

3. Wind The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month’s journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura 3:11; 21:81).

4. Ants talk The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

I4v: Youth and dog sleep 309 years

Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali’s attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).

The object of this story is to show Allah’s power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.

I4vi: People become apes

In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur’an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled “Planet of the Apes” rather then the other way around.

I4vii: Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

In suras 11:81-83; 15:74 the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down and rained upon with clay-like brimstone, upon whose surface were marked the destiny of the wicked people who lived there.

I4viii: Jacob’s Smell & Sight:

In sura 12:93-96 Joseph sends his coat to his father as proof of his existence. But as the caravan leaves Egypt, Jacob, who is in Canaan smells Joseph, who is hundreds of miles away (aya 94). Then the coat, when it arrives, is placed over the face of his father Jacob and suddenly he receives his sight. Now we know why Andrew Lloyd Weber added the word “amazing” to the title of his musical, “Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

I4ix: Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man:

In sura 16:12-15 the day and night as well as the Sun and Moon are surprisingly all made subject to man. That would imply that we had control over the rotation of our planet, as well as the entire movement of our solar system (Yusuf Ali’s explanation of this odd pronouncement in note no.2031 is rather interesting).

I5: Grammatical Errors

Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is the Word of God, it is without error in all areas. We have already dealt with the questions concerning the style and literary qualities of the Qur’an earlier, and found it to be quite defective in those areas. Yet, even more troubling are the grammatical mistakes which exist within its text. Can we expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow such deficiencies to creep into his supposedly ‘perfect’ and eternal revelation? Consider the following:

1. In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).

2. In sura 7:160, the phrase “We divided them into twelve tribes,” is written in the feminine plural: Uthnati Ashrat Asbaataan. Due to the fact that it refers to a number of people, it should be written in the masculine plural form: Uthaiy Ashara Sibtaan, as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.

3. In sura 4:162, the phrase “And (especially) those who establish regular prayer…” is written as al Muqiyhina al salaat, which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural: al Muqiyhuna al salaat (?). It is important to note that the two following phrases, “(those who) practice regular charity, and (those who) believe in Allah…” are both correctly written in the masculine human plural form.

4. In sura 5:69, the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, should be written al Sabieen.

5. In sura 63:10, the phrase “I shall be” is written akun (which is in the 3rd person?). Yet since this word refers to the future (& is in the 1st person) it should be written akunu.

6. In sura 3:59, the words Kun feekunu should be written, Kun fakaana.

There are other grammatical errors which exist in the Qur’an as well, such as: suras 2:192; 13:28; 20:66 and the duals which replace the plurals in sura 55.

If we are still in doubt as to whether the Qur’an is subject to error, it might be helpful end this section by quoting a Muslim scholar, who, himself, comments on this very problem concerning grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an:

“The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects… To sum up, more than one hundred Qur’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.” (Dashti, 23 Years, pgs.48-50)

---

J: The Sources of the Qur’an

In the earlier sections of this paper we discussed the problems which we observed concerning the claims which Muslims make towards their Qur’an. We noted the haphazard means by which the Qur’an was collected, and were appalled by the many abrogations and errors which exist in this supposedly “perfect” word of Allah. We came to the conclusion that the book could be nothing more than a man-made piece of literature, which could not stand alongside the great literary compositions that we have in our possession today. Yet, we found it troubling that there were so many inadequacies with this most ‘holy book’ for the Muslims.

As we approached the study on the collation of the Qur’an, we were shocked by the glaring deficiencies which were evidenced in its collection, forcing us to conclude that much of its content must have been added to much later.

If this be so, we are now left with the question as to where the author or authors went for their material? Where were the sources for many of the stories and ideas which we find in the Qur’an?

When we read the Qur’an we are struck by the large number of Biblical stories within its pages. Yet, these stories have little parallel with that which we read in our Bible. The Qur’anic accounts include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to that which we have heard our parents read to us at devotional times. So, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Upon reading and observing these dubious teachings in the Qur’an we are forced to ask whether they contain stories which have parallels in pre-Islamic writings which were of questionable authenticity? If so, then we should be able to find these “apocryphal” accounts and compare them with that which we read in the Qur’an.

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish apocryphal literature (much of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century C.E. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an.

The Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century C.E., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions had been created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Many Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but merely use them as windows with which to understand the times in which they were written.

So how did these non-authoritative Talmudic writings come to be a part of the Qur’an? In the Arabian Peninsula (known as the Hijaz), during the seventh century many Jewish communities could be found. They were part of the diaspora who had fled Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. A large number of these Jews were guided by these Talmudic writings which had been passed down orally from father to son for generations. Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those amongst the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book.

When Muhammad came onto the scene, in the seventh century, some scholars believe he merely added to this body of literature the Qur’an. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by Muhammad, or perhaps later redactors, and incorporated into the religion of Islam.

Those who are critical of these sources, yet who adhere to Muslim Tradition, and consider Muhammad as the ‘originator’of the Qur’an, contend that many of these stories came to Muhammad via the Jewish friends which he had in Medina. We do know from Muslim tradition that Muhammad’s uncle, Waraqa, translated portions of the Gospels into Arabic, and that Buhaira, a Nestorian monk, was his secret teacher (Tisdall, pg.15).

Muslim Tradition also maintains that Muhammad’s seventh wife, Raihana, and his ninth wife, Safiyya, were Jewesses. Furthermore, his first wife, Khadija, had a Christian background. His eighth wife, Maryam, also belonged to a Christian sect. It is likely that these wives shared with him much of their Old and New Testament literature, their dramas, and their prophetic stories.

Whether these wives understood the distinction between authentic Biblical literature and that which was apocryphal is not known. They would not have been literary scholars, but would have simply related the stories they had heard from their local communities, much of which was Talmudic in origin, as we shall soon see.

Another scenario is that many of the corresponding stories which we find in the Qur’an are from a later date (towards the end of the eighth century, or 100-150 years after the death of Muhammad), and have little to do with Muhammad. They were possibly written by later Persian or Syrian redactors, who simply borrowed stories from their own oral traditions (Persian Zoroastrians, or Byzantine Christians) as well as stories from the apocryphal Jewish literature which would have been around at that time. They then simply telescoped back the stories onto the figure of Muhammad in the seventh century. Whatever is the case, the Qur’anic accounts do have interesting parallels with the Jewish apocryphal literature from the second century C.E.

Let’s then look at a few of these accounts, and compare them with the parallels which we find in other co-existing, or pre-dating literature of that period.

J1: Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

J1i: Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

In suras 2:34 and 17:61 we find Satan (Iblis, who could be a fallen angel, or a jinn, according to sura 18:50) refusing to bow down to Adam. This story can be traced back to the second century Talmud.

J1ii: Cain and Abel

A better example is the story of Cain and Abel in sura 5:27-32: The story begins much as it does in our own Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel (though they are not named in the Qur’anic account). Yet in aya 31, after Cain slays Abel, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical account (see sura 5:30-32 written out below, on the left). Where could this Qur’anic account have come from? Is this an historical record which is unknown to the Biblical writers?

Indeed it was, as the source for this account was drafted after the New Testament was written. In fact there are 3 sources from which this account is taken: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and a book called The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All these 3 documents are Jewish writings from the Talmud, which were oral traditions from between 150-200 C.E. These stories comment on the Laws of the Bible, yet are known to contain nothing more than Hebrew myths and fables. As we read this particular story from these 3 sources, we find a striking parallel to the Qur’anic account:

Qur’an- sura 5:31:

“Then Allah sent a raven, who cratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.”

Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah:

“Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, buried it at once.”

Apart from the contrast between who buried who, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later author obtained their story. Thus we find that a Jewish fable, a myth, is repeated as historical fact in the Qur’an.

Yet that is not all, for when we continue in our reading of sura 5, in the following aya 32 , we find a further proof of plagiarism from apocryphal Jewish literature; this time the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

Qur’an- sura 5:32:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land-it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…”

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5:

“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ‘the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out’
[this latter is a quote from the Bible, Genesis 4:10], and he says, ‘it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.’ Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race.”

There is no connection between the previous verse (aya 31) and that which we have just read (sura 5:32 above). What does the death of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people? Nothing. Ironically, this aya 32, in fact, supports the basis of the Old Testament hope for the finished work of Jesus, who was to take away the sins of the world (see John 1:29). Yet, it doesn’t flow from the verse which preceded it. So why is it here?

If we were to turn to the Jewish Talmud again, this time to the Mishnah Sanhendrin, chapter 4, verse 5 (above, on the right), we will find where the author obtained his material, and why he included it here.

In this account we read a Rabbi’s comments, where he interprets the word ‘blood’ to mean, “his own blood and the blood of his seed.” Remember, this is nothing but the comment of a Rabbi. It is his own interpretation, and one which is highly speculative at that.

Therefore, it is rather interesting that he then goes on to comment on the plural word for ‘blood.’ Yet this Rabbi’s comments are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an, in aya 32 of sura 5! How is it that a Rabbi’s comments on the Biblical text, the muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and attributed to God? Did Allah learn something from the Rabbi, or was it Muhammad or a later author who learned this admonition from this Rabbi’s writings?

The only conclusion is that the later is the case, because there is no connection between the narrative concerning the killing of Cain in the Qur’an (aya 31), and the subsequent verse about the whole race (aya 32).

It is only when we read the Mishnah Sanhedrin that we find the connection between these two stories: a Rabbi’s exposition of a biblical verse and a core word. The reason why this connection is lacking in the Qur’an is now quite easy to understand. The author of sura 5 simply did not know the context in which the Rabbi was talking, and therefore was not aware that these were merely comments on the Biblical text and not from the Bible itself. He simply added them to the Qur’an, repeating what he had heard without understanding the implication.

It is rather ironic that in sura 25:4-5 this very charge of haphazard plagiarism is leveled at Muhammad by the unbelievers in Medina:

“But the unbelievers say: ‘Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.’ In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: ‘Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”

This charge rings closer to the truth than many Muslims are willing to admit. It seems that those who did not believe in Muhammad or in the later redactions, recognized the sources for these stories, since they had undoubtably heard the same myths and fables from the Jews who were not only living in that area at that time, but came from the surrounding countries to the fairs at Mecca and other trading towns in the Hijaz.

It seems quite obvious that the Qur’an cannot be accepted as the word of God, if there exists parallels in its narratives which exist from myths and commentaries of other religions, such as we find here.

J1iii: Abraham

In sura 21:51-71, we find the story of Abraham (due to its length, it is not written here- you can read it for yourself). In the Qur’anic account Abraham confronts his people and his father because of the many idols which they worship. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the larger ones intact. When the people see this they call Abraham and ask if he is responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idols which did the destruction. He challenges them to ask the larger idols to find out, to which they reply, “Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!” (aya 65). He gives a taunting retort, and they then throw him into a fire. But in aya 69 Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.

There are no parallels to this story in our Bible. There is a parallel, however, in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In this account Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenged him on this, and with an added bit of humour, which is missing in the Qur’anic account, Abraham responds by saying that he had given the biggest idol an ox for all the idols to eat, but because the smaller idols went ahead and ate, they thus did not show respect. The bigger idol consequently smashed the smaller idols. The enraged father did not believe Abraham’s account, and so took him to a man named Nimrod, who simply threw him into a fire. But God made it cool for him and he walked out unscathed.

The similarity between these two stories is quite unmistakable. A second century Jewish fable, a folklore, and myth is repeated in the “holy Qur’an.” It is quite evident that Muhammad or another author heard this story from the Jews, but because he could not read their books, though he had heard snatches of the Biblical narratives, from visiting Jews, or even his wives, he simply assumed they came from the same source, and unwittingly wrote Jewish folklore into his Qur’an.

Some Muslims claim that this myth, and not the Biblical account, is in reality the true Word of God. They maintain that the Jews simply expunged it so as not to correspond with the later Qur’anic account. Without attempting to explain how the Jews would have known to expunge this very story, since the Qur’an was not to appear until centuries later, we nonetheless must ask where this folklore comes from?

The Bible itself gives us the answer.

In Genesis 15:7, the Lord tells Abraham that it was He who brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ur is a place, also mentioned in Genesis 11:31. We have evidence that a Jewish scribe named Jonathan Ben Uziel mistook the Hebrew word “Ur” for the Hebrew word which means “fire.” Thus in his commentary of this verse he writes, “I am the Lord who brought you out of the fire of the Chaldeans.”

Consequently, because of this misunderstanding, and because of a misreading of the Biblical verse a fable became popular around this era, which stated that God had brought Abraham out of the fire.

With this information in hand, we can, therefore, discern where the Jewish fable originated: from a misunderstanding of one word in a Biblical verse by one errant scribe. Yet, somehow this errant understanding found its way into God’s “holy” word in the Qur’an.

It is obvious from these examples that the author of the Qur’an simply repeated what he had heard, and not being able to distinguish between that which he heard and that which was Biblical truth, he simply compiled them side-by-side in the Qur’an.

J1iv: Mt Sanai

The story found in sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law is not recognizable from the Biblical account. And well it should not be, for it hails from another second century apocryphal Jewish book, The Abodah Sarah.

J1v: Solomon and Sheba

In sura 27:17-44 we read the story of Solomon, the Hoopoo bird and the Queen of Sheba. After reading the Qur’anic account of Solomon in sura 27, it would be helpful to compare it with the account taken from a Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written in the second Century C.E., nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an:

Qur’an- sura 27:17-44:

(aya 17) “And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts-of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks.

(aya 20) “And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?

(aya 21) “I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence).

(aya 22) “But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

(aya 23) “I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne…

(aya 27) “(Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!

(aya 28) “Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return.

(aya 29) “(The queen) said: “Ye chiefs! Here is- delivered to me-a letter worthy of respect.

(aya 30) “It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, most Gracious, Most Merciful: Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).’

(aya 32) “She said: ‘Ye chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’

(aya 33) “They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command.’

(aya 35) “She said…’But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’

(aya 42) “So when she arrived…

(aya 44) “… she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.'”

II Targum of Esther:

“Solomon…gave orders…I will send King and armies against thee…(of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.

Just then the Red-cock (a bird), enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it.

But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom (of Sheba) which is not subject to thee, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’

By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing and away it flew and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing (Sheba) opened it and read it.

‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please thee to come and ask after my welfare, I will set thee high above all. But if it please thee not, I will send kings and armies against thee.’

The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him.

When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger…to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass.

When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…”

It is rather obvious, once you have read the two accounts above, where the author of the story of Solomon and Sheba in the Qur’an obtained his data. The two stories are uncannily similar. The jinns, the birds, and in particular the messenger bird, which he couldn’t at first find, and then used as a liaison between himself and the Queen of Sheba, along with the letter and the glass floor, are unique to these two accounts. One will not find these parallels in the Biblical passages at all.

J1vi: Mary, Imran and Zachariah

In sura 3:35-37 we find the story of Mary, her father Imran, and the priest Zachariah.

Qur’an- sura 3:35-37:

(aya 35) “Behold! a woman of Imran said: ‘O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: so accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.’

(aya 36) “When she was delivered, she said: “O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!” And Allah knew best what she brought forth- “And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.”

(aya 37) “Right graciously did her Lord accept her; He made her grow in purity and beauty: to the care of Zakariya was she assigned.”

The Proto-Evangelion’s James the Lesser:

“And Anna (wife of Joachim) answered, ‘As the Lord my God liveth, whatever I bring forth, whether it be male or female, I will devote it to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in holy things, during its whole life’…and called her name Mary…And the high-priest received her; and blessed her, and said, ‘Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations, and to the very end of time by thee will the Lord shew his redemption to the children of Israel.”

After reading the passage from the Qur’an (on the left), notice the similarities between the Qur’anic story and that found in a spurious gospel account from The Proto-evangelion’s James the Lesser, which is a second century C.E. apocryphal Christian fable (on the right).

Both accounts speak of the child being either male or female. They also mention that the child is Mary, and that she is protected by either a high- priest, or Zachariah, who is inferred as the keeper of the sanctuary, where Mary is kept (though the Lukan account speaks of him as the father of John the Baptist).

J1vii: Jesus’ Birth

There are a number of accounts in the Qur’an which speak of the early childhood of Jesus. These accounts do not correspond at all with the Biblical story. But they do have parallels with other apocryphal Jewish documents:

1. The Palm Tree In sura 19:22-26 we read the story of Mary, the baby Jesus, the Palm Tree, and the rivulet which flows below it. This story is not found in the Biblical account, but first appeared in an apocryphal fable of the second century C.E. (see lower passage; from The Lost Books of the Bible, New York, Bell Publishing Co., 1979, pg.38). Notice the similarities between the two accounts.Qur’an- sura 19:22-26:

   “So she conceived him [Jesus], and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: She cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight’! But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm tree): ‘Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee: And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm tree; it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye.

   The Lost Books of the Bible:

   Now on the third day after Mary was wearied in the desert by the heat, she asked Joseph to rest for a little under the shade of a Palm Tree. Then Mary looking up and seeing its branches laden with fruit (dates) said, ‘I desire if it were possible to have some fruit.’ Just then the child Jesus looked up (from below) with a cheerful smile, and said to the Palm Tree, ‘Send down some fruit.’ Immediately the tree bent itself (toward her) and so they ate. Then Jesus said, ‘O Palm Tree, arise; be one of my Father’s trees in Paradise, but with thy roots open the fountain (rivulet) beneath thee and bring water flowing from that fount.’

2. The Baby Jesus Talking Later on in the same sura (19) in verses 29-33 we find that the baby Jesus can talk. Nowhere in any of the gospels do we find the baby Jesus talking. There is the account of Jesus disputing with the elders in the temple, but this story comes later, when Jesus has grown into a young boy. So where did this story come from? Once again, we need only turn to apocryphal writings from the 2nd century; this time to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt, named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ to find the same story:Qur’an- sura 19:29-33:

   “But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’

   “He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

   “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live;

   “He hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

   “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

   The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “… Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: ‘Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel…’

3. Creating birds from clay Jesus, according to sura 3:49 breathed life into birds of clay. The source for this Qur’anic fiction is found in the earlier Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, another apocryphal fable from the 2nd century:Qur’an- sura 3:49:

   “And (appoint him [Jesus]) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave…”

   Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “Then he took from the bank of the stream some soft clay, and formed out of it twelve sparrows…Then Jesus clapping together the palms of his hands called to the sparrows, and said to them: ‘Go, fly away.'”

J1viii: Heaven and Hell

There are Qur’anic accounts which deal with heaven and hell, which have no parallels with our Biblical accounts. It is not difficult, however, to find out where these stories originated. Take for instance the following:

1. Seven Heavens and Seven Hells In suras 15:43-44 and 17:44 we find reference to the seven hells and the seven heavens. Without asking where these seven heavens and hells are located, it will be helpful to note that the same number of hells and heavens can be found in the tradition called Jagigah and Zuhal.

2. Mi’raj In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the Sacred mosque to the farthest mosque. From later traditions we know this aya is referring to Muhammad ascending up to the 7th Heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “horse” called Buraq.More detail is furnished us in the Jewish Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic.Another account is that of The Secrets of Enoch, which predates Muhammad by four centuries. In chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1 we read:

   “On the first day of the month I was in my house and was resting on my couch and slept and when I was asleep great distress came up into my heart and there appeared two men. They were standing at my couch and called me by name and I arose from my sleep. Have courage, Enoch, do not fear; The Eternal God sent us to thee. Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven. The angels took him on their wings and bore him up to the first heaven.”

3. Hell The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century (Glubb, pg.36)

4. Balance The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9, utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

5. Paradise The description of Paradise in suras 55:56-58 and 56:22-24,35-37, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris who have eyes like pearls, has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia, where the name for the maidens is not houris, but Paaris.

J2: Stories Which do not Correspond With the Biblical Account

There are other stories which do not necessarily follow any Biblical accounts, but which have astonishing similarities with further apocryphal Jewish literature from the second century.

J2i: Harut and Marut

In sura 2:102 the two angels Harut and Marut are mentioned. Who exactly are these two characters? While Yusuf Ali believes these were angels who lived in Babylon, historical records show us that they were idols which were worshipped in Armenia. Their existence was inspired by Marut, the Hindu god of the wind. We find this story related in the Talmud (Midrash Yalzut, chapter 44).

J2ii: The Cave of the Seven Sleepers

The story which was mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, concerning the seven sleepers and a dog who slept for 309 years in a cave, is found in sura 18:9-25. It has a striking resemblance to a book called The Story of Martyrs, by Gregory of Tours. In this account it is a legendary tale of Christians who were under persecution, and who fell asleep in a cave for 200 years.

J2iii: The Sirat

Though not mentioned in the Qur’an by name, the bridge over which all must pass to their final destiny is referred to in sura 19:71. As in the case of the Mi’raj, we must go to the Hadiths to find out what the Sirat really is. And when we do, we wonder from whence such an idea originated. We don’t need to look far, for a similar bridge leading over the deep gulf of hell to Paradise is called Chinavad (the connecting link) in the Zoroastrian book Dinkart.

It is important to remember that none of the above extra-Biblical quotations are recognized by Biblical scholars, historians, or theologians as authentic events in the life of Christ, or in the scope of the Jewish faith. Consequently they are not included in the Bible. In fact their late dates (most are from the second century C.E., or A.D.) should make it obvious to any casual observer that they have little authenticity whatsoever.

---

K: Conclusion

We have now come to the end of our discussion on the authority of the Qur’an. We began our study by noting that a possible reason for so much misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians could be the way we viewed our respective scriptures; and the real differences which exist concerning our views on revelation and inspiration. It seems obvious to me that until we understand these differences in perception we will be condemned to continue talking at and past each other, without any hope of coming together in true dialogue.

We noted in our study the tendency by Muslims to elevate their Qur’an to a higher degree then what we do with our own Bible. Examples of this elevation can be found in their demand that no-one write in its margins, or let it touch the floor. By doing so they could almost be blamed for deifying it, a practice which sparks of idolatry, the very sin (Shirk) which the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to do (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

From there we dealt with the claim by Muslims that Qur’anic authority is found in the miracle of its composition; that it has superior and unique literary qualities which exceed any known written work. It seems to be the consensus of a number of scholars, however, that with no logical connection from one sura to the next, the Qur’an not only is difficult to read, its content is so confusing that it takes an enormous amount of patience to understand it. With criticisms like these it is difficult to understand why Muslims continue to elevate its supposed literary qualities.

We noted that Muslims claim authority for the Qur’an as a universal document. Yet, we found the Qur’an to be a uniquely 7th-9th century Arab piece of literature, which simply reflected the mentality and culture of that time. This was made clear with two examples: the case for the inferiority of women and the profoundly violent nature of the Qur’an and its prophet, Muhammad. From there we continued on to the collection of the original documents, and asked the question of whether any document which comes from the hands of God could be tampered with as we have witnessed here in these examples. The incredible respect and awe which is evidenced by Muslims today for their Qur’an belies the seemingly cavalier attitude of the earlier Caliphs towards the original codices, evidenced by their burning of all extent manuscripts, even those which Muhammad himself had deemed to be authoritative.

We were astonished at how an “eternal divine document of God” could contain within its text not only abrogations of itself, but errors which give doubt to its entire veracity. If God’s word is to retain its integrity, it must remain above suspicion. Even the Qur’an demands such a standard. In sura 4:82 we read, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies” (sura 4:82). The testimony of the material we have covered here convicts the Qur’an of failing in the very claims it purports to uphold, and sustain. This bodes ill for its claim to inspiration, while negating any hope of any recognized authority.

In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur’an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur’an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur’an’s authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur’an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a “holy book” which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur’an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur’an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur’an could hope to be the true Word of God.

The same test of verification is required of the Qur’an as that of all scriptures, including those which have preceded it (the Old and New Testament). For decades now scholars have attempted to find fault with our scriptures, applying to them the same critical investigation we have applied here and more, and for the most part we have welcomed it. Yet, through all the critical and sometimes polemical analysis which has been fomented against our scriptures, they have resolutely stood the test. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bible continues to be the number one best-seller in the history of literature. Though we do not accord our scriptures the same sense of elevated worship which the Muslims demon- strate for their Qur’an, we do stand behind the veracity of our scriptures claim to divine inspiration. We do so because it has proven time and again to remain consistent to the claims it makes of itself and of all true revelations which come from the divine hand of God.

---

L: References Cited

Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, The Holy Qur’an (Revised Edition), Brentwood, Amana Corporation, 1989

Campbell, Dr. William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, Middle East Resources

Copleston, F.S, Christ or Mohammed? The Bible or the Koran?, Harpenden, Nuprint, 1989

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, The Codification of the Qur’an Text, South Africa, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Hoodbhoy, Pervez, Islam and Science, London, Zed Books ltd., 1989

Morey Robert, Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1992

Nehls, Gerhard, Christians Ask Muslims, Bellville, SIM International Life Challenge, 1987

Pfander, C. G., The Mizanu’l Haqq, (Balance of Truth), London, The Religious Tract Soc., 1910

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

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.

The Virgin Birth of Jesus: Its Significance

99 Truth Papers
Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith

April 1997

---

Introduction

There are certain theological concepts or words which we share in common with the Muslims, though the meanings which we attach to them differ substantially, and even contradict completely with that which they attach to them? Five of these concepts or words which I feel are of importance are 1) the meaning of the title Messiah, 2) the fact of the Virgin Birth, 3) the concept of the Kingdom of God, 4) the Name for Jesus, and 5) the significance of the Sacrificial Lamb. What I find interesting is that while Christians place great importance on all of these five ideas, the Muslims though they recognize their existance in scripture, have no real concept of their importance, and at times do not even understand what they mean, or the significance they hold for the sources from which they were borrowed.

It is important, therefore, that we take these five ideas, or words, and explain their meanings from the Christian perspective, so that we can not only better speak to the issues they raise for our Muslim friends, but finally offer them the real significance which God had intended.

In another paper I introduced a discussion concerning the word Messiah. In that talk I was concerned that our Muslim friends be acquainted with the Messiah as He really is, and not as a person who, according to Muslims, is merely a prophet. I wanted them to see that our scriptures clearly defined Him as a person who was uniquely anointed by God, though He was equal with God. I wanted them to understand His mission was two-fold, to come initially as a suffering servant in order to take upon Himself the sins of the world, and then. as a consequence, to initiate the true Kingdom of God, which is here and now.

Until they understood the Messiah fully, they would continue using the title for Jesus as the “al-Masih,” yet fail to comprehend that as the Messiah, Jesus fulfilled all that God required of His creation, which negated any need for another prophet, or a further revelation, for that matter.

In this study I would like to continue with that same theme, and delve into the fact of the Virgin Birth, a fact which both Christianity and Islam agree upon, but which Islam has little understanding of, both historically and theologically. It is obvious that their idea for the virgin birth has been borrowed from Christianity, but without the meaning which the Bible has attached to it. It is for that reason that I would like at this time to help our Muslim friends understand the real significance of the virgin birth.

That Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit of God is an important belief for both Muslims and Christians. However, we are faced with the urgent question, “Why?” Why was Jesus born of a virgin? What does this tell us about Him? What kind of a person can be born only of a virgin? And why is this important to us today?

In the Qur’an, Mary asks the angel how she could be pregnant as, “no man hath touched [her]” (Sura 3:47). The angel answered that it was so decreed (Sura 19:20). Yet why should this child come in this manner? Most Muslims would shrug in ignorance, as the Qur’an never explains it.

At times like these, the Qur’an points the Muslim to those to whom the former revelations were given, the Christians. We read, “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” (Sura 10:94; cf. 21:7).

Let us, therefore, go to these scriptures and ask them to explain this unique birth. Perhaps then we can see the real significance of Christmas as God intended.

[I] The Virgin Birth Delineates the Uniqueness of Jesus

The former scriptures say a number of things concerning Jesus. To begin with they say that He was:

Unique in His conception:

In the annals of history, no other human being has had such a marvelous conception. Not even Muhammad. All the rest of the human race stands together. Since the time of Adam and Eve we have all had two parents.

But, this one human, Jesus of Nazareth, stands alone as a kind of new, second Adam. He, alone, was born of a virgin. And this birth was unique in other respects as well.

We read in the Bible that the angel Gabriel foretold His conception (see Luke 1:24-37), and that a new and strange star appeared, indicating where He would be born. At the time of His birth angels proclaimed the event (see Luke 2:8-14), and before He could talk wise men from the East came to worship Him (see Matthew 2:11). John the Baptist, also miraculously born (though not virgin-born), while still a baby in the womb, leapt for joy as soon as Mary, with the newly conceived Jesus, arrived.

Unique in His sinlessness:

His life, consequently, echoed the way He came into the world. In Luke chapter 4 we read that the devil came to tempt Jesus as he had tempted the first Adam, but was unable to corrupt Him. Jesus stayed absolutely obedient to His Word. Unlike the rest of humanity He never sinned.

Unique in His power:

His uniqueness was displayed in many ways. In Luke 3:22, 4:1,14 etc… we are told that the Spirit of God, the power of the highest, rested upon Him. As a result Jesus went about doing endless miracles; healing the sick, controlling nature itself, and raising the dead. He knew what people were thinking, where they had been, what they had done without ever asking them. He could even tell the future. All of this shows us that here was a man who knew far more of the power of God than any other human who has ever lived.

Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Jesus lived in an endless display of the power of the Spirit of God. There was no limit to what He could do in the service of God. Nobody found Him unable to meet their need.

Unique in His message:

His uniqueness was witnessed in other areas as well. Jesus was not just an ordinary man chosen by God to bear a very important message. His message received its authority from Himself. He did not get His authority from His message. In other words, with Jesus, His teaching is less important than the man Himself. He told people to follow Him, and not just to follow His teaching. Even when He taught, the people were not so amazed at what He said as the power and authority He had in His teaching (see Luke 4:32).

The virgin birth of Jesus, therefore, helps us to focus our attention on the man Himself. It is proof that here is someone totally new, totally different, indeed, totally unique. No other prophet, indeed, no other person could come close to making the claims He made, or do the things He did. For this reason His birth was important in announcing the uniqueness of who He was.

[II] The Virgin Birth Points to the Purity of Jesus

But that was not all. The virgin birth also signified that Jesus was not of the line of Adam. Because He did not have two parents, He was exempted from Adam’s line. Now, you may ask why this is so important? Why should Jesus not be born in the line of Adam just like every other human being? Why must He not be a descendant of Adam? Why is this fact significant?

To answer this we need to take a long step back, in fact to the very beginning of creation. In the Taurat (Genesis 1) we learn that God created all living creatures with the ability to reproduce themselves. To produce offspring “after their own kind.” From the beginning of creation we see that God established a very important principle, that “like produces like.”

We see this illustrated on a small scale every day in the way that a child inherits various physical and personal characteristics from its parents, its skin colour, its racial features, even specific likenesses, such as long noses, or body height and weight, or personality traits.

[A] That which comes from Adam is sinful:

On a larger scale, however, we can see that we all possess the basic humanity that Adam and Eve have passed down to us through the myriad of generations since the time of creation. Yet, when we think of humanity, we tend to assume that this likeness pertains to physical attributes alone. But there is more to it than that. Adam passed down to us more than those characteristics which separate us from other animals or living things, such as the apes or reptiles. And here is where the problem lies.

When we read the book of Genesis, we discover that immediately following the story of creation, and the beginning of the human species as we know it, comes the story of the beginning of sin.

The Taurat tells us this story of sin in the events leading to the Fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. In disobeying God, by eating the fruit that Eve gave to him, Adam brought a judgment and curse upon not only all of his descendants, but upon the universe itself.

In Genesis 2:17, we learn that the very earth was cursed because of Adam’s disobedience. As a result of his disobedience, Adam would die and rot away and go back into the dust from which he was formed. He would, therefore, not enjoy perfect life, or health and happiness in the garden of Eden. Nor would he be in relationship with the Lord, as had been intended.

Before they rebelled against God, Adam and Eve were innocent, unashamed by their nakedness, and totally happy with God. After their sin they had changed substantially. Now, suddenly, they were ashamed of their nakedness. They tried to hide away from God. They now understood what evil was, and how it differed from what was good.

So, although Adam had been created very good, free from all moral pollution or physical danger, yet, he, by disobeying God, had brought about death, shame and corruption into his own heart, together with his wife, Eve. Sin had now entered the world, and had permeated Adam and his wife Eve.

In Genesis 5:3 we are told that Adam produced offspring “in his own likeness, after his own image.” Again, we find the old dictum that, “like produces like.”

Adam had defiled his own humanity. He had brought a curse upon himself from God. He had become guilty and sinful. Adam’s children were, likewise, the same. They too were corrupt and cursed. “Like produces like.” Take for instance the very first son of Adam, who was Cain. What did he become? A murderer. And from then on we are not surprised to read that the history of humanity is filled with murder, hate and jealousy.

Therefore, we have a chain of human life reaching back to Adam, the consequence of whose sin has affected us all. Because of that original sin by Adam we are all imputed with the guilt of sin, the wages of which is death.

Today we see those consequences all the time. We notice that children are naturally selfish and disobedient. They need to be disciplined to be good. And as we all know, the natural tendency for humans is to behave badly, putting themselves as their own highest authorities, and their thoughts are so often shameful. Even Muslims admit that Muhammad, whom they believe to be the highest example for us to follow, himself, did what was wrong and had to pray about his sins (Surah). Indeed, as Romans 3:10 says, “There in no-one righteous, not even one.” We have all been imputed with the sin of Adam, as “Like has produced like,” right on down through the annals of history, till today. But there is one exception.

[B] That which comes from God is sinless:

There is one who never did anything wrong. He went against the norm. He was sinless, the only man who ever was, and His name was Jesus, the sign promised by the prophet Isaiah. He had to be like that because of who He was and what His mission would be.

Jesus could not be a son of Adam. He could not be a descendent of the corrupt and cursed Adam. Therefore, He was conceived from a Holy source, from God himself. By His virgin birth, He was not imputed with the sin which the rest of us were imputed. He was different, because His Father was different. Remember the dictum, “Like produces like.”

Jesus shared the characteristics of His Father. By this we do not mean that He was conceived by God in a sexual way. No, from scripture we are told that the power of the highest miraculously worked to produce a conception in Mary’s Virgin womb. But that child carried the nature of God within Him, as He was “God with us-Immanuel.”

Here was a child that was described by Gabriel as a “holy one.” This child was not part of that chain of curse and corruption reaching back to Adam. Here was a new Adam, a new, fresh, human being. Here was a human that was not under the curse of God. In fact, in Luke 3:22, we read that God spoke from heaven, saying that Jesus was His Son whom He loved and that He was well pleased with Him. There was no shame or guilt or corruption in this man.

As proof of this we find that His holiness did not go unnoticed, even by those who were not of His group, those who persecuted Him, and despised Him. At the end of His life, Pilate said that He could find nothing wrong with Jesus, and so washed his hands of his execution. In Luke 4:34 even a demon identified Him as the “Holy One of God.”

We know that like produces like, so we know that Jesus shared the same nature as His father. Yet, you may ask, what about His mother? He had a human mother did He not? That is true, He did. It is because He had a human mother that we know that He also had a human nature. Due to His virgin birth Jesus had the nature of a human and the nature of God, yet He remained one person. The significance of His two natures would take pages to explain. Suffice it to say that in Jesus, God is revealed in human form as God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). His virgin birth, however, underlies these two natures: born of a woman, providing Him His humanity, yet born of a virgin, underlining His divinity.

And, some believe, it is important that it was through his mother and not his father that He came to earth. If we were to look at the story of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3, we find that it was Adam who received the warning from God not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Eve had not yet been created. Therefore, Adam had the higher authority to keep this promise. In chapter 3, when Eve took the fruit and ate it, she was not alone. Adam was with her according to verse 6. Historically, the church has taught that the blame for the sin of eating the fruit was uniquely Eves, because she was the first to eat it. Yet, Adam was right there witnessing the act and he did nothing to stop her. He therefore, is as culpable as her, and in some respects possibly more-so, as it was to him that the warning had originally been given. Eve only heard about it 2nd-hand from Adam.

For this reason, one can say that the guilt for having eaten the fruit could be greater for Adam than for Eve. It is therefore, of more importance that Jesus be descended from Eve and not Adam, to be fully exonerated from the guilt of that first sin.

[C] That which comes from Eve is fulfilled:

If we stay in the 3rd chapter of Genesis, and verse 15, we find a prophecy spoken by God concerning the descendant of Eve and Satan. God says, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” God in this verse is foretelling the event of the cross which was to happen thousands of years later. What He is saying here is that an offspring of Eve would crush the head of Satan. We know this happened on the cross and the subsequent resurrection, when Jesus finally destroyed the work of Satan by triumphing over death.

What is interesting is that God did not say the offspring of Adam, nor did God say “their offspring,” referring to the two of them. He purposefully mentions “her” offspring, pointing to the female side of the created parent, since Eve stands for all of woman-hood (as can clearly be seen in the subsequent prophecies in vs. 16 which only women can suffer). Therefore, the person to fulfill this prophecy had to be a woman. Essentially what is happening here is that God is pointing to the virgin birth, since Adam’s offspring would not be involved in this birth, absolving Him from Adam’s sin. The virgin birth has thus added importance, because it fulfills the prophecy which God gave to Eve way back at the dawn of creation.

[III] The Virgin Birth signifies the Divinity of Jesus

Yet, that is not all. The virgin birth has other significance for us today, as well. According to the book of Isaiah, we find that this unique child would be a sign to the people of Israel. In chapter 7, verse 14 we read:

Isaiah 7:14 “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”

What was the sign which the virgin birth was to announce? It was that a child named Immanuel was to be conceived. This was no ordinary name, for this was no ordinary child. Immanuel means “God with us.” Therefore the child’s name signified who the child was; this child was “God with us.” Here then is the sign. God, Himself, was to come through this virgin birth.

In The Injil, in the book of Matthew 1:18-25, we are told that this prophecy is fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus, the Christ (another name for Messiah). Before Mary and Joseph had any sexual relations, Mary was pregnant “through the Holy Spirit.” In verse 20 we are told that her conception was an act of the Holy Spirit, not by sexual intercourse (as some Muslims claim the scripture is saying), but by a miracle.

In Luke 1:26-2:52, we read in more detail of the conception and birth of Jesus. There are too many verses for us to read at this time, but the gist can be summed up as follows: The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her that her virgin-born child will be called the “Son of the Most High, the Lord God,” and that “He will reign over the house of Jacob (Israel) forever.” When Mary queries the possibility of this prophecy, Gabriel explains that the power of the highest, the Holy Spirit, would “overshadow” her and therefore, the “Holy One” in her would be called the “Son of God.” As in the case of the Messiah, we can be in no doubt that with this virgin birth, someone extremely important was to be born. He was the Holy One, the Son of the Most High God. In Luke 3:38 we learn that only Adam is similarly referred to as the “Son of God,” yet in his case, he was offered this title due to the fact that he was created by God and not by the process of procreation.

Note: why do Muslims, in questioning the seeming physical relationship of Jesus to God, as His son, not also question Adam’s physical relationship to God, as he is also referred to as the “Son of God?”

It is interesting to note that in Adam’s creation he was created without sin, completely blameless, and in relation with God. In this way he was a “Son of God.” There was nothing in his life at the beginning which could impair that relationship which he had with God.

This fact helps us to understand why the virgin birth of Jesus is, thus, so important. The fact that His birth was a virgin birth brought added significance, in that since Jesus was born unlike any other human, without two parents, He could clearly be identified as the sign promised by Isaiah, as God, Himself amongst us, the Holy One.

Conclusion: Its significance for us today

What then can we say is the significance of the virgin birth? What is it that Muslims need to know about the virgin birth which will help them to understand God better? From what we have just read it is evident that the virgin birth has enormous significance.

First of all this unique birth delineates the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that He was totally distinct from all the rest of humanity in His conception, in His moral character, in His power, and in His message. There was and is no-one like Him. Thus it stands to reason that only He was born of a virgin. Muslims should ask why their Qur’an never explains the reason for this unique birth of Jesus. The fact that the Qur’an mentions the virgin birth yet says nothing concerning its significance, while at the same time elevating another person to a greater level than Jesus shows that much has been left unsaid, possibly because it was a borrowed idea to begin with, yet an idea full of hidden truth.

Our Muslim friends must be informed that Jesus, though He was a human like us, was also divine, and consequently, did not partake of the curse of Adam with which we have all been imputed. For that reason, Jesus, who because of His divinity was sinless, could take upon Himself our sins completely. Consequently, we now have the assurance of our salvation, something which Muslims can never claim.

The virgin birth furthermore shows us that it was Jesus who fulfilled the prophecy given to Eve, that one of her offspring would come and destroy the power of Satan, the power of death, and the power of evil in the world; and in so doing, bring us back into relationship with God, so that we could now live with Him for. That is the great news which Muslims need to hear.

And finally, since the virgin birth was promised by the prophet Isaiah as a sign of “Immanuel,” God with us, who was yet to come; Jesus as the only person in history to have been born in such a way, truly can be called “God with Us.” The fulfillment of that prophecy informs us that this child was also the Son of God, and that He was the Holy One. Muslims need to be made aware of these prophecies and their fulfillment. They must know that since God has already come among us, there is now no need for a further prophet, or a further revelation. All has been fulfilled in this one unique person.

To understand this truth, however, Muslims will then need to delve into the reason why God came to be with us. On this point the Qur’an is deeply inadequate. Since it does not speak at all of the curse of Adam, it knows little concerning the consequences and remedy of sin. It also says nothing concerning the significance of the virgin birth. The Bible, however, has these answers (Sura 10:49). It is up to us to share it with them.

Because they have not understood the nature of sin, they have not understood the need for its rectification, which requires a divine intervention for its eradication. It is no wonder, then, that they have not understood the significance of the virgin birth, though they continue to claim its validity in history. Here then is our task, to re-introduce the uniqueness of Jesus’s birth, without which we would continue to live in sin for eternity.

Who is the Messiah (“Al-Masihu-Isa”)?

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

---

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Equal to the Prophets

3. Different from the Prophets

   1. Superior to the Prophets

   2. Son of God

4. Was Jesus the Messiah?

5. The two comings of the Messiah

   1. Suffering Servant

   2. Eternal Lord of Glory

6. Conclusion

---

A: Introduction

In the last few months, while talking with Muslims concerning the differences and similarities in our beliefs, it has been brought to my attention that there are certain theological concepts or words which we share in common, though the meanings we attach to them differ substantially, and even contradict completely that which they attack to them.

Four of these concepts or words are:

1. the Messiah

2. the Virgin Birth

3. the Name for Jesus

4. the Sacrificial Lamb

What I find interesting is, that while Christians place great importance on all four of these ideas, the Muslims have no idea of their importance, and at times do not even understand what they mean, or the significance they hold for the sources from whom they were borrowed.

I would like to take these four ideas and words and explain their meanings from both the Muslim and Christian perspectives, and make a comparison between the two, so that we can better speak to the issues they raise with our Muslim friends.

For this talk I would like to begin with the concept of the Messiah.

---

B: The Qur’an says the Messiah is equal to other Prophets

Throughout the Qur’an, we find that Jesus is always referred to as a prophet, much like all the other prophets. In Sura 2:136 he is joined with Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and Moses as simply one of the prophets. In Sura 43:59 he is mentioned as nothing more than a servant, and in Sura 5:78 as only a messenger. Yet in eleven instances in the Qur’an Jesus is given the title of “al-Masihu Isa,” The Messiah Jesus (see Surahs 4:157,171; 3:45) or “al-Masihu ibn Maryam,” the Messiah, son of Mary (see 9:31). In all 11 cases this title applies to Jesus alone. Islam, therefore, seems to join with Christianity in declaring Jesus the long-awaited Messiah promised to the Jews through the prophets of old.

Not only that, the Qur’an intensifies this title by applying to the title Masihu the article “al.” In all cases, without exception, the title is written “al-Masihu.” The definite article positively distinguishes him from all the other prophets.

But that is where the confusion comes in. For nowhere in the Qur’an does it say who or what the Messiah is. It gives no explanation for the Messiah. In fact, great scholars in Muslim history like Zamakhshari and Baidawi admitted that al-Masihu was not an original Arabic word. Why, then, does the Qur’an acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah, yet give no delineation of what the word Messiah means? Why give him a unique title and not explain it’s significance?

---

C: The Bible says the Messiah is different to other Prophets

C1: The Messiah is superior to other Prophets

Since the Qur’an gives us no definition for the Messiah, we must do what the Qur’an encourages Muslims to do when they have any question. In Surahs 10:94 and 21:7 the Qur’an calls on Muslims to “ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee,” or in other words, those who have the scripture, the Bible. Jews and Christians find in the Bible that the title for Messiah is reserved for the specially-chosen one of God, one man alone, who stands above all other men, prophets and apostles included.

In our New Testament we find the title “ho Christos,” which in Greek is a translation of the word “Messias” (See John 1:41 and 4:25). In every case where this title is used the article “ho” is included, emphasizing that, like the Qur’an, it is referring to one specific person.

The title is set forth in all of scripture as applying to God’s supreme Deliverer who the Jews eagerly awaited. In the earlier periods of the Old Testament, however, there were a number of instances in which other individuals were referred to as “a Messiah” or anointed one.

In Leviticus 4:3 the title Messiah is applied to the anointed high priest in Israel. In 2 Samuel 1:14 it refers to the nation’s king. In Psalm 105:15 the prophets of God are referred to as Messiah. Even the Persian king Cyrus is afforded the title in Isaiah 45:1, as it was he who prepared the way for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem.

But in the book of Daniel we find a specific prophecy by Daniel (Daniel 9:25) which promises that after Jerusalem is rebuilt a time would pass after which a “Mashiah,” an anointed one would come.

It was this prophecy where the word Messiah was used as a title for the coming Prince of God which led the Jews to refer of him as “ha Mashiah,” “the Messiah”.

The prophet Isaiah spoke often of this Messiah, saying that he would come from the root of Jesse, the father of David, that he would rule all the earth and that he would slay the wicked by the breath of his mouth alone (Isaiah 11:1-5).

One prophet after another spoke of this supreme representative of God, who would be a great figure, far above all the prophets of God in honour and majesty. According to Zechariah, this supreme ruler was destined to be God’s own chosen representative (Zechariah 6:12-13).

The prophet Micah predicted that he would be born in Bethlehem, and that his origin is from the beginning of time, and whose reign would last forever (Micah 5:2). Daniel called him the “son of Man,” who came from the ancient of days (before time), and that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him in an everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:13-14).

Even those during the time of Jesus held similar beliefs of the Messiah. John the Baptist (or Yahya) looked toward the coming Messiah as one far superior to himself. In Luke 3:16 he says, “I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” And as Jesus was coming towards John, John is quoted as saying, “This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me'” (John 1:30).

From these passages we can see that not only the ancient prophets considered the Messiah to be someone special, but John, who was a prophet during Jesus’s lifetime, considered the Messiah, whom he knew as Jesus to be far superior to himself. John spoke of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Messiah, as Micah and others had done before him. Furthermore, since he was the only prophet to rise at the same time as Jesus, he rejoiced at the honour of being appointed to reveal him to the nation (John 1:31).

C2: The Messiah is the Son of God

Yet that was not all. From scripture we find that the Messiah was more than just the greatest prophet. The most emphatic promise of the coming Messiah as one of the sons of David was made to David himself. When David was king, he sought to build a great temple to house the ark of the covenant of God. God forbade him from doing so, through the prophet Nathan. But God did give David a special promise. We find this revealing promise in 1 Chronicles 17:10-14:

“…the Lord will build a house for you. When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he will be my son… and my kingdom for ever; his throne will be established for ever.”

Initially one would assume this prophecy points to a biological son of David. According to the Qur’an Sura 17:7, David’s son Solomon did build a great temple for God (the al- masjid, “the temple”). This is also echoed in the Bible. Yet, shortly after Solomon’s death the kingdom of Israel was split in two, and was completely decimated within 300 years. It was thus not an everlasting kingdom. So the promise to David was not for his son Solomon.

The Jews realized that God had been referring to the Messiah in this promise to David, and the promise that He would establish his kingdom for ever now took on real importance. As a result, from this time on, the Jews coined the expression “Son of David” as a title for their coming Messiah.

But what is more important in this promise is the phrase in verse 13, which reads, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” Since this promise from God is referring to the Messiah, it clarifies who the Messiah really is. The Messiah was to be the Son of God!

David knew that the Messiah would be the Son of God and therefore he openly called him his Lord and Master in Psalm 89:26-29, 35-36, while at the same time acknowledging his dependence. This is echoed by Jesus in Revelations 22:16, where he says, “I am the root and the offspring of David…” Jesus the Messiah is his offspring, as he was born into the line of David. But ultimately he is his root, as David came originally from him.

Therefore, not only was the Messiah superior to the prophets according to the many prophets who preceded him, he could also claim the title of Son of God, which by itself completely separated him from any other person in existence.

---

D: Was Jesus the Messiah?

We have now delineated that the Messiah is indeed an unique individual. But can we say that it is Jesus who is the Messiah? From the Surahs we quoted at the beginning of this talk, the Qur’an seems to think so. No other prophet is given the title of “al-Massih.”

In the Bible we find that Jesus accepted the claim of Messiah for himself. When talking to the Samaritan woman who spoke of the coming of the Messiah, he answers by saying, “I who speak to you am he” (John 4:26). On another occasion, when the Jews asked him pointedly whether he was the Messiah, he retorted “I told you, and you do not believe” (John 10:25). And then towards the end of his ministry, the high priest of Israel himself directly asked him, “Are you the Messiah…?” To which Jesus answered directly, “I am” (Mark 15:61-62).

So both the Qur’an and Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah, a claim which, not surprisingly, the Jews took offence to. And for good reason.

---

E: The two comings of the Messiah

The Jews understood the Messiah to be far greater than any other prophet who had come. For them, the Messiah was to be their long-awaited Ruler and Deliverer, God’s supremely Anointed One, whose origin was from of old and whose rule over the whole universe would last forever. They expected him to arrive from heaven.

At the time Jesus was born, the Jews were eagerly awaiting the coming of this Messiah. For centuries they had been ruled by foreign, gentile powers. The Persians, then the Greeks, and now the Romans had taken turns dominating the Jews, and they resented this succession of foreign rulers, and therefore, longed for their coming Messiah. They believed he would come as a conquering king, to establish the Jewish race as the greatest nation on earth with all other nations subject to them.

E1: The Messiah came as a Suffering Servant to save the world (first coming)

But they made mistakes in their assumptions. First of all, they assumed that he would come as a conquering king. This is the same mistake which the Muslims have made about the Messiah. Like the Jews they assumed that the Messiah will come in power. Yet, this is not how the Messiah initially came. Had the Jews read their scriptures more carefully they would have seen that the Messiah would come twice, the first time as a suffering servant, and the second time as an everlasting king to rule over God’s everlasting kingdom.

Secondly, the Jews assumed that it was they who were destined to be the rulers of God’s kingdom, dominating the rest of the world with the Messiah as a Jewish king. They failed to see that God was referring to a heavenly king who would become the Messiah by appearing in human form, and that his rule and authority would be a spiritual one over the true people of God.

Where the Jews were correct, however, was their perception that the Messiah would not be a mere prophet or messenger but that his origin would be in heaven, that his goings forth would be from many ages past, and that his throne and rule over the kingdom of God would be established as an everlasting dominion.

But what of this suffering servant? Why did the Jews forget this aspect of their Messiah? From the prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Daniel they should have realized that he would come in obscurity, and suffer, and only later, when he came back to rule over the established kingdom of God, would he take on the role they had ascribed for him.

The Jews confused the prophecies of the Messiah’s second coming, which all foretold of his eternal glory, with those of his first coming which spoke of him as a humble servant destined to suffer reproach and rejection by the masses who would not follow his path of righteousness and holiness.

In Psalm 22 we find the Messiah crying out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Throughout this chapter we hear the cries of a desperate man, reviled by those around him. Right from the outset we see the crucifixion and sufferings of Jesus being foretold in fine detail centuries beforehand.

In verses 14-15 he cries out that all his bones were out of joint and that his tongue was cleaving to his jaws, words which describe precisely the suffering one receives while being crucified. Yet the punishment by crucifixion was only invented some centuries later by the Phoenicians. It is remarkable to find in verse 16 the words, “…they have pierced my hands and my feet.” These are clear predictions of the Messiah, his hands and feet duly being pierced, many ages before this form of torture was even invented.

Yet even more curious is the riddle in verse 18 which reads, “…they divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” This riddle would have confused even those who first heard it. How would they have known that Jesus’s tunic had no seam? We know from John 19:23-34 that lots were cast to see who would get the entire tunic, rather then tear it along the seam and divide it equally as was usually done.

We therefore see that the suffering of the Messiah was predicted to be by crucifixion and that it’s attendant events were foretold in fine detail.

Psalm 69 also speaks specifically of the crucifixion of Jesus as the Messiah, mentioning the hatred and mocking of those around him (verses 4-9) as well as the vinegar which was given when he thirst (fulfilled in John 19:29).

In Isaiah 52 and 53 we find not only the prediction of this suffering, but the reason for the suffering. In these passages written 6 centuries before the life of Jesus, we find his crucifixion foreshadowed. We also find that this long-awaited Messiah would have the sins of the world placed on him in his hour of trial and that he would die that others might live.

Another riddle is included here to substantiate that this suffering servant could be no other than the Messiah, Jesus himself. In Isaiah 53:9 we read, “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death…” How could a man be buried with honour among the wealthy if his grave was prepared among the wicked? The body of any Jew who was put to death by crucifixion was thrown into a large pit reserved only for criminals. Yet, when Jesus died, according to Matthew 17:60, a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea came and took his body and buried it in his own tomb.

In verse 12 we read, “…he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.” As with Psalm 22 and 69, Jesus directly applied this prediction to himself the night before he was crucified, when he said to his disciples, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors;’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.” (Luke 22:37).

It is quite plain from these scriptures that the early prophets foretold that the Messiah would come to suffer and die for the sins of the world at his first coming. To substantiate their claims they provided specific detailed events surrounding that climatic hour, all of which were duly fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus. These great prophecies, made and recorded hundreds of years before his coming, are incontrovertible evidence that Jesus the Messiah came not simply as a prophet, but as God’s anointed Saviour to save the world from their sins.

E2: The Messiah came as the Eternal Lord of Glory (second coming)

There are other prophecies of the Messiah which do not speak of a suffering servant at all but of the eternal Lord of Glory. These prophecies are not referring to his first coming, but to his second coming. It has been estimated that there are up to 500 prophecies which relate to this second coming.

We don’t have time to even do a cursory study of half of them, so let me mention the three passages which we have already used, because though all three speak of the suffering servant, they follow with a real change of tone in the subsequent verses.

In Psalm 22, the first 21 verses speak of the need for comfort as the subject of the Psalm calls out in his anguish to God in heaven. Then from verses 22-24 the subject cries out in complete peace and in joyful triumph, pointing out that though he was suffering and dying just a few days earlier, he had now been raised to a complete newness of life. This passage seems to be a prediction of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, after having suffered enormous trials just a few days earlier. Hebrews 2:21 echoes this same exclamation of praise for the congregation of the righteous found in Psalm 22:22, and attributes it to Jesus himself.

In Psalm 69, the first 29 verses speak of the inward suffering of a man about to face death, yet from verse 30 the tone changes dramatically to that of praise and triumph as the subject praises God for his wonderful deliverance. This again is the foreshadowing of the resurrection which was yet to come to the Messiah, after he had first suffered.

In Isaiah 53:11 we find more prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah, mentioning that after his suffering “he will see the light of life and be satisfied.” Although he was “pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities” (vs.5) he will yet look in triumph on the immense benefits of his redeeming work, “he will see his offspring and prolong his days” (vs.10), and he will be given “a portion among the great” (vs.12). These are the fruits of his victory which he will receive in good time.

Other scriptures prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah. Therefore it is not surprising that Jesus himself spoke often of the fact that the prophets foretold not only the crucifixion of the Messiah but his resurrection as well. He mentions this specifically to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-26. Later in verses 46-47 delineates that because of this act repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem.

We know from the book of Acts that 40 days after the resurrection Jesus ascended to glory in heaven where he has lived till the present. This then is the final chapter behind the story of the Messiah.

Philippians 2 explains and summarizes the scenario best. There we read that He came the first time as a lowly man, “making himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross” (vss.7-8). Then from the depths of human despair he lifted to the heights of divine glory, and according to verses 9-11 he was, “exalted to the highest place, and given the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

---

F: Conclusion

The Messiah, therefore was no ordinary prophet of God. Both the Bible and the Qur’an give him a unique position among all the prophets. The Bible even claims Him as the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world.

Al-Masih is what the Qur’an calls him, “the anointed one,” yet since it gives no inclination as to the significance of that name, nor what it was he was anointed for, it robs him of his glory, maintaining that he was only a messenger, who would return as a servant. Even more damaging, the Qur’an claims that he was not even the greatest of messengers. That position was reserved for another, Muhammad. The title, al-Masih, therefore, loses it’s meaning in the Qur’an. It becomes a curiosity that begs an explanation.

It is rather amusing, yet sad, when we read in Surah 5:78 that the author of the Qur’an refers to this “Supremely Anointed One” as “the Messiah, son of Mary, [who] was no more than an apostle.”

One can only presume that Muhammad had no idea of the meaning of the title al-Masih, but had probably heard it freely applied to Jesus by Christians who were close to him. Not questioning it’s interpretation, he had readily adopted it without realizing that it completely undermined his belief that Jesus was only one of a long line of prophets.

Had he read the scriptures carefully, he would have seen the importance which they hold for the Messiah. He would have been familiar with the claims they made for him, not only that he was the Son of God, but that he had the unique mission of taking on the sins of the world as a suffering servant. Instead of looking for a conquering warrior, as is still done in Islam, Muhammad would have realized that the Messiah was indeed the lowly carpenter’s son from Galilee, who lived a mere 33 years, yet due to his 33 years of suffering changed the course of history for all of humanity.

Muhammad would also have known that this first coming, or mission of the Messiah, would have been followed with that of the 2nd, where the Messiah came in glory, immediately after having suffered on the cross, to instigate and propagate the eternal Kingdom of God.

And more importantly, Muhammad would have understood that the kingdom was not a physical place with frontiers and boundaries, but that it included everyone who believed in the redemptive work of the king.

Unfortunately Muhammad was not aware of these prophecies concerning the Messiah. It is no wonder then that he, like the Jews who have not read their scriptures properly, believed and hoped that the Kingdom of God was yet to come, and that when it came, it would do so by conquering and domination.

That is the reason Muslims still hope and long for a Khilafah, and a Caliph. That is the reason the Hisb-ul-Tahrir party is growing and engaging the youth of Islam today. Had they understood the Messiah correctly, they would have understood the kingdom He came to build. And they would then have understood that the kingdom already exists in every nation on earth, amongst people they go to school with, among people they work with, and among people they live right next door to.

Muslims need to be introduced to the Messiah as he really is. They need to refer to the scriptures (the Bible), as they have been admonished to do in Surahs 10:94 and 21:7. And finally, they need us, as the “people of the Book” to share with them the true meaning of the Messiah; not one who is merely a prophet, but one who was uniquely anointed by God, to come first of all as a suffering servant in order to take upon Himself the sins of the world, and then secondly, to initiate the true Kingdom of God, which is here and now, even amongst those of us sitting in this room. They too need to belong to that kingdom, a kingdom which will continue eternally for everyone who believes in Jesus Christ, not only crucified, but resurrected in glory.

Who Founded Christianity – Jesus or St. Paul?

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

---

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Maccoby: Jesus was a Pharisee, Paul was a Sadducee

3. Response to Maccoby

4. Jesus v. Paul

   1. Paul was not the first

   2. Seeming Contradictions Between Jesus and Paul

      1. God’s Word

      2. Two Covenants

      3. Atonement? The Prodigal Son

      4. Inclusive v. Exclusive Gospel

   1. Why didn’t Jesus call himself a Christian?

   2. Later changes made by Paul

5.  Conclusion

---

A: Introduction

An ongoing problem for Christians who argue or discuss with Muslims at Speaker’s Corner is that of the authority for our beliefs. Many of the best references to support the theology which we hold to and support in our conversations are gleaned from the epistles of Paul. Yet we continually find our arguments rejected outright by Muslims because they consider Paul’s letters to be untrustworthy and therefore non-authoritative.

Christianity, they go on to say, was founded by Paul and not by Jesus. Much of what we believe, they continue, was added to later on by Paul and his followers, in direct contradiction to Jesus’s teachings.

Most of their criticisms on this point, interestingly, do not come from research they have undertaken, but is borrowed from recent polemical writers within the Jewish community, particularly the writings of Dr. Hyam Maccoby, who teaches here in London.

---

B: Maccoby: Jesus was a Pharisee, Paul was a Sadducee

According to Hyam Maccoby, Paul was not a Pharisee, nor even a Jew, but a gentile proselyte to Judaism. Maccoby’s source for his material is the discredited Christian writer Epiphanius, an Ebionite who wrote 3 centuries after the fact. Paul, according to Maccoby, failed in becoming a Pharisee, and so allied himself to the Sadducees and the High Priest, two groups who enjoyed their privileged status under Roman occupation, and so were in conflict with the Pharisees, who wished to be rid of the Roman oppressors.

Maccoby believes that it was due to a near nervous breakdown that Paul split from this group and formed a new religion, taking ideas such as baptism, the eucharist, christology, the Holy Spirit, and eschatology and melded them with Jewish sacred history, Gnosticism, and the pagan mystery religions.

Jesus, on the other hand, according to Maccoby, taught beliefs which are quite common to Jewish Pharisaical teaching. He was a figure within Judaism and so would not have accepted his own divinity. This, Maccoby says, is clear from the first three Synoptic gospels, but not John, which was written much later, after the evolution of this theology by the early Christians led by Paul.

Maccoby continues by asserting that Jesus never regarded himself as a sacrifice for humanity, a belief which Maccoby contends arose after his death, as it was not part of Jewish theology.

Yet, Maccoby does admit that creating a divine character for Jesus has Jewish roots. Elijah and Enoch were both taken up to heaven, which transcended other human experiences. This well- known Biblical event, he feels, could be the stepping stone to the belief of the divinity of a person who then takes on the divine qualities of God.

There is no root in Judaism, however, for the sacrifice of the divine figure. Jews never worshipped the allegorical concept of God’s divine wisdom as found in the book of Proverbs. And nowhere, Maccoby maintains, did Jesus ever make a claim of deity, calling himself instead the Messiah, a title which he maintains was political and which was quite common in those days. In fact, Maccoby believes that much of Jesus’s teachings were also political in nature, and it was for this reason that he was finally put to death. Those passages which do point to Jesus’ spiritual nature were added later, he says, by Paul and his disciples.

Along those same lines, Maccoby states that Jesus did not wish to abrogate Judaism, but was only in conflict with certain Jewish figures, which is normal within Jewish circles. He neither abrogated the Torah nor reformed it, but interpreted it, and in ways not unlike the Pharisees. For instance, curing sick people on the sabbath is not forbidden by the Mishnah nor the Talmud, which are both Pharisaic writings.

Maccoby believes that the ideas attributed to Jesus would have appalled him, had he known about them, therefore they could only have been attributed to him after his death. The gospels were written 40 years and later after the death of Jesus, thus Maccoby contends that there was plenty of time for these theological ideas to evolve within the Christian community.

---

C: Response to Maccoby

In response to the above claims by Hyam Maccoby, we need not go into great detail except to point out from the outset that much of Maccoby’s material is derived from the Ebionite tradition, a tradition which was first of all proposed three hundred years later than the subject in question, and secondly, a tradition which acknowledged its hostility to Paul and his beliefs even at that time. It is inexcusable to rely on material for supposedly truthful information about a person or movement which is not only distant from the source, but also the avowed enemy of that person or movement. Would we go to Serbian generals to ascertain the facts of the Bosnia conflict today? This is what Maccoby has done in his work.

To divorce Jesus from the personal claims which he makes in the gospels puts into question his whole ministry and the amazing impact which he had on those who followed him. It also makes the book of Acts look totally worthless, as the church which evolved from the ministry of Jesus was completely dependant on the person and claims of Jesus as saviour.

Concerning the contention that Paul changed the gospels later on, it is unthinkable that an invention of Paul, who was not one of the Twelve and whose apostolic credentials were so often questioned, could succeed in becoming a part of the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. “It staggers belief that he could have successfully foisted his innovation… on the church at large” (Hunter).

To say that it was Paul who created the view of Jesus as deity is to reject the christology of the Jerusalem church and the evidence of Jesus’s deity found in the book of Acts. Of key importance is Peter’s statement that Jesus has been raised to God’s right hand, from which he has poured forth the Holy Spirit, and has been made both kyrios and christos (Acts 2:33-36). Numerous titles of deity were attributed to him, such as: Messiah (Acts 3:20f), Servant of God (Acts 3:13,26; 4:27), the promised Prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15; 5:31), the Holy and Righteous One, and the “stone” of prophecy (taken from Psalm 118:22), rejected, but now made the head of the corner (Acts 4:11). These all predate the more developed delineation of Jesus as deity expounded by Paul.

Muslims who use Maccoby’s material to substantiate their claim that Paul is not authoritative would do well to first understand the agenda behind Maccoby’s criticism. As a Jew Maccoby concludes that “If Paul was the creator of the Christian myth, he was also the creator of the anti-Semitism which has been inseparable from that myth.” It is for this reason that he tries to distant Paul from a Jewish background, and thereby instil upon him the guilt for all anti-Semitic undertakings which have been evidenced in the history of the church.

Paul was never anti-Semitic, but he was anti-Judaism (having theological disagreement with Judaism). Rather then creating a heresy out of Judaism, as Maccoby suggests, it is quite evident that Paul would never have regarded himself as having ceased to be a Jew or as having left Judaism for a new religion. He believed that his new faith was the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs and he accordingly would have thought of himself as believing in what properly understood was the culmination of Judaism.

This, however, is an argument for Jews to contend with, and not Muslims. They would do better to compare the material found in the Gospels with the writings of Paul, rather then race around trying to borrow polemical data from an arena which has little to concern them, and which they really don’t understand. So it is to that area which we will now go.

---

D: Jesus v. Paul

Muslims believe that the Gospels are diametrically opposed to the material found in the letters of Paul. To support their assertions they point to many supposed “contradictions” between that which Jesus taught and what Paul wrote, maintaining that these prove the message of Jesus, a true Jewish Pharisee, was not the same as that of Paul’s.

These are indeed claims which are difficult to take seriously, yet, they demand an answer, nonetheless. For without the authority and authorship of Jesus, Christianity simply would fall apart. If one could show that Jesus brought a different message then Paul, then indeed there would be room for concern.

Upon closer scrutiny of the scriptures, however, we find that Jesus and Paul are not at all in contradiction with one another, and that most of what Paul claims has already been stated before by Jesus and the other disciples, though in a different way. Indeed, what is clear is that Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but its greatest expounder.

D1: Paul was not the first

So where did he get his teaching from? Paul answers that question clearly in Galatians 1:11-12, where he states, “the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 he speaks of receiving from the Lord that which he passes on to them, the Gospel (see also 1 Corinthians 11:23). He carefully points out that these are not things which he invented.

Did Paul begin Christianity in a void? If so, his beliefs couldn’t have been there beforehand. Yet, in the book of Acts, Peter, one of Jesus’s closest disciples for three years, addresses the gospel, speaking and witnessing the fact of Jesus, his death and resurrection in Acts 2. He continues this witness in Acts 3 and 4, long before Paul even comes onto the scene.

In fact, Paul doesn’t enter into the picture until Acts 7, where he witnesses the stoning of Stephen, and then becomes the persecutor of those who were establishing the church. He admits to putting many saints in prison, and casting the vote for their death (Acts 26:9-11); and even tried to destroy the church (Galatians 1).

How can someone become the persecutor of a religion which he is the founder of? If he founded a religion, it couldn’t have been there beforehand.

D2: Seeming Contradictions Between Jesus and Paul

D2i: God’s Word (Logos)

What about Paul’s teachings? Is it contradictory to that of Jesus? Muslims think so. Take the case of God’s word. Muslims try to show that Paul preached a religion based on faith in Jesus Christ, whereas Jesus contradicted this by preaching a religion based on following the law of Moses. “The word made flesh and dwelt among us,” the idea of Jesus being divine, being God’s word himself, and becoming flesh, according to Muslims, could not have come from Jesus, but was invented by Paul. Proof of this, they say, is found in John 12 where Jesus was told what to speak by God, so it could not have been God’s word.

But it was John, a disciple of Jesus for three years, who heard everything that Jesus said and did, who derived this concept of Logos. The idea is not even mentioned in any of Paul’s writings! How could he have invented it?

D2ii: Two Covenants

Let’s take another accusation levelled against Paul. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets”. Later, Paul says that Jesus had come to abolish the Law and Prophets (Colossians 2:14). Muslims say Paul is contradicting Jesus here. But is he?

According to the Christian scriptures there were two covenants: a) the law of Moses (made up of legal or moral laws as well as ceremonial or ritual laws), and b) the new covenant, which came through Jesus Christ. What Paul is referring to when he says the old law is abolished, are the ceremonial and ritualistic laws which were for the Jews alone (Colossians 2:13- 15). No Syrian or Arab or any other gentile was commanded to keep these laws. Only the Jews were, as it made them distinct from all other people, as the chosen of God. What was abolished were the ceremonial laws which excluded the gentiles from being the people of God. The moral law still holds. Yet, one can be forgiven, if they repent.

Paul and Jesus are not contradicting one another. Jesus was establishing the Moral law in Matthew 5:17. One needs to continue reading from verse 21 and following to see that He then goes on to delineate what those moral laws are.

D2iii: Atonement? The Prodigal Son

The real issue here is whether salvation is attained by keeping the law or by the justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone. As an example, Muslims erroneously point to Jesus’s teaching on the Prodigal Son, who was forgiven because of his repentance. They correctly maintain that there is no teaching of atonement here.

Paul, however, says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by a gift. This view of the atonement, they feel, contradicts the teaching of Jesus. But does it?

Consider: all believers are children, and God is their father. No other religion in the world depicts God as father. Islam has 99 names for God, but the name of Father is not one of them. In Islam, believers can only come to God as servants (“att”), which parallels Old Testament teaching.

It is Jesus who introduces God as our father. If God is our father, someone has to be a child. This is the thrust of the Prodigal Son story. The son was not a servant but the man’s son. He had status. The reason why the father accepted him was not out of kindness, but because the man was his father. In Galatians 4:4-6, God sent his son, born under the law so that we might receive the full rights of sons. Since we are sons, we can now call him Abba, Father.

Where, if not in the story of the Prodigal son, did the belief of the atonement originate? Consider the story of the last supper found in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22, all independent of Paul (Mark’s source was Peter). Jesus said the bread was his body, and the wine his blood. How much more plain can you get? That is atonement. Forgiveness comes, thus, through the shedding of his blood. Yet, all Jesus was doing was to confirm something which was there from the beginning, from the story of Cain and Abel, where one sacrifice was accepted and the other rejected. Cain’s sacrifice was from his own work, that which he had grown, but Abel offered the blood of the lamb as the hope of his salvation.

“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” This principle is found right through the Old Testament. No Jew ever believed that he could attain the forgiveness of sin just by asking for it (see Exodus and Leviticus to see the many sacrifices ordered by God for this very purpose).

Thus, Jesus was now saying that forgiveness could only come through his own blood. Matthew 20:28, John 6:51; and John 10:11 all reveal Jesus speaking of the need for a blood sacrifice, specifically, his blood sacrificed.

This is a point completely lost to Muslims, even though they continue the tradition of sacrificing a goat during the time of Id, though the meaning has been changed to that of remembrance for what Abraham had done earlier. It always puzzles me why Muslims never question the significance for Abraham’s sacrifice. Is it no wonder then why they find the idea of atonement so objectionable.

In Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul speaks of salvation by faith, but follows it up with the need to do good works. There is no denial here of good works.

Jesus also speaks of salvation by faith in John 3:14-15. Salvation, thus, comes through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we can receive the spirit of Christ, which then leads us to do good works. Most people want to separate the two ideas, and make them sound contradictory. Yet Paul and Jesus taught both.

D2iv: Inclusive v. Exclusive Gospel

There are other areas of contention between Jesus and Paul which the Muslims like to point to. Jesus, they maintain, says that the gospel must only go to the Jews, while Paul says that the gospel must go to all people. Yet, the last thing Jesus said before he left the earth was, “to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The issue here comes back to the old and new covenant again. Under the old covenant only the Jews were considered. That old covenant came to an end the night Jesus broke the bread and offered the wine.

Ironically, it was Peter and not Paul who took the gospel to the gentiles first, to Cornelius, before Paul (Acts 10).

D3: Why didn’t Jesus call Himself a Christian?

Muslims ask that if Jesus was the founder of Christianity, then where does he refer to himself as a Christian? The point is entirely missed here. Jesus is the Lord of the Christians, not a Christian himself. He is the Christ, acknowledged in Islam as “al-Massihu Issa” (Christ of the Messiah, Issa). The word Christian was not even around during the time of Jesus. In fact the early Christians didn’t use this term. They called themselves the Followers of the “Way.” It was the followers of Jesus who were called Christians for the first time at Antioch, in Acts.

D4: Later changes made by Paul

One of the finest proofs that Jesus founded Christianity comes from these similarities found between the Gospels and Paul’s writings which we have just referred to. Christianity basically has two trends or sources from which it derives:

1. the first are the writings of the disciples, and

2. the second is Paul’s writings.

The disciples are independent of Paul’s writings. They use different expressions, yet they all teach the same ideas about Christ. Where, then, did the disciples get their ideas? They couldn’t have borrowed it from Paul, as they preceded him. Obviously it came from Jesus himself.

Could, as Muslims claim, Paul have misled all of Jesus’s disciples later on? Could he have taken their writings and changed them, so that they coincided with his own? Outside the fact that we have no evidence for earlier writings which may have differed from what is in our possession today, it is incredulous to believe that Paul would want or even dare to conspire against all the other disciples, and change that which they had given their lives to uphold.

Furthermore, John outlived Paul, and Peter lived another 30 years after Jesus. They were there during all of Paul’s teaching. If Paul were the founder of Christianity, how did he influence all of Jesus’s disciples, without either Peter or John or the other disciples who had been with Jesus knowing about it, or objecting to it?

In Galatians 2, we read that the disciples were suspicious of Paul because he had persecuted them. But when they heard his gospel, they told him to go and preach the same gospel to the gentiles. Why would they welcome him as one of them if he was preaching something contrary to what they were preaching?

---

E: Conclusion

One can always ask, “Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul”, or who founded Islam, “Muhammad or Umar”, or who founded Judaism, “Moses or Joshua”, or who founded Buddhism, “Buddha or Siddharta?” Yet, why is it always Christianity which is labelled with this question?

It seems so grossly unlikely that a religion which is focused so uniquely on Jesus, could or should be founded by someone else. All adherents would contend that their religion was founded by God. Perhaps it would be more correct to assert that it was Moses who introduced Judaism, and Muhammad who introduced Islam, Confucius who introduced Confucianism, and Jesus who introduced Christianity.

What so many Muslims miss is the sheer depth of theology in Paul’s writings, much of which couldn’t have been made up or simply borrowed. For instance, the scriptures speak of the unity of God. Thus, we are monotheists, and we have a complex view of God’s monotheism. We believe that God is a triune God; the very word tri-une implies unity. Perhaps Muslims find the doctrine hard to understand; so do most Christians. One would not expect God’s essence to be easily explained. But nonetheless it is true, as we see it written all over the pages of scripture.

We need to consider, however, that if Paul was the founder of Christianity, then certainly he should have diverted from this doctrine. Yet, he doesn’t, but continues to say the same thing. “A mediator” he writes in Galatians 3:20 “does not represent just one, but God is one.” We find this also in Romans 3, and every Christian believes it.

Indeed, Jesus is the founder of Christianity. If the objectionable material (the personal claims of Jesus) are rejected, the teaching of Jesus that remains in the Gospels, not to mention his deeds, become exceedingly difficult to account for and nearly impossible to understand. All that Jesus founded, Paul and Peter and the others merely expounded. Jesus and Paul both taught about: the atonement, the trinity, the church, salvation by faith, the forgiveness of sins through the shedding of his blood, that Jesus was the bread of life which we had to depend on for salvation, and that Jesus was the good shepherd who laid down his life for us.

Jesus, the founder, laid down his life that you might live. Paul, the expounder, laid down his life that you might hear. Are we willing to lay down our lives that others can hear and live as well?

Jesus in the Qur’an

Introduction

The Qur’an treats Jesus as a very important figure. It gives him a greater number of honourable titles than any other figure in the past. It calls him a ‘sign’, a ‘mercy’, a ‘witness’, an ‘example’ one who is upright, one who is eminent, and ‘one brought nigh unto God’ . It gives him the titles Messiah, Son of Mary, Messenger, Prophet, Servant, Word of God, and a Spirit from God 1. He is the only prophet to have been born of a virgin and he did the greatest miracles of all the prophets. Jesus is also referred to in ninety verses scattered in 15 surahs in the Qur’an. Yet for all of this respect, the Qur’an denies Christ his identity as the Saviour and Lord of mankind. The Qur’an presents a very well defined idea of prophethood and then applies this role of prophet to Jesus and most of the other major Old Testament figures. It is the idea of prophethood it applies mostly to Muhammad, and this idea is then read back to all major prophetic figures in the past.

Prophethood in the Qur’an

Prophets in the Qur’an fall into two divisions, Prophet (Nabi) and Messenger or Apostle (Rasul). A Prophet is anyone directly inspired by God. A Messenger is one to whom God has entrusted a special mission. Messengers are usually also prophets and often come with books of revelation. The basic message preached by Messengers and Prophets is the same: warning people to repent of sin (especially idolatry) and fulfill their duty to God. This message fits with the Islamic doctrine of salvation that all one must do is repent of sin, believe in God, and do the right good works to be saved. The prophet/messenger is there to warn them of the consequences if they lapse in fulfilling their duty to God. If they do repent the prophet/messenger promises blessings from God. It is a simple role and the Qur’an asserts in Surah 10:48 that every nation has received a prophet at one time or another. Muslims believe that all of the Old Testament prophets had this same ministry as prophets. Totally absent from the Qur’an’s view of prophethood is any reference to Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah to come, any reference to calling the Israelites back to their covenant with God centered on the sacrificial system of the Temple, and any expansion in revelation concerning God’s plans for mankind or any other covenants like the Davidic covenant or the New covenant. The Islamic idea of prophethood is strictly linear without development calling people back to the same basic religion.

Certain prophet/messengers received books from God. The idea here is that they all received their books the same way as Muhammad is supposed to have received the Qur’an–by dictation from a heavenly original. According to the Qur’an, Moses received a book called the Taurat, David a book called the Zabur, and Jesus a book called the Injil or Gospel. Muslims are taught that they must believe in all of these prophets and their books. The Qur’an, however, is taught to be the only one that is uncorrupted and trustworthy, as well as being sent to correct the corruptions in the prior books and retain whatever sound teaching was in them. The net effect is that the Muslim, while saying he believes in all of the books actually only trusts the Qur’an.

‘Isa

Jesus’ name in the Qur’an is ‘Isa. It is unresolved how he came to be referred to by this name and many theories have been put forward, three of the more important being it is either a corruption of the Syriac “Yeshu”, a corruption of “Esau” which was a derogatory name the Jews used for Jesus, or it was used to make a rhyme with Moses (Musa) in certain verses of the Qur’an. For our purposes, it is enough to say that your Muslim friend will automatically know who you are talking about when you use the name Jesus Christ. He will expect it from you since you are a Christian and it will not be offensive to him.

An interesting thing in the Qur’an is that Jesus is recorded many times speaking on his own behalf defining his own identity and his ministry. A survey of these instances will give us the best view of the Qur’anic Jesus.

Jesus’ cradle speech

The first instance of Jesus speaking for himself in the Qur’an is when he was a baby. In Surah 19, after his miraculous conception and birth, Mary comes to present the baby Jesus to her relatives. They accuse her of immorality and in her defense Jesus speaks up from the cradle and says:

He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, and hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and He hath enjoined upon me prayer and alms-giving so long as I remain alive, and (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! Surah 19:30-33, Pickthall’s translation

There are many key words and thoughts here. First, Jesus identifies himself as the slave of Allah. The technical word here is ‘abd, which means he is just a human in the ordinary human relationship with God. The use of this word is a direct denial of deity in Jesus’ nature. Second, note the statement of being given a scripture and being appointed a prophet. This is according to the Qur’anic idea of scripture and prophethood mentioned earlier. Jesus is saying here he was to receive a scripture like Moses, David, and Muhammad. The references to prayer and almsgiving are taken by Muslims to refer to two of the five main duties of Islam, ritual prayer and almsgiving. Jesus was called to be a good Muslim, in other words. The last statement, referring to his death and resurrection is taken by Muslims to not occur in that order but rather reversing the order, him being taken to heaven first and then coming again to finish out his normal lifespan. Though this is not the order the Qur’an uses it is what Muslims believe.

Jesus’ miracles

Surah 5:110 gives a convenient list of the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Qur’an:

O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead, by My permission;… Surah 5:110, Pickthall’s translation

Note the constant refrain, “by My permission”. Muslims assert from this that Jesus’ miracles were all done by God’s power and that in himself he had no power to do them; that in himself he was just a man. Two miracles are omitted from this list but found in other places in the Qur’an: causing a table spread with food to be miraculously lowered from heaven for his disciples (5:112-115), and being able to tell people what they had hidden in their houses (3:49).

His speech from the cradle and making the bird from clay are stories that are both found in apocryphal Christian books written prior to the time of Muhammad. They are two of many Qur’an stories that demonstrate borrowing from other religions.

The Trinity

There are many places in the Qur’an where any kind of a trinitarian idea of God’s nature is rejected. The main conception of the Trinity in the Qur’an seems to be one of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son. Most Muslims you will meet realize that Christians today do not mean this when they talk about the Holy Trinity. But they will be quick to assert that any notion of three-ness is wrong and use the Qur’an to defend their idea. Jesus in the Qur’an speaks very forcefully against the Trinity:

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. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. I spake unto them only that which Thou commandest me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord….Surah 5:116,117, Pickthall’s translation

The Qur’an reinforces Jesus’ words with statements like the following:

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. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son… Surah 4:171, Pickthall’s translation

The Qur’an never seriously interacts with the biblical and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity describes what God has revealed about His unity. It does not multiply gods as the Qur’an states.

Jesus predicting Muhammad

One verse in the Qur’an has turned Muslims loose looking in the Bible for any possible prediction of Muhammad.

And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One (Ahmed)…. Surah 61:6, Pickthall’s translation

Most will go to the passages in John 14-16 concerning the Paraclete to try to prove that this really refers to Muhammad, not the Holy Spirit. The important thing for us to note is that Muslims believe that a major part of Jesus’ ministry was to predict the coming of Muhammed.

The Crucifixion

The Jesus of the Qur’an did not die on the cross. Surah 4:157,158 says,

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus Son of Mary, Allah’s messenger–They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself….

The normal explanation is that God put someone else on the cross and took Jesus to heaven. Judas is probably the most suggested person for who died in Jesus’ place. No historical evidence is given. It is believed because the Qur’an states it as the truth.

Jesus’ return to the earth

The Qur’an does not explicitly state that Jesus will return again to the earth. It is a doctrine that is developed in the traditions of Islam (the Hadith). Here are the two Qur’an verses used to support the doctrine of his return:

There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them — Surah 4:159, Pickthall’s translation

And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but Follow ye Me: this is the straight way. Surah 43:61, Yusuf Ali’s translation

From these verses and with other traditions the Islamic version of the return of Jesus will look like this. After being taken to heaven to escape crucifixion, Jesus will appear at the end of time as a sign that it is the Last hour. He will descend by resting his hands on the wings of two angels. He will descend onto a white minaret set in the eastern part of Damascus. He will invite the whole world to become Muslim including Christians and Jews, He will kill the anti-Christ, He will break the cross, kill all the swine, end all wars, and will become a judge. He will marry, have children, perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, die after 40 years and be buried beside Muhammad in Medina. His time on the earth will mark a period of abundance on the earth and all religions will end except Islam.

How Muslims feel about Jesus

From the above description you can sense how Muslims do have a great degree of admiration and devotion to Jesus. Some even seek him for intercession because he is such a powerful figure in Islam. Unfortunately, the Qur’an directs their respect away from regarding Him as being the only Saviour from sin and the Lord of Lords. It even has Him denying His identity as God come in human flesh, and denying that His ministry was the climax of God’s program on the earth.

As with the Qur’an, Muslims do not tend to recognise the importance of the actual historical evidence that exists concerning Jesus. They take the Qur’an’s word for His identity and ministry without examining the basis for their belief.

Also, as Muslims are passionate about the Qur’an being a superior revelation to the Bible, so with Jesus, they believe that we Christians are committing blasphemy in what we assert about Jesus. They think it is Christians who have made Jesus out to be God. The zeal and passion Muslims show in arguing these things comes from sincere belief that we are wrong and committing blasphemies. They do not realise their error and misunderstandings. They do not realise that we are taking Jesus at His word and also taking the word of Jesus’ disciples as found in the New Testament.

Recommended Books

Geisler, Norman and Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam. Baker Books, 1993.

Masood, Stephen. Jesus and the Indian Messiah. Oldham: Word of Life, 1994.

Why Follow Jesus?. OM Publishing, 1997.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Oxford University Press, 1977.

Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. MacMillan Publishers, 1991.

1. Parrinder 1977 p. 16

But Wasn’t Jesus a Muslim?

Peter Saunders

---

This is the transcript of a talk given by Peter Saunders, Student Secretary of the UK Christian Medical Fellowship, at Manchester University on Tuesday 24th February 1998.

I didn’t choose the title of this talk and you may think it strange even to ask the question ‘wasn’t Jesus a Muslim?’ After all, Jesus Christ is the central figure in Christianity and the name Christian was first used to describe his followers (Acts 11:26).

But Jesus is a very important figure in Islam too. He’s regarded as one of the greatest prophets, the forerunner of Muhammad and the one to whom God revealed the ‘Injil’ or Gospel.

In the broadest sense of the word Jesus was a Muslim because the word Muslim simply means ‘one who submits to God’. Jesus certainly submitted to God and perhaps uniquely could ask ‘who accuses me of sin?’ and silence all his critics. In fact the world Islam simply means ‘submission’.

But we’re asking a far deeper question. We’re asking whether or not Jesus embraced the same faith as Muhammad. Would he, for instance, have recognised Muhammad as ‘the seal of the prophets’? Would he have believed that the Qur’an was the word of God? Would he have prayed towards Mecca, fasted at Ramadan, recited the Creed or indeed denied his own divinity?

If by saying ‘wasn’t Jesus a Muslim?’ we’re asking these far deeper questions then Muslims and Christians find themselves strongly at odds in their answers.

Both Christianity and Islam have been tremendously influential. About one quarter of the world’s population at least nominally, would regard themselves as Christians. A fifth would call themselves Muslims. Yet for most of the last thirteen centuries the two religions have developed in parallel in separate parts of the world. Islam has mainly been centred in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, India and South East Asia (especially Indonesia and Malaysia). By contrast Christianity has been confined largely to Europe, North and South America, Africa and the former Soviet Union. And yet both have been, and still are, growing rapidly.

Now, perhaps for the first time in world history, Christians and Muslims can meet and talk in a way that they’ve never been able to before. This is especially possible in schools, university forums like this, and on the internet where Muslim Christian dialogue is taking place on an unprecedented scale.

In many ways Muslims and Christians find themselves as co-belligerents in a common battle against the modern world. The West is now not Christian but rather post-modernist. It’s characterised by an obsession with media technology (consumerism and entertainment), a radical relativism which asserts that we can all have our own private truth, an ego-centrism (which looks after number one) and a religious pluralism which asserts all religions are the same. This way of thinking has led to escapism and cynicism in society generally.

By contrast both Christianity and Islam find themselves running against this ideology. They share a concern for community, service and absolute truth: involvement rather than escapism, hope as opposed to cynicism. While postmodern society holds that man is simply a clever monkey, the product of matter, chance and time in a Godless universe, Muslims and Christians are together in asserting that man was made to enjoy a relationship with God.

Similarities between Islam and Christianity

Before exploring the differences between Islam and Christianity its useful to map out our common ground. There are seven common strands that are clearly evident.

First, that Islam and Christianity share a common ethical code, one which underlies respect for marriage, a belief in the sanctity of life, and a respect for property. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament are very similar to Islamic ethics and as Christian doctors we find ourselves agreeing with Muslims on many ethical issues. For example members of the Christian Medical Fellowship work together with members of the Islamic Medical Association within HOPE (Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia).

Second, Christianity and Islam share a common geography and history. The two religions date back to the Middle East and in particular come together in the person of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

Third, we share a belief in one God. This may seem a surprise to Muslim listeners, but both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible assert God’s oneness. ‘The Lord is one’ says Deuteronomy 6:4. ‘There is One God…’ says 1 Timothy 2:5.

Fourth, we share a belief in prophets – men throughout history chosen as God’s mouthpiece who spoke God’s Word. Many of these prophets are shared in both religious traditions. For example: Moses who brought us the Torah (Taurat), David who brought us the Psalms (Zabur), and of course Jesus who preached the Gospel (Injil). There are several other biblical prophets who are also mentioned in the Qur’an.

Fifth, we share a belief in angels: heavenly beings who are used as God’s messengers throughout history. Gabriel in particular plays a prominent place in both religions. Muslims believe that Muhammad was visited by Gabriel and of course Christians believe that Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus Christ.

Sixth, we share a belief in Scriptural authority. We accept that God’s revelations throughout history have been recorded in books, and while we may disagree about the degree of divine inspiration of the various books in our religious traditions, we nonetheless both share a profound respect of the authority of ‘Scripture’.

Seventh and finally, we share a belief in the day of judgment. Both, Christians and Muslims, hold that on this day God will divide everyone who has lived on our planet into two groups; one group consigned to heaven and the other group consigned to hell. While we differ on the criteria by which that judgment will be made, we nevertheless concur on the fact that there are only two possible destinations for human beings after death.

Similarities between Muslim and Christian views of Christ

So, there are many similarities between the two religions, in fact even when we come to the person of Jesus Christ there are some common strands. There is very little in the Qur’an about Jesus. When we consider that the Qur’an is about the same length as the New Testament but only mentions Jesus in a few of its 114 chapters (whereas by contrast the whole of the New Testament of the Bible is about Christ) we can see that there is little balance in the quantity of material. However, what little there is in the Qur’an affirms a lot of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels.

This is particularly evident in three areas.

First with regard to his birth. The Qur’an deals with this in Sura 19:16-23, 29-33 and in Sura 3:42-47, 59. These verses affirm that an angel visits Mary (cf Luke 1:26,27), and indicates that God has chosen her and singled her out (cf Luke 1:28). She is said to be blessed among women (cf Luke 1:31-33) and great things are spoken of the son she will bare (cf Luke 1:31-33). The Qur’an in Sura 3:59 likens Jesus to Adam, (as does the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 5:22, 45-49 and Romans 5). Most importantly the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the fact of the virgin birth (Sura 19:20). Interestingly Jesus is the only one of the prophets mentioned in the Qur’an who is said to have had a virgin birth. When we consider that Jesus was male, and that he therefore had a Y chromosome, we see that the only explanation for its origin (since it could not have come from Mary herself) was that God must have created it afresh. This is probably what the Bible means when it affirms ‘a body you have prepared for me’ in the book of Hebrews. Certainly there is no suggestion in the Bible or in the Qur’an that God had intercourse with Mary or implication that even the X chromosome came from her. This creation of a body for Jesus was a unique act (although Jesus himself, we believe, was existing before time began).

Second, there are similarities in the Qur’an and the Bible with regard to the life of Christ. Like the New Testament, the Qur’an affirms that Jesus performed miracles: in particular that he restored sight to the blind, healed lepers and raised people from the dead (Sura 3:49, 5:11). The Qur’an also affirms that Jesus brought ‘the message of the Gospel’ and that he committed no sin (Sura 3:46).

Third, there are similarities between the titles given to Christ in the Qur’an and those in the Bible. The Qur’an calls Jesus ‘the statement of truth’ (Sura 17:24), a similar claim to Jesus calling himself ‘the Way the Truth and the Life’ in John 14:6. Similarly, the Qur’an calls Jesus the Word (Sura 10:19 cf John 1:1), the Apostle (Sura 19:31 cf Hebrews 3:1) and the servant or slave of God (Sura 4:172 and 19:31 cf Isaiah chapters 42, 49, 50 and 53). The servant of God was one of Jesus’ favourite terms for himself and he clearly taught that he was the person talked about in the prophet Isaiah’s ‘Servant Songs’ written many centuries before. Most remarkably, the Qur’an refers eleven times (for example Sura 3:45, 4:71, 5:19, 9:30) to Christ as the Messiah. This is particularly interesting because Messiah (or Christ in Greek) is the title repeatedly applied to Jesus throughout the Bible. In fact, much of the Old Testament is devoted to explaining the characteristics and qualities that the coming Messiah will have.

So we see that there are similarities between the person of Jesus as painted in the Qur’an and the Bible. But there are huge differences too.

Differences between Muslim and Christian Views of Jesus

Some stories we find in the Qur’an about Jesus are not in the Bible at all.

For example the Qur’an tells us that a palm tree provides anguish for Mary after Jesus’ birth (Sura 19:22-26). We are told that Jesus created pigeons from clay and then threw them into the air whereupon they turned into real birds and flew away (Sura 3:49 and 5:11). The baby Jesus is alleged to have talked from the crib (19:29-33) and perhaps most surprising of all we are told that God, Mary and Jesus together constitute the Christian trinity (Sura 5:116).

These ideas to Christians sound quite bizarre, but now with the benefit of archaeology we have some idea as to what their sources may have been. At the time of Muhammad the New Testament had not yet been translated into Arabic and so he didn’t have access to the New Testament manuscripts when recording the Qur’an. However, we know that he was in contact with a number of groups who, although calling themselves Christian, had quite bizarre beliefs. Some people suggest that Muhammad may have been influenced by this and simply incorporated ‘heresy’ into the text of the Qur’an and there is, in fact, very good support for this view. The story of the palm tree is found in an apocryphal document called ‘The Lost Books of the Bible’. Similarly the story of the pigeons comes from ‘Thomas’ Gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ’. The story of baby Jesus talking is remarkably similar to that found in an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named ‘The First Gospel in the Infancy of Jesus Christ’ and the false belief about God, Mary and Jesus making up the trinity was also peddled by a heretical sect called the Choloridians which had been banished to Arabia at the time.

So there are similarities but also differences.

If we want to know more details about the life of Christ, then we need to look at sources other than the Qur’an. The Qur’an was not written down until at least 600 years after the death of Jesus but the New Testament was recorded by eye-witnesses within a few years of his death. Not surprisingly we can also learn a reasonable amount about Jesus from late first and early second century documents written by non-Christian Jewish and Roman historians. Let us look at some of these latter documents first because they predate the Qur’an by at least 400 years.

Early non Christian sources about Christ

First there is Tacitus. Tacitus is of particular interest to us in England because he was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, who was once the Roman Governor of Britain. In approximately 110 AD Tacitus, one of Rome’s most famous historians, recorded this about Christ:

‘Therefore to dispel rumour, Nero substituted his culprits and treated with the most extreme punishments some people, popularly known as Christians whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name Christus had been executed when Tiberias was Emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birth place of this evil, but even throughout Rome where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.

Tacitus was by no means a follower of Christ but he did nonetheless record and confirm the basic facts about his life and death.

Similarly Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived from AD 37 to 90, wrote the following in his ‘Antiquities of the Jews’.

‘And there arose about this time a source of new trouble, one Jesus. He was a doerof marvellous deeds. This man was the so-called Christ and when Pilate had condemned him to the Cross, those who had loved him did not cease – for he appeared to them, as they said, on the third day alive again.’

There was also Lucian of Samosata, a Satirist – a ‘John Cleese’ of the early second century who referred to Christ as ‘the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world’. Seutonius refers to Christians as being ‘given over to a new and mischievous superstition’. Pliny the Younger gives advice to Trajan about killing Christians and Thallus and Phlegon are two first-century historians who debate the cause of the darkness in the middle of the day which occurred at Christ’s crucifixion.

This brief excursion into Jewish and Roman history is simply to show that the consensus among non-Christian writers was that Jesus existed, performed miracles, was crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor, and was believed by his followers to have risen from the dead. If we’re wanting more detailed evidence then it is to the Gospels in the New Testament that we must turn.

The Gospels in the New Testament

The New Testament consists of 27 books all of which were almost certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The New Testament is all about Jesus and as mentioned is about the same length as the Qur’an. Therefore we have a tremendous amount of material to examine.

The first four books in the New Testament are four biographies written by two of Jesus’ twelve disciples (Matthew and John), another man (Mark) who was a close follower of Jesus and one of the leaders in the early church, and a Greek doctor (Luke) who although he never met Christ personally interviewed the eye-witnesses and became an early Christian leader himself.

Their parallel accounts, although recording different details, show a remarkable degree of consistency. There was clearly no change in the story through a chain of oral tradition, simply because there wasn’t such a chain. It was eye-witnesses who recorded these events. Also, the fact that we have very early manuscripts and fragments of New Testament mean that we can be confident that what we have today is what the original authors first wrote . The earliest fragments that exist include the John Ryland fragment in the John Ryland Library in Manchester which dates from 125 AD, and the Magdalen fragments which date from about 65 – 70 AD and are housed in the Magdalen College Library in Oxford.

What is remarkable is that these date from either the life-time of the Apostles (in the case of the Magdalen fragment) or from the life-time of those who knew the Apostles personally. This is despite the fact that they were written on papyrus which easily disintegrates.

There are also complete manuscripts of the New Testament from the first three centuries after Christ including the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus in the British Library and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library in Rome. In fact there are over 230 New Testament manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament (in about eight different languages) which pre-date the time of Muhammad. In addition to this there are 88,000 quotes from the New Testament in the writings of the ‘church fathers’, 32,000 of which date from before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

We find nothing like the documentary evidence for the New Testament in any other literature from antiquity. For example, we know of Julius Caesar only from ten documents, the earliest of which is a copy written 1,000 years after his life-time. Apart from the New Testament the best documented literature in antiquity is Homer’s Iliad of which have only 643 copies, the earliest written 500 years after the original.

Clearly, the New Testament manuscript evidence is extremely reliable.

Has the New Testament been changed?

It is often said by Muslims that the Bible has been changed, but when could it have been changed in relation to the writing of the Qur’an? It cannot have been after the Qur’an was written since we have New Testament manuscripts pre-dating the Qur’an as I have already said.

Equally, it cannot have been changed before the Qur’an was written because otherwise the Qur’an would say so. Interestingly the Qur’an does not say that the Bible has been changed at any point. In fact, to the contrary, the Qur’an encourages its readers to compare its own teaching with the Old and New Testaments of the Bible in order to confirm the truth of the message. This makes sense when we understand that the New Testament was not translated into Arabic until after the Qur’an was written. Therefore there was no opportunity for Muslims to realise that there was any clash between the teaching of the two books. This explains why Muhammad used to refer to the Bible for guidance (Sura 5:43, 46 and 6:34 and 10:64).

Most importantly how could God have allowed the Bible to be changed when Jesus himself said that ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). Why would anyone have dared to try and change it when faced with the truth of the warnings of the consequences of doing so in the Bible itself.

It is significant that the early Muslim commentators Bukhari (Al-Razi) were all agreed that the Bible could not be changed since it was God’s Word and several centuries passed before Muslims claimed that it had been changed. Surely if the Qur’an was indeed written by God, as Muslims claim, it would record the plain fact that the Qur’an and New Testament disagree. Instead – the Qur’an affirms the Bible.

Jesus Christ in the New Testament

What then do the New Testament documents tell us about the person of Christ? As mentioned, they agree with some of what the Qur’an teaches but provide much more detailed eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ teaching, miraculous deeds and claims about himself. For example, the Sermon on the Mount which makes up three chapters of the Gospel of Matthew consists entirely of Christ’s direct teaching on a multiplicity of different subjects. Many miracles showing Christ’s mastery over diseases and natural phenomena are described in all four Gospels and the Apostle John tells us that Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which were not recorded. John’s comment on this is to say that ‘if everyone of them were written down I suppose that even the whole world would not have had room for the books that would be written’ (John 21:25).

The New Testament confirms that Christ gave wonderful teaching and performed many miraculous deeds. In stark contrast to the Qur’an it claims that Christ was crucified by the Roman authorities.

Probably the most remarkable thing recorded about Christ in the New Testament is the claims that he made. He claimed that he was the only way to God (John 14:6) and this claim was confirmed by the Apostles – in particular both Peter (Acts 4:12) and Paul (1 Tim 2:5). More than this, when asked to reveal God the Father to the disciples he simply asked them ‘have I been with you so long and you don’t know me?’ (John 14:9) He followed this up by saying that anyone who had seen him had seen the Father. It was this astounding teaching that Jesus and God were one that marked him out as unique.

That this is what he was claiming is very clear from the New Testament where his divinity is directly stated in at least eight passages (John 1:1,2; John 1:18; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1) and strongly implied in others (Matt 1:23; John 17:3,5; Col 2:2; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 1:17).

His claims to be one with God were further confirmed by the fact that he called himself ‘I Am’ (John 8:58) a title which God used in the Old Testament to describe only himself (Ex 3:14). He accepted the title Lord (Hebrew Yahweh ‘ Greek Kyrios) and accepted worship (John 9:38) while being intimately aware of the Old Testament laws about idolatry. He claimed to have the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), which only God can do and also to be the Judge on the Day of Judgement (John 5:22). On top of this he affirmed that he existed even before the world was made (John 17:5).

If we have any doubts about what Jesus said we can tell from the reactions people had to him that they knew what he was claiming. They either worshipped him (Matt 4:33) or accused him of blasphemy (John 10:33). He was crucified simply because he claimed at his trial to be ‘the Son of God’. From Psalm 2, the Jews at the time knew this to be an implicit claim to Divinity. Their response was to say ‘you have heard the blasphemy’ and then to condemn him as worthy of death.

Mad, Bad or God?

What should we think of someone who claims to be God? There are only three alternatives. If the claim is false and the person making the claim does not know it to be false then we would have to say that they are suffering under a delusion and probably psychotic. On the other hand, if the claim is false and the person making it knows it to be false, then we would have to say that they are a deceiver trying to lead people astray. On the other hand, if the claim is true then we should recognise that person as both God and act accordingly. Would it be possible for God to become a man? If God can do anything then it must be. Why would he want to? Jesus said that he came to save the lost. In other words his visit to our planet had a purpose. He was both revealing his true identity and also dying on the Cross in order to make it possible for our broken relationship with God to be restored. The central message of Christianity is that the only way we can be put right with God and forgiven of our sins is by accepting that Jesus Christ has taken the punishment for our sins on our behalf. If we put our faith in him he will then grant us forgiveness and give us a new life so that we can approach the Day of Judgement with confidence.

Is it possible that Christ could have been psychotic or an evil deceiver? Certainly Muslims believe neither of these possibilities. How could he be mad when he gave such profound teaching? Similarly, how could someone who lived a life of virtue be evil?

He must have been God

Let us turn the question around. If it were possible for God to become a man, what sort of man would we expect him to be? We would expect him to have an unusual entry to life and both Qur’an and Bible confirm his virgin birth. We would expect him to be morally perfect and to perform extraordinary deeds, again facts confirmed in both Qur’an and Bible. We would expect him to speak the greatest words ever spoken and for him to have a profound effect on people. Furthermore we’d expect his influence to be universal and lasting and for his life to fulfil in minute detail the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament of the Bible. This is exactly what we find. Finally we would expect him to exercise power over death and again this is confirmed by the eye-witnesses through his resurrection and rising from the dead.

We simply have to look at the evidence and come to our own conclusions. To return to our original question of ‘Was Jesus a Muslim?’ – we would again say ‘Yes he was’ if we simply mean by this that he was submitted to God. If however, we mean would he have denied his divinity and claims as recorded in the New Testament, then Jesus clearly was not a Muslim.

Despite the similarities between the two religions we are left at the end with them being completely irreconcilable with regard to their beliefs about Christ. The greatest sin in Islam is to associate anything with God. To do this is a certain route to judgement and everlasting hell.

By complete contrast in Christianity unbelief in Christ’s divinity and resurrection is the path to judgement and hell.

Clearly both religions cannot be equally true. Despite the similarities the answer must turn on the identity of the person of Christ. You can compare Islam and Christianity to two bank-notes, both similar, but one of which is a valueless counterfeit. In deciding which one is counterfeit we need to ask which gives the true picture of Jesus. Ultimately this means that we either accept the testimony of the eye-witnesses who knew him, or accept that a ‘revelation’ received by someone 600 years after the events of the first century is more accurate. I simply leave you with a quote from St Paul: ‘even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you, let him be eternally condemned’ (Gal 1:8). I am being deliberately provocative here, but you can see that I have no choice but to be. Either Christianity is a counterfeit or Islam is, and we must make our decision on the evidence available and act accordingly. I challenge you as one who has read the Qur’an and yet chosen in favour of the Bible. I pray that if you are a Muslim you will take up my challenge and read the New Testament Gospels with an open mind, praying that God will show you whether Christianity or Islam is true. Thank you.

The Messiah

L. M. Abdallah

---

Contents

• Ahmed And Hamdi

• The Lamb of God

• The Word of God

• The Sacrifice of God

• Sin

• The Son of Abraham

• God is One

• God and Man

• Appendix

---

Ahmed and Hamdi

Ahmed was employed at an office. It wouldn’t be entirely true to say that he was unhappy in his work, it was just that he found it difficult to get on with the department head, who always saw to it that Ahmed never got the chance to prove himself. As soon as the department was assigned a more difficult project, his boss always made certain that he himself was in a position to take all the credit.

More than once Ahmed had thought about changing jobs, but job prospects weren´t very bright, and it would have been difficult to find something better, at least for the time being. Besides, his current salary was somewhat higher than with most available jobs, so Ahmed remained with the company. Money was an important factor since he needed enough to be able to provide for his wife and three children. Ahmed was very proud of his children, especially Hassan, his oldest son, who was studying engineering at university.

One day, something happened which changed the situation at work for the better. Hamdi joined Ahmed´s department. Hamdi, a little younger than Ahmed, was always in a good mood, very cheerful and easy to get on with. At last, Ahmed had found a friend at work. They began to eat lunch together and meet in the evening. Hamdi, too, was married, and God had blessed him with four wonderful children, two boys and two girls.

Ahmed and Hamdi became good friends and they often visited each other at home. They loved to sit down over a cup of tea and just talk. The hours used to fly by, and they could talk about almost anything.

At first they mainly talked about work at the office but as time went on they began to discuss some of life´s important questions. Both Ahmed and Hamdi were deeply religious but they did not share the same faith. Ahmed was a Muslim, while his best friend, Hamdi, read the Bible regularly and was a follower of the Messiah (Al-Masih).

What surprised Ahmed most was that the more he got to know Hamdi, the more he came to respect his faith and his life with God. Ahmed realised that his friend enjoyed a close relationship with God, something which he himself had never experienced, and this made him curious. Hamdi´s life with God, Ahmed thought, must have had something to do with the Messiah. In one sense, Ahmed also believed in the Messiah, although not in the same way. He believed in everything written in the Qur’an about Jesus, the son of Mary (Aisa Ibn Mariam) and had a deep respect for the Messiah. He knew that the Messiah had been born of the Virgin Mary (Mariam Al-Athra), that he had performed many miracles with God’s permission and that he had received the Gospel (Al-Injil) from God. At the same time Ahmed realised that he only knew about a few details in the life of the Messiah, and his desire grew to find out more about this great apostle (rasul), who had been given so many names, even in the Qur’an.

One day, Ahmed, finally overcome by curiosity, decided to ask his good friend Hamdi about the Messiah. That decision led to many interesting conversations.

---

The Lamb of God

“Tell me about Jesus, the son of Mary, ” Ahmed requested earnestly. “I would really like to know more about him.”

Hamdi thought for a moment and then said, “If you want to understand why the Messiah came into the world you will need to understand the meaning of sacrifice.”

“Sacrifice? What do you mean?” wondered Ahmed.

Hamdi continued, “We see the meaning of sacrifice in Id Al-Athha (The Feast of Sacrifice). You know, when God asked Abraham (Sayedna Ibrahim) to sacrifice his son. What would have happened to Abraham’s son if God (Allah) hadn’t provided a sacrifice as a ransom (fida) for him?”

“Ishmael would have died,” said Ahmed.

“That is the meaning of sacrifice, ” replied Hamdi. “Someone dies instead of someone else. God sent a ram, which was sacrificed in his place. I am in the same position as Abraham’s son. I am under the power of death, ” said Hamdi.

“What do you mean?” said Ahmed, a little perplexed.

Hamdi answered in a serious voice, “It is written in the Bible (The Holy Book):

‘For the wages of sin is death.’ (1)

“The wages for my sin is death. I am a sinner. Yes, it’s true that others see me as a deeply religious man. I pray to God every day, I study his book and I serve him. But before God I am a sinner. Is there anyone perfect apart from God?” asked Hamdi.

“No!” answered Ahmed. “No-one but God.”

“So before God we are all sinners, aren’t we?” asked Hamdi.

Ahmed agreed, “Yes, that is true.”

“I am then in the same position as Abraham’s son, under the power of death. But where is the sacrifice for my sins? Hasn’t God sent a sacrifice as a ransom for me?” asked Hamdi. Ahmed didn’t really know what to say. Hamdi continued, “John the Baptist (Yahya Ibn Zakaria) lived at the time of the Messiah. The first time he saw the Messiah, he said:

‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ (2)

“The Messiah was not the lamb of man. He came from God. He came from above. God’s Spirit (Ruh Allah) covered the Virgin Mary (Mariam). She became pregnant and gave birth to a son. As you know, he is called ‘Jesus, the son of Mary’, ‘the Word of God (Kalimat Allah)’ and ‘the Spirit of God (Ruh Allah)’. He was pure. He came from heaven as the Lamb of God. The Messiah proved that he was the Lamb of God by living a perfect life before God. There was never a time when he needed to say ‘I ask God the Great for forgiveness (astaghfer Allah Al-Azim)’ since he was the perfect Lamb of God. But since he came as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, he had to be sacrificed. This happened when, of his own free will, he gave his life in death. He rose from the dead and he ascended alive into heaven. And one day he will return to the world.”

Hamdi was quiet for a moment, looked at Ahmed and said, “I am in the same position as Abraham’s son. I am under the power of death. But there is a sacrifice for my sins through the Messiah, the pure Lamb of God. Now, through his Lamb, God offers forgiveness for all our sins and eternal life in paradise (janna). The Messiah bore the sin of all mankind, including yours, Ahmed.”

Ahmed sat silently for a long time, thinking. Then he said, “If the Messiah took away the sin of the whole world, then I don’t need to die…in which case I already have eternal life.”

“Ahmed,” said Hamdi, “suppose it’s your birthday and the Messiah comes with a present and knocks on your door. He says to you, ‘Ahmed, I would like to give you a present – forgiveness for all your sins, eternal life and a living, personal relationship with God starting today. But there are some conditions. You must turn from your sin, confessing it, and receive forgiveness through my sacrifice for you. If you receive the gift, it’s yours, not otherwise.’ “

Ahmed sat, pondering. He felt confused and didn’t really know what to say.

“Maybe you think that was an extreme example, ” said Hamdi, “but every time a servant of the Lord explains the way to God through the Messiah, it’s as if the living and risen Jesus, the son of Mary is actually knocking on our door. He says in the Bible:

‘Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.’ ” (3)

Hamdi added, “Opening my door to the Messiah and inviting him into my life to break my bread and have fellowship with me, that is exactly the same as receiving God’s gift, a gift God wants to give everyone.”

“I want you to know, Hamdi, that what you’ve just told me about the Messiah has touched me deeply. I’ll need time to think about our conversation. But I want to hear more about the Messiah the next time we meet.”

“Al-salamu aleykum (may peace be upon you).”

“Aleykum al-salam (and upon you be peace).”

---

The Word of God

“What you told me last time about Jesus, the son of Mary gave me a lot to think about, ” began Ahmed, a little tentatively. “I hope you don’t mind, but I have a lot of questions I’d like answers to before going on with our conversation about the Messiah.”

“Of course, please go ahead, ” Hamdi replied, half knowing what Ahmed was going to say.

Again, Ahmed began tentatively, “You know that we, as Muslims, believe in the heavenly books – Al-Tawrah (the Pentateuch of Moses), Al-Zabur (the Psalms of David), Al-Injil (the Gospel of Jesus) and the Holy Qur’an. But I’ve also been taught that all the books apart from the Qur’an have been falsified by Jews and Christians, so that you can no longer believe what’s written in them. So the Holy Book (the Bible) you believe in is corrupted (muharraf) and a mixture of truth and lies.”

“Can you offer any historical evidence to support that?” asked Hamdi.

Ahmed thought for a while but to his amazement realised that he had never heard anything but unfounded allegations.

Hamdi continued, “Can you tell me when this alleged corruption took place or how it was even possible for it to be achieved?”

“No, I can’t, ” said Ahmed a little shocked. “No-one’s ever given me the answers to such basic questions.”

After a moment Hamdi asked, “Do you think it would be possible for the Qur’an to be corrupted?”

“Astaghfer Allah (I ask God for forgiveness)!” exclaimed Ahmed. “That would be utterly impossible. Believers would never allow anyone to even try to corrupt it.”

Hamdi answered, “Why do you think we see the Bible differently? How could you even think that the true believers would have allowed someone to change the Holy Scriptures and produce a corrupted Bible? I believe in the God who created heaven and earth, the God who is omniscient and almighty. He who has given mankind his own Word also has the power to keep his Word from corruption.”

With his eyes firmly on Ahmed, Hamdi asked, “Ahmed, do you believe that everything that happens is in accordance with the will of God?”

“Yes, I believe that, ” answered Ahmed.

Hamdi continued, “Do you really believe that God would first give his Word to the world and then decide that it should be corrupted, or does not the Almighty have the power to keep his Word from corruption?”

“Yes, God certainly does have the power to keep his Word from corruption, ” agreed Ahmed.

“Do you know, Ahmed, that the Bible is a wonderful book? It was written over a period of approximately 1,400 years. It contains Al-Tawrah (the Pentateuch), Al-Zabur (the Psalms), Al-Injil (the Gospel) and many other books which were written by God’s apostles (rasul) and prophets (anbia). The Bible is divided into two parts: The Old Testament, which covers the time before the Messiah’s birth, and The New Testament, which begins with the arrival of the Messiah in the world. The Bible was written in three different languages.”

“Which languages were those?” wondered Ahmed.

“It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, ” replied Hamdi. “God used many different types of people when he gave us his Word. Some were kings or statesmen, others were shepherds or fishermen. The Bible is a miracle from God, because in spite of the immense timespan and the many different people involved in its writing, the entire book holds together as a wonderful whole. There is a common theme throughout the whole Bible, and that theme, Ahmed, is the Messiah (Al-Masih).”

“Can it be true that God spoke about the Messiah for 1,400 years?” said Ahmed astonished.

“Ahmed, ” said Hamdi with a smile, “God has spoken about the Messiah throughout all history right up to the present day.”

“Is that really possible?” said Ahmed, full of doubt.

“Yes, of course it is, because with God everything is possible, ” answered Hamdi, “but we can talk about that the next time we meet.”

“I’m really looking forward to it, ” said Ahmed.

“Al-salamu aleykum.”

“Aleykum al-salam.”

---

The Sacrifice of God

“I’m really curious about how the Messiah could be the theme running through the whole Bible, ” said Ahmed.

“Do you remember when we talked about the Messiah as the Lamb of God which bore our sin?” asked Hamdi.

“Of course I do, ” replied Ahmed. “How could I ever forget that?”

“God has been teaching mankind about sacrifice throughout all history right up to Jesus, the son of Mary, ” said Hamdi.

“In what way?” asked Ahmed.

“How many people were on earth at the time of Cain (Qabil) and Abel (Habil)?” asked Hamdi.

Ahmed thought for a little while and then replied, “Four – Adam, Eve (Hawa), Cain and Abel.”

“Only four people, ” said Hamdi, “and yet they understood that it was necessary to worship God with a sacrifice. How could they have known that?” asked Hamdi and continued, “Because God is holy and pure, but man is a sinner and in need of a ransom for his sin. Noah (Sayedna Noh) worshipped God with a sacrifice. Abraham (Sayedna Ibrahim) worshipped God with a sacrifice. Moses (Sayedna Musa), David (Sayedna Dawoud) and all the apostles and prophets have worshipped God with a sacrifice.” Hamdi added, “I worship God in the same way as the apostles and prophets.”

“No, now you are joking. You don’t go down to the market to buy a sheep to sacrifice to God, ” said Ahmed, smiling with his whole face.

“I worship God through the Messiah, the Lamb of God, who bore my sin when he was sacrificed, ” answered Hamdi. “It is written in the Holy Book (The Bible):

‘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.’ (1)

“There is only one God and there is only one mediator between God and us, the Messiah, who offered himself as a ransom (fida) for all, for you too, Ahmed. Throughout all history right up to the present day, people have worshipped the living God with a sacrifice.”

“I think I’m beginning to understand what you mean, but you’ll need to explain a little more so that I can understand the whole picture, ” said Ahmed thoughtfully.

A moment later Hamdi replied, “God revealed the meaning and purpose of sacrifice in history, especially through Moses in the Tawrah (Pentateuch). The collective teaching of the law (Al-Sharia) on the meaning of sacrifice as a ransom for sin is clear from the following words of Scripture:

‘In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’ ” (2)

“But what has all this teaching about sacrifice got to do with Jesus, the son of Mary?” wondered Ahmed.

“Well, ” said Hamdi, “parallel to the teaching about the meaning of sacrifice are many prophecies about the Messiah. Among these prophecies were predictions that when the Messiah came into the world he would be sacrificed as a ransom for our sin. Hamdi picked up a Bible and opened it. Showing the passage to Ahmed he said, “See for yourself what an exact description of the Messiah’s sacrifice the prophet Isaiah wrote around 700 years before the Messiah came:

‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.’ ” (3)

Ahmed, deeply touched by the prophetic words, said in amazement, “Are you saying that this was actually written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, the son of Mary?”

“Yes, ” said Hamdi. “According to the prophets, the Messiah was to come from the family of the prophet David (Nabi Dawoud). David, who lived around a thousand years before the Messiah, gives a very accurate description of his future son, the Messiah’s, crucifixion. Crucifixion was a very slow and painful method of execution. After a while, the bones of the crucified person would go out of joint, and besides this, he would suffer from severe thirst. The prophet David writes:

‘I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. ‘ (4)

“David wrote this even though crucifixion wasn’t even used as a method of execution in his day. It was invented much later and was used by the Romans during the time of the Messiah.”

“So you’re saying that all these predictions have been fulfilled in Jesus, the son of Mary?” asked Ahmed.

“Yes, and not only these, but many other prophecies have been fulfilled to the letter in the Messiah, ” answered Hamdi. “The Messiah himself confirmed on a number of occasions that he came to give his life as a ransom (fida). He said about himself:

‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.’ (5)

“Ahmed, do you understand now how God’s teaching on sacrifice for the sin of mankind runs all the way through the Bible and how it has all been fulfilled through the Messiah?”

“Hamdi, ” said Ahmed, “I have never heard this before. It is very interesting. I need more time to think. But don’t worry, I’ll soon be back with more questions.”

“Please, receive this Bible as a gift from me, ” said Hamdi. “Begin with the New Testament, where you can read about the life of the Messiah and about his amazing miracles and teaching.”

“Thank you, ” said Ahmed. “I have heard a lot about the ‘People of the Book’ (ahl al-kitab), but I’ve never read the book itself before. I’m really looking forward to reading about the teaching and miracles of Jesus, the son of Mary.”

“Al-salamu aleykum.“

“Aleykum al-salam.“

---

Sin

“Hamdi,” began Ahmed a little tentatively, “since we met last time, I’ve been thinking about the Messiah and how he gave his life as a ransom for the sin of mankind. But there is one thing I want to know. Where does sin (al-khatiya) come from, and how is it that all mankind has problems with sin? Can you explain that?” asked Ahmed in a serious voice.

“Yes, I think so, ” Hamdi answered thoughtfully, “but we’ll have to go back to the beginning to understand where sin comes from. In the Tawrah (Pentateuch) we read that after God had created the world and mankind, he placed man in paradise (janna). There in paradise, man was completely pure and lived in a perfect relationship with God. But as you know, something happened which destroyed life in paradise. Ahmed, what happened?”

“Satan came and destroyed everything, ” said Ahmed.

“Exactly!” Hamdi replied. “God forbade man to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when he said to Adam:

‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’ (1)

“But Satan came as a snake and tempted Adam and Eve. They were disobedient towards God and ate of the fruit. The result was devastating for mankind. Since sin entered the life of mankind, everyone became a sinner.”

“Did everyone really become a sinner?” asked Ahmed sceptically. “I find it difficult to accept that. If it’s true, in what way did everyone become a sinner?”

“Mankind became just like the fruit he ate, ” said Hamdi. “He became a strange mixture of good and evil. Sometimes a person can perform some of the most noble and distinguished acts and then, the next minute, be involved in some the worst acts of treachery, perhaps even deceiving and defrauding his own neighbour. One minute, a person can be very loving and considerate, and the next minute, be filled with envy, selfishness, lust or some other characteristic related to sin. As you said, Ahmed, all mankind wrestles with this problem. Every religion deals with this problem. Every nation creates laws to control sin in its various outworkings. The worst of it is that people are not sinners because they sin, but they sin because they are sinners. It’s as if there’s a little factory inside people which produces sin and evil, isn’t it?” said Hamdi and gave Ahmed a searching look.

“I’m sorry to say that your description of mankind corresponds to reality pretty well. People really are a strange mixture of good and evil, ” answered Ahmed. “But where does Satan fit into the picture?”

“Well, it was through sin that Satan obtained power in human lives and societies, ” answered Hamdi. “He who once tempted Adam and Eve continues to do the same thing today. He still tempts people so that we will continue to live in sin. It is through sin that Satan obtains power in people’s lives because it is sin that separates us from God. It is because of sin that the world is like it is today. God created everything good, but mankind has brought a great deal of evil into the world, for example, through war and oppression, but also through broken relationships and many other kinds of misery which destroy people’s lives.”

“So you’re saying that God didn’t create us like this, but that the world is like it is because of Adam’s sin?” Ahmed wondered.

“Exactly!” Hamdi replied. “Sin entered mankind through Adam, as it is written:

‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.’ (2)

“The worst result was death, both physical and spiritual death.”

“Physical and spiritual death?” said Ahmed and looked questioningly at Hamdi. “What exactly is spiritual death?”

“Well, God told man that if he ate of the fruit he would surely die, ” Hamdi began. “And because God is righteous and always acts according to his Word, death indeed came over mankind so that all people die. But man also died in a spiritual way when he sinned.”

“How?” wondered Ahmed.

“Well, the result of sin was that man was driven out of paradise, ” answered Hamdi. “He was driven away from the place where he lived in a pure, perfect relationship with God. Man had to live outside paradise. Man died in a spiritual way when he became separated from the living and holy God through his sin. So it is sin and evil that separate mankind from God. It’s because of sin that we don’t automatically live in a close relationship with God. Since God is pure and holy, he cannot have any relationship with sin. That is why we need a Saviour (Munajy) to save us from the consequences of all our sin. Ahmed, do you believe that all your sins are recorded somewhere?”

Ahmed, looking a little worried, said, “I know that they are written down by the two angels following every one of us.”

“God knows everything about us, ” said Hamdi. “Every good deed and every bad deed. Every word, every thought, every intention (neya). God has everything written down. Do you know which way the scales will tip on the day of judgement (yom al-hisab)?”

“No, only God knows that, ” said Ahmed quietly.

“God loves you, Ahmed. Don’t forget that the Lamb of God, Jesus, the son of Mary has taken all our sin upon himself. Forgiveness is available for everything, ” said Hamdi calmly.

Ahmed thought for a while and asked, “If the Messiah is so important why didn’t Adam and Eve get to hear about him?”

“Would you believe me if I said that they did get to hear about the Messiah?” asked Hamdi.

“No, I don’t think it’s possible for them to have heard about him, ” Ahmed replied.

“God loves man and wants to have a relationship with him, ” began Hamdi. “That’s why he spoke about the Messiah from the very beginning. Right in the midst of the tragedy surrounding them, Adam and Eve nevertheless received a promise of a deliverer who would one day crush Satan’s power over man. God spoke to Satan in Adam and Eve’s hearing:

‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.’ (3)

“Throughout the whole Bible sons are named after their fathers, the son of Abraham, the son of Jacob, and so on. But here the Bible speaks of the woman’s offspring, not the man’s. Someone was to come who did not have a father, but was instead the son of the woman. This son would crush Satan’s power over man, while Satan like a snake would try to kill the woman’s son by striking his heel. This is exactly what happened when Jesus, the son of Mary offered his life as a ransom for the sin of mankind.”

“Remarkable, ” said Ahmed. “It’s amazing that God already began to speak about the Messiah to the very first people on earth. It shows once more that the main theme of the Bible really is the Messiah. You’ve given me a lot to think about before next time, Hamdi.”

“Al-salamu aleykum.“

“Aleykum al-salam.“

---

The Son of Abraham

“I’m very curious, ” said Hamdi. “I’d like to know what you think of Al-Injil (the Gospel).”

“It truly is a wonderful book, ” replied Ahmed sincerely. “I have never read anything like it. It’s fascinating to read about the Messiah’s amazing miracles in detail. And his teaching up on the mountain (The Sermon on the Mount) is extraordinary. There is clarity and depth in what he says. He turns many concepts upside down when he tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And his teaching on prayer is so different from anything I have heard before. I have to admit that the book has made a deep impression on me, but at the same time it seems like I’ve got as many new questions as answers.”

“Sounds interesting, ” said Hamdi smiling. “Let’s start with your first question.”

“All right, ” said Ahmed, “why does the Gospel begin with a genealogy from Abraham through David to the Messiah?”

After thinking for a while Hamdi asked, “Do you remember what we’ve talked about before, that the Bible holds together as a unit and that there is a theme running through the whole book?”

“Yes, I remember, ” answered Ahmed.

“Do you remember what the theme was?”

“Al-Masih, ” replied Ahmed.

“The answer to your question is related to that theme, ” said Hamdi. “According to the prophets, the Messiah had to be the son of David and the son of Abraham.”

Ahmed thought about what Hamdi had told him and said, “What you’ve said is interesting, but could you explain a little more about the different prophecies?”

After quite a long pause Hamdi began, “One day, about four thousand years ago, God spoke to Abraham, who is known as the friend of God (khalil Allah). When Abraham was still called Abram, God gave him a promise which would be of great significance for all mankind. In the Tawrah (Pentateuch) we read:

‘The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” ‘ (1)

“God called a man who had no children in spite of many years of marriage. God promised him a land. God would make him into a great nation. His name would be great and well-known. All this God fulfilled in detail. But the most remarkable of all the promises was that the Lord God would bless all the peoples on earth through Abraham. In this promise lies the promise of the Messiah. So the Messiah had to be a son of Abraham, and through him God would bless the whole world.”

“But how do you know that the promise is about the Messiah and not someone else?” wondered Ahmed.

“We can say that it gradually becomes clearer as we read further in the Tawrah, ” answered Hamdi. “In time Abraham got two sons, one with his wife Sarah, called Isaac (Ishaq), and one with Sarah’s maidservant Hagar (Hajar), called Ishmael (Ismail). Even though God blessed Ishmael, he made it clear to Abraham, even before Isaac’s birth, that the promise regarding the Messiah would be fulfilled through Isaac when he said:

‘…Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac…'” (2)

“Yes, Ishmael, who God blessed, became the father of us Arabs, ” said Ahmed, “but we Muslims know that God sent many of his apostles and prophets through Isaac’s descendants.”

Hamdi continued, “Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob (Yaqub). God showed that the promised Messiah would come from Jacob when he revealed himself in a dream to him and said,

‘I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.’ ” (3)

“It is remarkable that when God spoke with Jacob, he repeated many parts of the original promise to Abraham, ” said Ahmed.

“That’s because it’s actually the same promise being passed on from one generation to the next, ” Hamdi said, “but as you can see, Ahmed, it was through a son of Jacob that God was to bless all the peoples of the earth.”

“Yes, and I begin to suspect that the Messiah will once more prove to be the main theme of the Bible, ” replied Ahmed with a smile.

“That’s correct, ” said Hamdi. “Among the children of Israel (bani Isra’il) were many families. The question is whether God also revealed the family from which the Messiah would come. God chose David (Sayedna Dawoud) and made a covenant with him. In many prophecies God shows that the Messiah would come from the family of the prophet David. The prophet Isaiah, who lived more than two hundred years after David, likens the family of Jesse to the stump of a tree. David’s father was called Jesse. From that family would come one on whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. He would bring justice to the poor of the earth. He would create a kingdom like paradise itself, and everyone in that kingdom would know the Lord. Isaiah writes:

‘A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him… with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth… In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious…’ ” (4)

“Let’s see if I’ve got this right, ” said Ahmed. “God revealed that the Messiah was to be a son of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David.”

“Precisely!” answered Hamdi with a broad smile. “And when we read the Gospel we can see that the Messiah is born in accordance with the prophecies. That’s why the Gospel begins with a genealogy. It proves that the Messiah is indeed the son of Abraham and David.”

“Once more the main theme of the Bible has proved to be Jesus, the son of Mary, ” said Ahmed. “But, Hamdi, I’m sure you’re aware that I have some much more difficult questions in store. But I’ll save them for next time.”

“Al-salamu aleykum.“

“Aleykum al-salam.“

---

God is One

“What do you see?” asked Ahmed, holding up three fingers in the air.

“I see three fingers on one hand, ” said Hamdi with a smile, knowing what Ahmed was thinking of.

“Hamdi, ” Ahmed continued, “do you believe God is one or three?”

“You maybe don’t fully understand in what way I believe, ” said Hamdi, “but you must understand that I believe in the one true God, the God who created heaven and earth, who can do anything, knows everything and is present everywhere. You know that my faith is based on the Bible, and God’s Word teaches that God is one. This truth is written in many places throughout the Bible.”

“But God cannot be three and one at the same time, ” insisted Ahmed. He again held up three fingers and said, “One plus one plus one equals three and not one.”

“How many Ahmed’s are you?” asked Hamdi. “Are you one or two?”

“One, of course, ” answered Ahmed.

“God has created you with a body and a spirit, ” said Hamdi. “Is your body Ahmed?” asked Hamdi.

“Yes.”

“But what about your spirit?” asked Hamdi. “Is that Ahmed?”

“Well, yes it is, ” said Ahmed, realising what Hamdi was going to say.

Hamdi continued, “Why is it impossible for God to be three in one when he has created us as two in one?” After a short pause Hamdi said, “We can say that God is a complex unity who reveals himself in three persons. After all, what is one times one times one, Ahmed?”

“One, ” said Ahmed quietly. “But Jesus, the son of Mary is only man and not the Son of God.” Ahmed was looking intently at Hamdi. “Do you believe that the Messiah is the Son of God, Hamdi?”

“What do you think I believe?” asked Hamdi.

“I’m not sure exactly, ” said Ahmed, “but I suppose you believe that God had a physical relationship with the Virgin Mary, and they had a son together.”

“Astaghfer Allah! (I ask God for forgiveness), ” exclaimed Hamdi. “That is absolutely not what I believe, and I do not know any follower of the Messiah who believes that either.”

Ahmed, surprised, asked, “Then what do you believe?”

“I believe God is eternal, that he existed in eternity before anything was created, ” Hamdi began. “When the Gospel explains who the Messiah is, it does not begin with his birth into the world, but it begins in eternity, before God created the world. It is written in the Gospel:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life…’ (1)

“God created the world through his Word, didn’t he?”

“Yes, that’s right. God said, ‘ “Be!” And it is!’ (Kun fa yakun), ” answered Ahmed.

“So God created the world through his Word, ” said Hamdi. “And this Word, which proceeded from God, was a part of God and was filled with God’s creative power and all his attributes. There was life in the Word of God, and wherever the Word became present, life was created in all its different forms.”

“Yes, I agree with that, but what exactly does the expression ‘and the Word was God’ mean?” asked Ahmed.

“If I were to testify in a court of law, you would not be able to separate me from my words, ” said Hamdi. “My words would represent me and would be a part of me. When we sit here and talk, our words are a part of us so that we are represented by our words. When God created the universe, the Word he spoke was one with him. We cannot separate God from his Word. This eternal Word of God, who is one with him and contains all his attributes, was revealed in Jesus, the son of Mary, as it is written:

‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ (2)

“Everything God has said about himself, all his attributes, were revealed in the Messiah. God is holy. When people saw how pure the Messiah was, they saw the holiness of God in him. God is love. When they saw how the Messiah loved people, they saw the love of God in him. God can do everything. He is omnipotent. When people saw how the Messiah walked on water, spoke to the storm, making the wind and the waves die down, created bread, healed the blind and raised the dead, they saw the power and glory of God revealed in him.”

“But how can God, who is present everywhere, be limited to a human being?” persisted Ahmed. “Did God forget the universe when he was in the Messiah?”

“Ahmed, ” said Hamdi, “suppose we were out on an unending ocean and we lowered a glass into it, filling it with water. If we analysed the water, we’d find it to be exactly the same as that in the ocean. It’s the same with the Messiah. The eternal, almighty God is present everywhere. At the same time, he reveals himself in the Messiah with the same attributes and power. But God is not limited because he reveals himself in the Messiah. He is still infinite.”

“But God cannot reveal himself in a person, ” said Ahmed.

“How can we limit God?” asked Hamdi. “How can we say that the Almighty cannot? Can’t he do everything?”

“Well, yes, he can do everything, ” answered Ahmed, “but I can’t believe that he has revealed himself in a human being.”

“It’s good that we agree that this can pose a problem for us but not for God, who can do anything he wants to, ” said Hamdi. “If you didn’t already know the story, what would you say if someone told you that God had revealed himself in a burning bush and had spoken out of that bush to Moses?”

Ahmed thought for a while and smiled to himself when he realised that it couldn’t be more difficult for God to reveal himself in a human being than in a bush.

Hamdi continued, “Ahmed, think for a moment, who is the person who is actually called ‘The Word of God’ and ‘The Spirit of God’ (Kalimat Allah wa Ruh Allah)? Even the Spirit of God is one with God. We know that the Spirit of God covered the Virgin Mary and that she became pregnant and gave birth to the Messiah, as the Angel Gabriel told her:

‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’ (3)

“The question is who it is that came into the world in this way. Ahmed, if you had been a doctor at the time of the Messiah and it was your task to write out his birth certificate, what would you have written? What was his name?”

“I suppose I’d have written ‘Jesus, the son of Mary’, ” said Ahmed.

“And the name of the mother?”

“Well, that would have been ‘The Virgin Mary’, ” said Ahmed.

“And then we come to the name of the father, ” said Hamdi with a smile.

“He didn’t have a father, ” answered Ahmed with an even broader smile.

“We could, of course, leave that line blank since he didn’t have an earthly father, ” said Hamdi, “…or we could ask ourselves, ‘Where does he come from? What is the origin of the one called “The Word of God” and “The Spirit of God”? What is the identity of the one who came down from heaven?’ He himself said:

‘For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world… I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.’ (4)

‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ (5)

“Ahmed, he came in order to give his flesh as a sacrifice for all mankind. He who partakes of ordinary bread receives physical life, but he who partakes of the bread of God that has come down from heaven receives spiritual life, eternal life. He who believes in the Messiah and partakes of him receives a life which satisfies man’s innermost hunger and thirst for God. This is what I myself have experienced. The Messiah is an offer from God to you, Ahmed.”

“I’m not ready for that yet, ” said Ahmed quietly. “I have many thoughts going round and round in my head. I realise now that I’ve completely misunderstood the way in which you believe in God. I’m slowly beginning to understand how you believe in the one true God and that he revealed himself in the Messiah. You know that I love the Messiah with all my heart, but I still have a number of questions that need answering. But we can talk about those next time, can’t we, Hamdi?”

“I’m looking forward to it, ” answered Hamdi.

“Al-salamu aleykum.“

“Aleykum al-salam.“

---

God and Man

“I’ve been thinking almost day and night about our last discussion, ” said Ahmed. “First you say that Jesus, the son of Mary is man. Then you say that God revealed himself in him. I want to know who he really is. Isn’t it true that you’ve made the Messiah out to be the Son of God when he is nothing more than the son of Mary?”

“Ahmed, ” Hamdi began, “the answer to that question is the key to eternal life with God, both here and now and in eternity. It would be ‘shirk’ (to place someone on the same level as God) if we made a man out to be God. But the Bible teaches that God revealed himself in a man and not the other way round. We both agree that the Messiah was born as a man. In accordance with the prophets, he is the son of Abraham, the son of David and the son of Mary. But in the prophecies which were given long before the birth of the Messiah, God teaches us that he would come to us in the Messiah.”

“Do you mean that the apostles and prophets before the Messiah already spoke about God himself being revealed in him?” Ahmed asked in surprise.

“The main theme of the Bible is the Messiah, so it shouldn’t surprise us that God had already revealed the truth about the Messiah through the prophets, ” said Hamdi.

“Show me, ” requested Ahmed, “I’m very interested.”

Hamdi thought for a while before saying, “When God, in about 700 BC, revealed to the prophet Micah that the Messiah would be born in the town of Bethlehem, he also disclosed that the one who would be born existed long before he was born:

‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’ (1)

“The Messiah was indeed born in the town of Bethlehem, as it is written in the Gospel:

‘So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.’ (2)

“The question is of who he is who existed long before he was born into the world. We see what he himself said in a conversation with some exasperated Jews in Jerusalem (Al-Quds):

‘”Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old, ” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth, ” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”‘ (3)

“We know that Abraham lived around 2000 BC.”

“So, the Messiah himself claimed that he existed before he was born, ” said Ahmed. “But where in the prophets does it say that God would reveal himself in the Messiah?”

“That is written in many places, ” said Hamdi. “The prophet Isaiah speaks about one who would come from the small area where Jesus, the son of Mary grew up. He would create an eternal kingdom, which would be characterised by the peace of God. He himself, who would also be a son of David, would reign in this kingdom for ever. The prophet describes the characteristics of the Messiah with the different names he is given:

‘For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and for ever.’ (4)

“We know that the names God gives someone describe that person’s characteristics. So, who is he, Ahmed, who is given the names ‘Wonderful Counsellor’, ‘Mighty God’, ‘Everlasting Father’ and ‘Prince of Peace’?”

“This picture of the Messiah the prophets painted before he was born is beginning to take shape for me, ” said Ahmed, “but does it really say that God would come to the world he himself created?”

“John the Baptist (Yahya Ibn Zakaria) lived at the same time as the Messiah, ” said Hamdi. “He was sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, so that people would repent and come to faith in him. When John was asked who he himself was and why God had sent him, he replied with a quote from the prophet Isaiah, chapter 40, where it is written:

‘A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it.” ‘ (5)

“The picture from the prophet Isaiah portrays the visit of a great king. People were to build a new and straight highway for him through the wilderness. But who is this visiting king, Ahmed?”

“Well, according to the prophet, he is the Lord, our God, ” said Ahmed quietly.

“The picture becomes even clearer, ” continued Hamdi, “when we read further in the same passage, where it is written:

‘You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, “Here is your God!” See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.’ (6)

“The Messiah did indeed come as a shepherd for all believers. He himself said,

‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’ (7)

“But, Ahmed, who is it, according to the prophet, that will come as a shepherd?”

“I have to admit that it’s shown to be the Lord God himself, ” answered Ahmed, now quite shaken by the prophet’s words.

Hamdi continued, “As you understand, Ahmed, all these prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus, the son of Mary. Before the Messiah was born, the Angel Gabriel came to Zechariah, the future father of John the Baptist. The angel explained to Zechariah that he would have a son and told him what a special task his son would have. The Angel Gabriel said:

‘…he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And 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.’ (8)

“Who is it, according to the Gospel, that John the Baptist will go before, Ahmed?”

“The Lord their God, ” answered Ahmed.

“When John the Baptist was still newly born, ” continued Hamdi, “Zechariah prophesied over him, his new-born son:

‘And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven.’ (9)

“Do you see, Ahmed, that Yahya Ibn Zakaria, according to the words of the prophet Isaiah, the Angel Gabriel and his father Zechariah, was to go before the Lord, and that the one to come was God himself?”

“Yes, I can see that and I can suppose that all this was confirmed when the Messiah actually came, ” said Ahmed seriously.

“Yes, in detail, ” said Hamdi. “When the Virgin Mary gave birth to the Messiah in Bethlehem, the town of David, the Angel of the Lord appeared to some shepherds outside the town and said to them:

‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.’ (10)

“The fact that the Messiah is the Lord himself is confirmed again and again in the Gospel. He himself said:

‘I and the Father are one.’ ” (11)

“I already had a great love and respect for Jesus, the son of Mary, ” said Ahmed, “but now for the first time, I think I can see the full picture of who the Messiah really is and why he was born into the world. I am truly grateful that you took the time and effort to explain this to me, Hamdi.”

“Ahmed, ” said Hamdi seriously, “by faith in the Messiah, God offers forgiveness for everything and eternal life. The Messiah, who himself conquered death and raised the dead, says:

‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.’ (12)

“Ahmed, do you want to receive the gift of God to you by faith in the Messiah?”

“Yes, I feel as if he is standing and knocking on my door right now, ” said Ahmed with tears in his eyes. “How can I receive God’s gift?”

“It isn’t difficult, ” said Hamdi. “Pray to God in your own words. Confess everything. God knows all about us anyway. Receive forgiveness through the Messiah’s sacrifice for you. Pray that God will come into your life by his Spirit and give you strength to follow the Messiah as his disciple. Pray this prayer in the name of the Messiah. He, by his sacrifice, is the mediator between you and God the Father. When you receive the Messiah in this way, by faith, as God’s gift to you, a miracle takes place in your life. The Bible says that you are born again. You receive a new life from God. You enter into a new, personal relationship with God through the Messiah. So God becomes your father and you his child, as it is written in the Gospel concerning all those who received the Messiah:

‘Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.’ ” (13)

When they had prayed together and thanked the Lord, Hamdi said with a big smile, “Welcome to the family! Now, through the Messiah, we are brothers in God’s great family.”

“How can I ever thank you, ” said Ahmed full of joy.

“Thank God, and do it every day, ” answered Hamdi. “Seek the fellowship of others who follow the Messiah in the same way as you. Now you can really pray the prayer the Messiah taught his disciples to pray:

‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.’ ” (14)

---

Appendix

Bible Quotations

New International Version (NIV)

The Lamb of God

1. Romans 6:23

2. John 1:29

3. Revelation 3:20

The Sacrifice of God

1. 1 Timothy 2:5-6

2. Hebrews 9:22

3. Isaiah 53:4-7

4. Psalm 22:14-18

5. Mark 10:45

Sin

1. Genesis 2:16-17

2. Romans 5:12

3. Genesis 3:15

The Son of Abraham

1. Genesis 12:1-3

2. Genesis 17:19-21

3. Genesis 28:13-14

4. Isaiah 11:1,2,4,10

God is One

1. John 1:1-4

2. John 1:14

3. Luke 1:35

4. John 6:33,35

5. John 6:51

God and Man

1. Micah 5:2

2. Luke 2:4-7

3. John 8:56-58

4. Isaiah 9:6-7

5. Isaiah 40:3-5

6. Isaiah 40:9-11

7. John 10:11

8. Luke 1:15-17

9. Luke 1:76-78

10. Luke 2:10-11

11. John 10:30

12. John 11:25-26

13. John 1:12

14. Matthew 6:9-13

The Names and Titles of Christ in Islam and the Bible

Gerry Redman

Contents

Introduction

A. The Biblical View

1. Lord Jesus Christ

2. Son of David

3. Son of God

4. Son of Man

5. Servant of the Lord

6. Prophet

7. Word of God

8. Priest

9. Saviour

B. The Islamic View

1. ‘Isa Bin Maryam

2. Prophet

3. Al-Masih

4. Servant

5. Word

6. Spirit

Conclusion

References

Introduction

Whilst both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm unique titles to Jesus, of which some are similar in meaning, there are also important differences between the nomenclatures ascribed to Him in the distinct holy books. To some extent this reflects the negative thrust of Islamic Christology, the emphasis of which is to deny (in the Islamic estimation, ‘to correct’) more than to affirm. On the other hand, the Biblical titles of Jesus point to the continuity of His ministry with the salvation-history revealed in the Old Testament – that is, His names and titles demonstrate that He is the fulfilment of prophecy, the culmination of the divine plan of redemption. As we shall see, the same is not true of Islamic Christology. This in itself points to the historical picture of Jesus in the Bible as being the genuine article. In this paper we will examine and compare the names and titles of Jesus in Islam and the Bible.

A. The Biblical View

1. Lord Jesus Christ

(a) Jesus: ‘Jesus’ is Greek and Latin for ‘Joshua’, Hebrew for ‘YHWH Saves’, appropriate as a description of the work of Christ – He is the Saviour. The name points to the human Jesus, a true Man, a Palestinian Jew of 1st century A.D. He was a Galilean, and tri-lingual because of that. He would have been as equally at home in Aramaic and Koine Greek, given the cosmopolitan nature and geographical position of Galilee, which bordered on Gentile areas. As a pious Jew, he would also know Hebrew – primarily as liturgical language, no doubt.

Thus the name indicates His true humanity and divine commission – not a demigod, but true man, man as we are, save without sin. It should be noted that the final Victory is one where Man is exalted – Philippians 2:9-10 – it is at the name of Jesus, not Christ, that every knee bows: we may also be encouraged by the fact that a man is reigning now over the Earth – Acts 2:32, 33-35, and especially v36.

(b) Lord: This is used in differing, but not contradictory ways.

(i) Honorific: i.e. ‘Sir’ – e.g. Matthew 21:30; John 4:19; 9:35. Morris writes ‘Minus the article the Greek term was an ordinary form of polite address, much like our “Sir” It is used in this fashion by the son who said “I go, Sir” (Mt. 21:30)…’. 1 In such cases, the term does not necessarily indicate faith, and often does not.

(ii) Authority: i.e. ‘Master’, indicating ownership – Luke 16:3; Colossians 4:1. Milne states ‘This title occurs in NT times in the general sense of “master” or “owner”…’ 2 Paul uses it to indicate that we are the slaves of Christ – Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1.

(iii) Deity: ‘YHWH’ – the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name. In practice born of reverence, Jews preferred the circumlocution adonai, ‘lord’ as the Divine Name was considered too sacred to utter. Adonai was rendered by kurios (kuriov) in the Septuagint.

The claim by Christadelphians that Jesus is never expressly termed ‘Lord’ in sense of ‘YHWH’ until after the Resurrection is questionable. Luke 3:4,.quoting Isaiah 40:3-5, is unintelligible unless Jesus is YHWH, and it clearly has present reference. John 20:28; Romans 1:4, etc. merely indicate that the resurrection openly establishes the Lordship of Christ in terms of deity (Acts 2:36 means ‘king’), not that he becomes divine: Matthew 16:18 states that Jesus was Messiah in His contemporary state, not future, yet Acts 2:36 seems to indicate that the Resurrection ‘made’ Him Messiah; clearly the sense is one of public declaration. If Jesus was Messiah before resurrection, He was also YHWH before that event. Several texts in the Epistles and Revelation explicitly identify Jesus with YHWH:

Romans 10:13 looks back to v9 and v12, where Jesus is expressly termed kuriov; v13 quotes from Joel 2:32 –’whoever shall call on the name of the Lord (i.e. YHWH) shall be saved’. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18 in respect to the Ascension of Christ Whilst the Hebrew text does not mention YHWH, v18 of Psalm 68 speaks of yah ‘elohim; Paul applies this to Christ. Philippians 2:9-11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, which looks back to v21, where the subject is YHWH. Not only is Jesus termed kuriovby Paul, but the wording – that every knee shall bow to Jesus – reflects the wording of Isaiah 45:23, where it is to YHWH that every knee bows. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25 (LXX) in its discourse on the Son, identifying Him as kuriov, yet in the Psalm YHWH is the subject. We may also note that the eschatological Last Day in the Old Testament – Day of YHWH – has become the Day of the Lord Jesus (Christ) in the New Testament – 1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Peter 3:10, 12. The renowned New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie observed about the New Testament usage of the title ‘In view of the frequent use of the title in OT citations, it is probable that the LXX usage of kyrios should be regarded as a key to an understanding the term when applied to Jesus (i.e. as an appelative for God). In NT usage the implication is that the same functions assigned to God are assigned to Christ.’ 3

(iv) Messianic King

Mark 12:35-37, quoting Psalm 110:1 identifies Jesus as the Messianic King, and this would also seem to be the import of Acts 2:36, given the parallelism of ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’.

(c) Christ (Messiah)

Christos, Greek for Maschiach – ‘Anointed One’ Priests, Kings and Prophets were anointed with oil, symbolising the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 61:1, Zechariah 4:1-6 – i.e. the impartation of grace for office and visible appointment to such, together with establishment of particular relationship with God – 1 Samuel 16:13; 24:6; 26:9; 2 Samuel 1:14.

Prophets – 1 Kings 19:16, cf Psalm 105:15; Isaiah 61:1. High Priests – Leviticus 4:3, 5; 16:6.15; cf Exodus 28:41. The King was called the ‘Anointed of YHWH’ – 1 Samuel 24:10. 2 Samuel 7:12ff connects the promise of eternal Davidic dynasty with the coming of Mashiach, clarified in Ezekiel 37:21ff and Zechariah 9:9ff. Christ was anointed by God the Holy Spirit at His Baptism, Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; cf. Isaiah 11:2; 42:1. Together with His offices of Priest and Prophet, the term emphasises His role as the Perfect Official – the Restorer and Deliverer of Israel – Luke 24:21; Acts 4:26.

In terms of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, the Qumran Essene community, authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, expected two figures, the Anointed of Aaron and the Anointed of Israel (1QS 9:11) – the former Priestly, the latter Kingly, and thus inferior to former, (remembering that Qumran was a priestly community). The common hope of most Jews awaited a political/military deliverer who would overthrow the Romans and establish the Davidic Kingdom. Because of this, Jesus was reluctant to employ the term Messiah publicly, especially early in His ministry, so as to avoid misinterpretation. Jesus considered Himself not only the Bringer of the Kingdom of God, but its embodiment – Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:15, Once He had explained His concept of Messiahship, He was willing to accept the term, e.g. John 4:25-26; Mark 8:29, He had to clarify three points in particular:

1. That His Messiahship was characterised by universalism, rather than particularism – John 4:19-23, especially v21; Luke 13:29.

2. His kingdom was spiritual, rather than political – John 18:36.

3. He emphasised that the way to the Crown was the Cross – that the Messiah must suffer – Mark 8:31; John 12:32-34, a concept foreign to the Messianic concept held by current Judaism. For this reason, Jesus used the term ‘Son of Man’, which, whilst associated with authority, was not so linked to nationalistic aspirations.

Guthrie’s New Testament Theology examines the Hebrew background to the Messianic concept, and explains it as follows:

In the Old Testament much is said, especially in the prophets, about the coming messianic age which offered bright prospects to the people of God (cf. Is. 26-29; 40ff; Ezk. 40-48; Dn. 12; Joel 2:28-3:21), but little is said about the Messiah. The title is nowhere used of the coming deliverer. Indeed the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself. But though the absolute use of the term ‘Messiah’ does not occur, there are various uses of the word in a qualified way, such as the Lord’s Messiah (i.e. anointed one). The idea of anointing a person for a special mission appears in a variety of applications, but mainly of kings and priests (Lv. 4:3ff), also of prophets (1 Ki. 19:16) and patriarchs (Ps. 105:15) (cf 1 Sa. 24:6ff; 26:9ff), and even of a heathen king, Cyrus (Is. 45:1). This use of anointing to indicate a specific office became later applied in a more technical sense of the one who, par excellence, would be God’s chosen instrument in the deliverance of his people. The OT without doubt prepares the way for the Messiah and many OT messianic passages are cited in the NT.

During the intertestamental period, the meaning of the term underwent some modifications, in which the technical sense of the Lord’s anointed one becomes more dominant (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17-18). The hope of the coming Messiah took many different forms, but the predominant one was the idea of the Davidic king, who would establish an earthly kingdom for the people of Israel and would banish Israel’s enemies. The Messiah was to be a political agent, but with a religious bias. The concept was a curious mixture of nationalistic and spiritual hopes…

In the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, both which were contemporary with the emerging church, the term occurs, and as in the intertestamental period seems to be linked with the idea of the Davidic son, specifically so in 4 Ezra 12:32-34.40 In the Targums there a frequent technical use of the word mesia, although in view of the difficulty of dating, the value of this evidence is doubtful.

From this brief survey of the background, it becomes clear that whereas the idea of a coming Messiah was widespread among the Jews, the origin and character of the coming Messiah was not clearly understood. Different groups tended to visualize a Messiah who would be conducive to their own tenets – priestly groups like Qumran in priestly terms, nationalist groups in political terms. In determining the approach of Jesus to the term ‘Messiah’ we must bear in mind that he would be concerned with the most popular understanding of the term and there is little doubt that popular opinion leaned heavily towards hope of a coming political leader who would deliver the Jewish people from the oppressive Roman yoke. When seen against this prevalent notion, it is understandable why Jesus avoided the use of the term. 4

We can see why Jesus was reticent about employing the term in public, because of the possibilities of misunderstanding. His kingdom was not of an earthly, political character, and he rejected the invitation to become a monarch of this nature, as can be inferred both from His rejection of Satan’s temptation to become the global ruler on the Devil’s terms, Matthew 4:8-10, and of the attempt of some Jews to install Him as their King, John 6:15. It is for this reason that He commanded His disciples to be silent about His Messianic identity, Matthew 16:20. A further problem was the means by which He would commence His Messianic reign – namely, His death. Immediately after the Petrine confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah in Matthew 16:16, Jesus begins to inform His disciples about His coming death, something they find it hard to understand. The Jews also did not understand, believing that the Messiah ‘remained forever’, John 12:34. This misunderstanding remained until after Jesus’ resurrection, when He informed the disciples about the necessity of His first enduring death as the means to obtaining His reign, Luke 24:26, and their misconceptions were not fully removed until after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then they realised how it was only after His death, resurrection and ascension that He could begin His cosmic reign.

An essential aspect of Messianic identity is Davidic ancestry. In 2 Samuel 7:12-14, we encounter the promise to David that his offspring will be king – ‘I will establish your offspring after you… 13 …I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son…’ Psalm 72:17 celebrates the eternal, universal reign of the Davidic King: ‘His name shall endure for ever; His name shall continue as long as the sun: All nations shall be blessed in him; And men shall call him blessed’. It is significant, as we shall see, that another, closely-related title of Jesus is ‘Son of David’. This in itself proves the so-called Gospel of Barnabas to be fraudulent, since the forgery claims that Muhammad, rather than Jesus, is the Messiah, leaving aside the fact that the Qur’an appends this title only to Jesus, it is obvious that Muhammad, not being a descendant of David, could not claim this prerogative.

2 Samuel 7:14 states that the son of David would also be the son of God, reiterated in Psalm 2:7, which Acts 13:33 states is fulfilled in the Resurrection. We should note that the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 7:12 says ‘anastasw to sperma mou meta se [anastaso to sperma mou meta se] which may be translated ‘I will resurrect your offspring after you…’ 5 Most importantly, it is clear that the throne of David is simultaneously the throne of the Lord God – 1 Chronicles 29:23 – ‘Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king…’ [Significantly, the Kingdom is stated to be both God’s and Christ’s – Ephesians. 5:5]. It is clear that the aspect of divine sonship involved here is synonymous with kingship – when the son of David mounted the throne, then he became the son of God in this sense. As the Heir of David the King, he was the Heir of God, but he was only inaugurated as such and entered into the full exercise of his power when he ascended the throne. This necessitated His death and resurrection, and thus His Ascension into heaven. In this context, we should note the import of Matthew 16:16 and John 20:31, where the titular use of ‘Christ’ is obviously synonymous with ‘Son of God’.

This causes problems for Muslims, since the very title ‘Son of God’ is anathema to them. Yet it can be seen from the Old Testament references the inter-relation of the two terms is not a Christian invention, still less a ‘Pauline’ or Nicene innovation. If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, then He simultaneously claimed to be the Son of God. All of this is particularly significant since the Qur’an nowhere explains the meaning of Al-Masih. The Arabic, like the Hebrew, means ‘anointed’, but we are never told as what. We can only learn this from the Christian Scriptures. This in itself demonstrates the dependence of the Qur’an upon the Bible. Of course, this immediately raises problems for Muslims, since we can see that the Biblical definition of a Messiah is at variance with important aspects of Islamic Christology.

R. H. Fuller observes some important aspects of the Messianic hope of the Old Testament. In regard to Isaiah 7:10-16, he suggests that the term ‘Immanuel’, which of course is used of Jesus in Matthew 1:23, ‘refers to an ideal king of the Davidic line.’ 6 He ‘will reign as the true embodiment of God’s presence with his people…’ 7 We can see how this can be linked with Jesus’ identification with the Temple, the traditional place of divine indwelling, now superseded in His person – John 1:14; 2:19 (Mark 14:58); Colossians 2:9. Jesus, being the ultimate Davidic King, eternally reigns, and perpetually brings the presence of God among His people. This, of course, points to the incarnation. Significantly, the Davidic King in Isaiah 9:6-7 is portrayed as an eternal monarch, and he is explicitly termed ‘Mighty God’:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

These texts are rich with implications for Messianic identity, pointing to a figure who is not simply human, even if he is the scion of David. This is especially true of the title ‘Mighty God’, used of YHWH in Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18. The fact that this divine title is ascribed to the ultimate Davidic King – the Messiah – is a clue to the fact that the Messiah would be simultaneously divine-human. Again, this causes problems for Muslims in that this portrayal is not the result of Christian ‘innovation’, but rather is present in the Old Testament. The learned Old Testament scholar Alec Motyer comments on the passage and its meaning:

Wonderful Counsellor is (lit.) ‘wonder-counsellor’ and ‘wonder’ … means something like ‘supernatural’. The two possibilities are either ‘a supernatural counsellor’ or ‘one giving supernatural counsel’… The decisions of a king make or break a kingdom and a kingdom designed to be everlasting demands a wisdom like that of the everlasting God. In this case, like God because he is God, the Mighty God (‘el gibbor), the title given to the Lord himself in 10:21<22>. Plainly, Isaiah means us to take seriously the ‘el component of this name as of Immanuel… Mighty (gibbor, ‘warrior’) caps the military references in verses 3-5.

God has come to birth, bringing with him the qualities which guarantee his people’s preservation (wisdom) and liberation (warrior strength). Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace describe the conditions the King’s birth will bring. Father is not current in the Old Testament as a title of the kings. Used of the Lord, it points to his concern for the helpless (Ps. 68:5<6>), care or discipline of his people (Ps. 103:13; Pr. 3:12; Is. 63:16; 64:8<7>) and their loyal, reverential response to him (Je. 3:4, 19; Mal. 1:6). For similar ideas used regarding the Davidic King see Psalm 72:4, 12-14; Isaiah 11:4. Probably the leading idea in the name Father here is that his rule follows the pattern of divine fatherhood. As eternal/of eternity’, he receives such an epithet [as] could, of course, be applied to Yahweh alone’… When the people asked for a king they had in mind that a continuing institution would provide them with a security greater and more reassuring than the episodic rule of the judges. But total security requires more even than this stop-go rule and is achieved in a king who reigns eternally… The focal point of the kingdom is David’s throne… In the light of this, we understand that ‘son’ in verse 6 must mean ‘son of David’. Here is the Old Testament Messianic enigma: how can a veritable son of David be Mighty God and ‘Father of eternity’? This was precisely the tension in Old Testament truth which the Lord Jesus tried to make the blinkered Pharisees face in Matthew 22:41-46. 8

In Matthew 22:42ff, Jesus presents a question to the Jews about the Messiah which points to eternal, divine origins of the Messianic Son of David:

42 What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, The son of David.

43 He said to them, Then why did David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet? (Psalm 110:1)

45 If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?

As R. T. France explains, ‘the point of the pericope is not that Jesus is not Son of David, but that he is more than Son of David.’ 9 The implications are that Jesus is the divine Messiah. Another indication of the divine nature of the Messiah is seen in Psalm 44:7f where the Davidic King is addressed as ‘God’ by God; this text is applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8f to Jesus. He is the divine Davidic King. This is also indicated by a point we noted previously that Guthrie observed about the Messianic Age – that ‘the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself.’ The nature of God is revealed in His acts. There is a relationship between the functional and ontological aspects of deity – what God does reveals who He is. When God brought destructive miracles upon the Egyptians, they were revelations to both the Egyptians and the Israelites as to the person and character of God – e.g. Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 8:22. The miracles of Jesus are called signs – John 20:30. They demonstrate His unity with the Father – John 14:9ff. In Acts 7 Stephen reviews the historical acts of God to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. It follows from this that if Jesus causes the arrival of the Messianic Age, then He is God Himself. Again, the inference we draw is that the Messiah is divine.

2. Son of David

This title is, of course, closely related to the term ‘Messiah’ such as to be virtually a synonym. The linkage of the term ‘Messiah’ with the Davidic line has its foundation in divine promise to David conveyed through the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:16, and is witnessed in the canonical prophets (Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23f, 37:24, Hosea 3:5, etc.). It is also found in the intertestamental literature of Judaism (Ecclesiasticus 47:11, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:57; Psalms of Solomon 17:21 – ‘Behold O LORD, and raise up to them their king, the son of David… their king the Anointed [i.e. Messiah] of the LORD), in the Qumran literature and in 4 Esdras 12:32ff in the first century AD. The term does not merely imply descent from David, but rather that Jesus is His Heir – i.e. King-Messiah – Matthew 20:30-31. It indicates that He was the One to restore the Davidic State – Amos 9:11, looking back to 2 Samuel 7. This restoration was not just ‘political’, it was spiritual bringing the people to a holy relationship with God. This Jesus effects by the Cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

Jesus accepted this title when others offered it, but did not employ it Himself because of likely misconceptions, as we observed in our examination of the term ‘Messiah’. The True Israel – those with faith in Jesus – acclaim Him as ‘Son of David’ – Matthew 21:9, 15, the gospel presenting the Davidic Kingdom as embodied in Christ – cf. Mark 11:10. Matthew points out that Jesus was born of the house of David, 1:20, in Bethlehem, 2:1ff. What is especially interesting is that the term is associated with ‘healing power, either requested ([Matthew] 9:27; 15:22; 20:30f) or experienced (12:22f; 21:14f)… Mercy and healing are apparently understood to be the proper activities of the son of David…’ 10

This conception of the miracle-working Son of David points back to the expectation of God effecting cosmological wonders, especially the granting of light to those in darkness, and similarly sight to the blind – Isaiah 9:lff, 29:18, 35:5, 42:7, 16, 43:8, 61:1ff. This also includes spiritual darkness; in Matthew 12:22ff, Jesus exorcises a demon, leading to the multitudes asking ‘can this be the Son of David’, which is followed by Jesus’ assertion that His exorcism has made the Kingdom of God immediate, v28, indicating that as Son of David, He causes the Kingdom to come in. 11 This can be specifically linked to Messianic identity; in Matthew 11:2ff, we read of the ‘deeds of the Christ’:

2 Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else? 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.

The miraculous activity and preaching of the divine ‘good news’ reflects the passages in Isaiah we have already noted.

We also infer from Luke 1:68ff that the heir of David is the agent of salvation and redemption (cf. Acts 13:22ff). This Davidic heir causes the people to serve God in holiness and righteousness. The restoration of the Davidic State required – and effected – an ethical quality in the lives of its subjects – Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:17- c.f. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16. This in itself points to the spirituality of the Kingdom Jesus brought. Hence, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, recognised as Son of David, Matthew 21:9, He immediately cleanses the Temple, indicating the holy nature of His Reign. What is especially noteworthy is the linkage of the holy reign with miraculous activity. After Jesus cleanses the Temple, the blind and lame come to Him there for healing, v14. It can be seen that the Son of David simultaneously effects holiness and miracles. By doing so, He establishes the Kingdom of God.

3. Son of God

Three categories of person are given this title in the Old Testament: angels, e.g. Job 38:7, but this is always in the plural and played no part in the formation of Christology – Hebrews 1:5ff. The two others are:

a) Israel

Grogan points out that ‘In Exodus 4:22f. God appeals to Pharaoh as one father to another.’ 12 Israel was YHWH’s firstborn son – cf. Isaiah 1:2; 30:1; Hosea 11:1. The nature of this sonship is adoptive and its basis is election of purpose (i.e. redemptive mission – to be a blessing to the world – cf. Genesis 28:14; Exodus 19:6) expressed in Covenant relationship, and requiring obedience as its terms. Hence when Israel departed from terms of Covenant, the filial relationship with YHWH was cancelled – Hosea 1:9, The essence of sonship was obedience – Exodus 4:23 – the words of God through Moses to Pharaoh were ‘Let my son go, that he may serve me‘; Israel’s response to the divine revelation of the law was ‘All that the LORD has spoken will we do, and be obedient’, 24:7. Chesed, covenant-love, was not the experience of the infidel – Hosea 1:6. Cullmann writes: ‘In all these texts the title “Son of God” expresses both the idea that God has chosen this people for a special mission, and that this his people owes him absolute obedience.’ 13

This theme of obedient sonship is seen in the New Testament, in the life of Jesus. He is the Elect, i.e. Israel, because He is the Beloved Son – ‘o agaphtov ho agapetos – Mark 1:11, which is generally viewed as reflecting Isaiah 42:1 (and Psalm 2:7), and as such, is contrasted in the parable of the Wicked Tenants with infidel Israel of His day – 12:1-11, especially v6. Note especially the rejection of old Israel by God for killing His true Son – v9. As a result, as the Renowned Biblical scholar Alan Richardson observed, ‘The old Israel is rejected and is no longer God’s beloved “son”; the final act of disobedience is the killing of him of whom it might surely have been said, “They will reverence my son” (Mark 12:6).’ 14

Like Israel, the Son comes ‘out of Egypt’ to perform His mission and establish a new aspect of the eternal covenant, Hosea 11:1/Matthew 2:13-15. To quote Richardson again, ‘As Israel of old, the “son” whom God called out of Egypt, was baptized in the Red Sea and tempted in the Wilderness, so also God’s Son the Messiah is baptized and tempted; Matthew’s quotation of Hos. 11 (Matt, 2:15) contains profound theological truth…’ 15 Connected with this is the ‘love’ theme in the Gospel of John – 3:35 – ‘The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.’ The son of Abraham was described as agaphtov – Genesis 22:2, 12 LXX. The ultimate Son of Abraham is greater – He is the beloved of God Himself. Similarly, the son of Abraham was meant to be sacrificed, only to be replaced by a lamb; Jesus, the unique, beloved Son of God, is the Lamb of God who gives His life to remove the sin of the world – John 1:29, 36. Further, the very phrase employed in John 1:29 echoes the words of Isaiah 40:9 – ‘Behold your God’.

Another parallel is that Israel alone possessed the knowledge of YHWH, by virtue of its election, Amos 3:2 – ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth…’ Likewise, in the ‘bolt from Johannine blue’ Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 Jesus is described as possessing the unique knowledge of the Father – ‘no-one knows the Father except the Son’. The true knowledge of God is possessed only by the obedient Son. This demonstrates that Jesus is the ultimate Israel.

The setting of the Temptation by Satan in the desert, Matthew 4:1ff, is in the nature of fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus endures the same temptations as Israel faced whilst in the desert with Moses, but whereas Old Testament Israel miserably failed the test, Jesus passes with flying colours. Deuteronomy 8:2ff, looking back to Exodus 16:2-3, recalls how God tested Old Israel with hunger, a test, like the others, which would reveal whether Israel knew itself to be, and thus whether in truth it was the People of God. By its moaning and desiring to return to Egypt, Israel displayed itself devoid of faith and thus fails. Jesus, on the other hand, although hungry, does not respond to Satan, but quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 to display that His is the true Son of God, unlike the failed old ‘son’.

The Temple pinnacle temptation was to put God to the test. Faith in God does not require props, or constant dynamic displays. By threatening to stone Moses at Massah, Israel drew from the LORD the act that proved them to be His people – Exodus 17:1-7, so Satan tempts Jesus to seek outward evidence that He is God’s Son by forcing the hand of the LORD, but Jesus refuses, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. The third temptation reflects the collapse into total lack of faith that characterised Israel in Exodus 34 when Moses was up the mountain. Israel committed idolatry. Deuteronomy 6:13-14 forbids the worship of other gods, and Jesus quotes this in passing the test here. The significance of this is that Israel was to secure its national existence by no compromises with the heathen, especially their gods. They were not to be a nation like any other, but rather to be a holy nation. Jesus refuses to the invitation to become a ruler like any other through the means Satan offers – obeisance to him, compromise with the forces controlling the world.

The consequence of all this is that ‘…Israel itself, the people of God, is seen as finding its “fulfilment” both in Jesus himself and in the community which is to result from his ministry.’ 16 Jesus is the ultimate Son of God – the fulfilment of Israel. This is a case of typological correspondence – Jesus is ‘something greater’ – than David, Matthew 12:3-4, so He is the ultimate Davidic King; greater than the prophet Jonah or the wisest of kings, Solomon, 12:41-42; greater than the temple, v6. Jesus is the climactic manifestation of that which they imperfectly represented. 17

(b) Davidic King

The King, of Davidic lineage, is termed Son of God in an adoptive sense – 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 89; 27f. Jesus is such, John 1:49, but as He impresses upon Nathanael, He is more – He is supernatural and pre-existent, v51 – ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.’ This reflects Genesis 28:12, of which a tradition interpreted the Hebrew as referring not to the ladder – ‘on it’, but ‘on him’, which is linguistically possible. The Midrash Bereshith Rabbah 68:18 reflects this tradition. The idea is that the ascending and descending angels symbolised the connection of the earthly Jacob with the heavenly image of the true Israel – remembering that Jacob’s name was later changed to ‘Israel’. The noted Biblical scholar Barnabas Lindars writes about this verse:

The meaning of 1.51 in its context must be deduced from the remaining words about the angels. There is widespread agreement today that John has composed the saying in such a way as to recall Jacob’s dream (Gen. 28.12), ‘And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it’.It is also recognized that the movement of the angels ‘upon the Son of Man’ has a parallel in rabbinic exegesis, in which ‘on it’ (the ladder) is taken to mean ‘on him’ (Jacob). This is possible in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. In the rabbinic exegesis the angels are familiar with the heavenly archetype of the righteous man, and are now delighted to discover the earthly reality in Jacob. It may be conjectured that the ‘greater things (John 1.50) which Jesus’ audience will see are something that belongs to a similar line of exegesis. They will see an act in which the Son of Man on earth reflects a heavenly reality. There is a sense in which this is true of all the acts of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. But it is especially true of the passion, in which death and glorification are two sides of a single reality. 18

In John 1:51, Jesus describes Himself as ‘the Son of Man’, which we will see describes a heavenly being. Jesus thus corrects or improves Nathanael’s perception – indeed Jesus is the royal Messiah, the Son of God in this sense, but He is something more – He is a heavenly being. Likewise, He corrects Nicodemus’ perception of Him as merely a teacher sent from God, John 3:2 – rather, He is the one who was actually of divine generation, being ‘born above’, John 3:3, who descended from heaven, 3:13, indicating that He is not just a human being.

(c) Messiah

Scholars have debated whether the Messiah was so-termed, but the context of 2 Samuel 7:14, together with the many linkages of ‘Son’ and ‘Christ’ would seem to underline this. The New Testament scholar Verseput notes that ‘the messianic reference of 2 Sam 7.14 – “he shall be my son” – was not entirely overlooked by first century Judaism. The Qumran text of 4QFlor 1.10 explicitly applies this promise to the eschatological “scion of David”, while 1QSa 2.11 may allude to Ps 2.7 in regard to the begetting of the Messiah.’ 19 Various texts such as Matthew 16:16; 26:63f; Luke 4:41; Acts 9:20,22; the expression of the High Priest in Matthew 26:63 indicates that contemporary Judaism identified the Messiah as such, in a moral-religious sense. Christ’s resurrection appoints Him, as the Son of God with power – Romans 1:4. It vindicates His claims and ministry. Moo notes an important consideration of this verse:

In speaking this way, Paul and the other NT authors do not mean to suggest that Jesus only becomes the Son at the time of His resurrection. In this passage, we must remember that the Son is the subject of the entire statement in vv. 3-4: It is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son. The tautologous nature of this statement reveals that being appointed Son has to do not with a change in essence – as if a man or human Messiah becomes Son of God for the first time – but with a change in status or function. 20

That to which Moo is referring is the structure of Romans 1:1-4, which testifies to the simultaneous deity and humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was in His divine nature eternally begotten by the Father, and in human nature, of the seed of David:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord…

To these aspects we add two categories of the term ‘Son of God’ that are unique to Jesus:

(i) Nativistic sonship

Matthew 1:18-24; Luke 1:35; John 1:13 – paternity by God through the creative act of the Spirit in Mary’s womb. What the virgin birth of Jesus in this regard does is to demonstrate His supernatural origins, cf. John 3:3. Jesus had no human father – His paternity was of a higher order.

(ii) Trinitarian sonship

Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Second Person of the Trinity – He is God; this is the primary meaning of the term as used by Jesus and New Testament writers. Significantly, at the Baptism, Jesus is hailed as the beloved Son of God by the heavenly voice (bat-qol). The baptism of Jesus is the climax of the ministry of John the Baptist, and it is significant how the ministry of the latter is described in Matthew 3:3 – ‘For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the LORD, make His paths straight.”‘ The quote from Isaiah 40:3 is unambiguously directed towards YHWH; yet here, John Baptist applies it to Jesus. Hence when the bat-qol describes Jesus as the beloved Son of God, the syntax and the theme of John presaging the ministry of Jesus indicates that the reference is not simply to concepts of royal Messiahship; something greater is contemplated. Jesus possesses a unique filial relationship to God.

There are several places where the absolute term The Son – rather than the technical phrase ‘Son of God’ – is employed with respect to Jesus. Whilst Israel and the reigning Davidic King could be described as the ‘Son of God’, the absolute term is unusual, and the contexts in which it is employed do not allow for the metaphorical usage associated with either the nation or the monarchy. We have previously noted that Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22, ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him.’ The use of absolute terms ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ points to an intimate relationship that goes beyond any adoptive sense. What is especially interesting is the reciprocal nature of the intimate knowledge Father and Son possess of each other. It would be expected that God the Father would have intimate knowledge of Jesus as He would of any individual.

However, two bold, surprising claims are made here; firstly, that Jesus, as the Son, possesses a corresponding knowledge of God, this in itself indicating that Jesus is not just human, since God is incomprehensible, with one clause in the verse agrees. Secondly, the text asserts that just as the Father is incomprehensible, so is the Son. So much so, that only the Father possesses such knowledge. This in itself points to the absolute term ‘the Son’ as indicating deity. Ladd writes:

In the process of revelation, the Son fills an indispensable role. ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ (11:27). ‘All things’ refers to ‘these things’ in verse 25, namely, to the entire content of the divine revelation. God, the Lord of heaven and earth, has imparted to the Son the exercise of authority in revelation; it involves the act of entrusting the truth to Christ for communication to others. The ground of this impartation is Jesus’ sonship; it is because God is his Father (v.25) that God has thus commissioned his Son. Because Jesus is the Son of God, he is able to receive all things from his Father that he may reveal them to others. The messianic mission of revelation thus rests upon the antecedent sonship.

What is involved in this relationship is made clear in verse 27: ‘No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.’ Something more is involved in this knowledge of God than a mere filial consciousness. Jesus knows the Father in the same way that the Father knows the Son. There exists between the Father and the Son an exclusive and mutual knowledge. God possesses a direct and immediate knowledge of the Son because he is the Father. It is very clear that this knowledge possessed by the Father is not an acquired knowledge based on experience, but a direct, intuitive and immediate knowledge. It is grounded in the fact that God is the Father of Jesus. In the same sense Jesus knows the Father. His knowledge of the Father is thus direct, intuitive and immediate, and is grounded upon the fact that he is the Son. Thus both the Father-Son relationship and the mutual knowledge between the Father and Son are truly unique and stand apart from all human relationships and human knowledge. Christ as the Son possesses the same innate, exclusive knowledge of God that God as the Father possesses of him.

Because Jesus is the Son and possesses this unique knowledge, God has granted to him the messianic mission of imparting to men a mediated knowledge of God. Man may enter into a knowledge of God only through revelation by the Son. As the Father exercises an absolute sovereignty in revealing the Son, so the Son exercises an equally absolute sovereignty in revealing the Father; he reveals him to whom he chooses. This derived knowledge of God, which may be imparted to men by revelation, is similar but not identical with the knowledge that Jesus has of the Father. The Son’s knowledge of the Father is the same direct, intuitive knowledge that the Father possesses of the Son. It is therefore on the level of divine knowledge. The knowledge that men gain of the Father is a mediated knowledge imparted by revelation through the Son. The knowledge of the Father that Jesus possesses is thus quite unique; and his sonship, standing on the same level, is equally unique. It is a derived knowledge of God that is imparted to men, even as the sonship that men experience through Jesus the Son is a relationship mediated through the Son.

It is clear from this passage that sonship and messiahship are not the same; sonship precedes messiahship and is in fact the ground for the messianic mission. Furthermore, sonship involves something more than a filial consciousness; it involves a unique and exclusive relationship between God and Jesus. 21

France echoes this observation, stating that ‘… “the Son” is seen to be in a unique relationship with God which is his by virtue of who he is, in contrast with the knowledge of the Father which others may indeed come to share, but only as a result of his mediation.’ 22 Jesus, as the Son, is unique. This must be emphasised, since whilst it is true that previous kings of Israel (and Israel as a nation) could claim metaphorical or adoptive divine sonship, Jesus is asserting something special – that He is uniquely the Son, that He possesses a unique knowledge of the Father, and that His own nature is unique such that only the Father knows Him.

Jesus also distinguishes Himself in His address to the Father. He uses the term ‘my Father’ distinctly; He calls God ‘My Father’, Matthew. 11:27; Luke 2:49; and ‘your Father’, Matthew. 5.16, 45; Luke 12:30; but never ‘our Father’, save as giving a prayer-form to disciples. He speaks in John 20:17 of ‘ my Father’ and ‘your Father’. The Jews recognised He claimed equality with God by the title – John 5:18. Again, the emphasis is on uniqueness. It has been noted that Jesus normally referred to God as ‘abba. This means ‘father’, and it has been claimed that it may also denote ‘daddy’, although this is now challenged. Although not unprecedented in Judaism, it not common for Jews to regularly address the Almighty in this intimate way, yet it was precisely by this form that Jesus generally spoke to God. The learned Biblical scholar James Dunn has observed ‘…Jesus regular approach to God as “Abba” appears to be unusual for his day.’ 23 Richardson comments with regard to Mark 14:36, ‘The use of ‘abba makes it difficult to deny that Jesus thought of himself as uniquely God’s Son, or to suppose that the church derived the idea of his Sonship from any other source than Jesus himself.’ 24

Another indication of the special character of the absolute term is found with relation to the end of the world. The date of the last day, Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32, is known by ‘not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’. Ladd observes, ‘The force of this saying is found in the fact that such things ought to be known to angels and to the Son as well as the Father. The point is that Jesus classes himself with the Father and the angels – all partaking normally of supernatural knowledge. At this point, contrary to expectations, the Son is ignorant.’ 25 Further, the use of the absolute term in the context of heavenly beings is significant, likewise a unique character the divine sonship of Jesus that is not comparable to the adoptive sonship of the Old Testament Davidic Kings.

We earlier noted the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-6). The vineyard clearly represents the Land, the lord thereof is God, and the tenants are Israel – Leviticus 25:23 ‘…the land is mine: for you are aliens and my tenants’, cf. Isaiah 5:1-7. The servants sent by the lord of the vineyard are clearly the prophets, as Dunn recognises. 26 What is important in this context is that after the servants, the lord of the vineyard sends his ‘beloved son’ (‘uion agaphton) – the same term used at the Baptism and the Transfiguration in respect to Jesus. Again, the term ‘my son’ (‘uion mou) is employed in the Marcan text, v6. It would seem, therefore, that Jesus is distinguished from previous servants of God not simply by being the last or the greatest, but by being God’s Son. Ladd comments:

In the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mk. 12:1-12), sonship is again differentiated from messiahship and provides the antecedent ground of the messianic mission, After the visit of the several servants had proven fruitless, the landowner sent his son to receive the inheritance. It is because he was the son that the owner expects this last mission to be successful, and his sonship is quite independent of and anterior to his mission. It is because he is the son that he becomes the heir of the vineyard and is sent to enter into his inheritance. 27

A clear indication of the deity of the Son and the Trinity is found in the use of the absolute term in Matthew 28:19, where baptism is enjoined in the name (note the singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Father is divine, and it is clear from Matthew 1:18; 1:20; 3:11; 12:32 that the same is true of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the absolute term ‘Son’ is used in concert with ascriptions of the Deity. This becomes even more apparent in the Gospel of John. The use of the absolute term is found on the lips of Jesus several times there as well. 28 A clear indication of deity is found in John 5:23 ‘that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.’ The way one honours the Father is to worship Him – John 4:21ff. Hence, the same honour should be given to the Son – i.e. He should be worshipped, which means He must be God.

In John 5:21we read, unsurprisingly, that the Father ‘raises the dead’. What is arresting is that this statement is made in the context of analogy – ‘For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.’ That is, the Son possesses what is normally seen as a divine prerogative – the action of resurrection, including the choice of whom to raise from the dead. The object of faith and obedience is not said to be first the Father, but the Son – 3:36 ‘The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.’ It is faith in the Son that leads to the resurrection of the righteous – 6:40 ‘For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’

Furthermore, it is emphasised that the divine sonship of Jesus is unique – John 3:16 ton ‘uion ton monogenh – monogeneshas the sense of ‘unique’. William Walker observes ‘It is now generally agreed that monogenhv should be translated as “only” rather than “only-begotten”… monogenhv, as applied to Jesus, should be translated as “only one of its kind” or “unique”…’ 29Jesus is not just any son of God – He is the unique Son. As the New Testament scholar Walter Kümmel writes, ‘Thus the relationship of Father and Son appears to be that of complete equality, so that the Son stands beside God as a divine being and cannot actually be distinguished from God.’ 30 Kümmel also comments with respect to 8:38a (‘I speak the things that I have seen with my Father’), that ‘the Son’s present seeing and hearing has its ground in the Son’s pre-existent being with the Father.‘ 31

Hence, when the New Testament epistles take up this title, as in Romans 1:3-4; Galatians 4:4 (which indicates pre-existence); Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 1:2, 5, 8; 3:6, such usage is not a Pauline innovation, but rather reflects what Jesus Himself asserted – that He was the unique eternal Son of God. Ultimately, only God Himself – in the person of the Son, could effect the work of redemption.

4. Son of Man

This was the favoured self-expression of Jesus – used over eighty times by Him, and apart from only two occasions, by Him alone. The term is frequently misunderstood as an ascription of humanity. In fact, the term indicates that Jesus is a heavenly being. The existence of the Similitudes of Enoch, a Jewish apocalypse, does seem to indicate that there was a tradition of what Ladd describes as ‘a messianic title of a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth…’ 32 The text of the Similitudes (62:7) presents the ‘Most High’ (i.e. God) as having ‘preserved him [i.e. the Son of Man] in the presence of his might…’He existed prior to creation, 48:2f. He is also described in 48:10; 52:4 as the ‘anointed one (Messiah) of the Lord of spirits’. The Son of Man later sits on his ‘throne of glory’, 62:5. The same chapter, v11, reveals his role in judgment.

A later Jewish work, 4 Esdras (Apocalypse of Ezra), displays a Son of Man (Syriac barnasa) identified with the Messiah (7:78, 29; 12:32), an apocalyptic Redeemer, who rides upon the clouds. Furthermore, God speaks of him as ‘my Son’, 13:32, 37, 52. He is described in 13:26 as the one ‘whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation’. In 7:28-29, God refers to ‘my son the Messiah’, who will die. In 12:32-34 we read of ‘the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will set them living before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But he will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people, those who have been saved…’ These works give an indication that the New Testament usage of the term was not innovative, nor was the connection between the Messiah and the Son of Man, nor the idea that this figure was also God’s Son.

(a) Origins of the Term

1. Psalm 8:4 – the parallelism would suggest that Son of Man simply means ‘man’. With this would agree the natural rendering of the Aramaic term bar nasha ‘a man’, ‘Man’, ‘the son of the man’. The psalm is used in Christological fashion in Hebrews 2. That this is not the meaning of the term as used by Jesus can be illustrated from an examination of Luke 9:58 – ‘And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.’ The great Biblical scholar T. W. Manson observed ‘…the simple meaning “man” is ruled out, since men in general have somewhere to lay their heads: the homeless man is the exception.’ 33

2. Ezekiel 37:3 – used vocatively ninety times in Ezekiel. Cf. similar usage in Daniel 8:17. In this case it would seem to indicate ‘Prophet’. Significantly, it is used of two men who had heavenly visions – Daniel and Ezekiel.

3. Psalm 80:17 – the context suggests that the term is equivalent to ‘Israel’. In this respect many scholars have seen equivalence between Son of Man and the Remnant of Israel, as we shall see. The Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) on this identifies the Son of Man as ‘King Messiah’.

4. Daniel 7:13, 14ff – a heavenly, supernatural being who comes to God to receive power and authority over all humanity. The contrast is with the beasts, representing the pagan nations, whilst the Son of Man represents, though is not identified with the Saints of the Most High – i.e. faithful Israelites. F. F. Bruce writes ‘…for Daniel the “one like a son of man” is not the symbolical personification of the saints but their heavenly representative.’ 34 In a sense, therefore, the Son of Man is the heavenly Israel – remembering the Midrash (rabbinic commentary) Bereshith Rabbah we observed earlier. It is clear that this is the usage employed by Jesus, so that this is the meaning intended by Him – e.g. Matthew 26:63-64; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:67-70 – as in Daniel 7, the Son of Man comes on the clouds. Matthew 28:18ff also reflects this – Jesus has been given cosmic authority. Stephen saw the Son of Man in heaven, at God’s right hand, i.e. the place of authority – Acts 7:56.

(b) Significance of the Term

(i) It stressed the heavenly origins and nature of Jesus – John 3:13-14. Jesus descended from heaven. There is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus is an angelic figure – in fact this is specifically rejected in Hebrews 1:4-7, 13. However, when we consider other aspects of the Gospel of John, especially Jesus’ clear affirmation of deity in 8:58, and the assertion of the Evangelist under divine inspiration in 1:1 of the deity of Jesus, we need have no doubt that when Jesus employed the term ‘Son of Man’, He was asserting His heavenly nature – i.e. that He was God.

To this we may add Luke 15:3-7; 19:10, which present the Son of Man as Shepherd of Israel – cf. Ezekiel 34:16; the Son of Man separates the Sheep from the Goats – and gives the kingdom to the saints – Matthew 25:31f, 34 – cf. Ezekiel 34:17, (and v13, 25). It is clear therefore, that far from indicating His humanity, the term implied His deity.

(ii) The term was His public substitute for Messiah – Mark 8:29, 31; John 12 v34; unlike the latter, the title ‘Son of Man’ possessed no ready-made Jewish ideas of nationalist aggression. It also allowed Jesus to indicate that He was the heavenly Messiah – E. J. Young in his commentary on ‘Daniel’ points out that ‘Among the Jews the Messiah came to be known as anani “Cloudy One” or bar nivli “Son of a Cloud.”‘ 35 Note also the connection of clouds with deity – Isaiah 19:1; Psalm 104:3. The noted Jewish scholar of early Judaism, Geza Vermes, observes the following points about the Messianic connotations of the Danielic figure in Jewish circles:

In the earliest comment available, that of Rabbi Akiba (died in AD 135), the mention of ‘thrones ‘in Daniel 7:9 is said to indicate that there will be two of them, one occupied by God, the other by ‘David’, the royal Messiah… A commentary on Genesis identifies the King Messiah as Anani, the last scion of the family of David mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:24, by interpreting his name from Daniel 7:13, Anani = ‘clouds’ (‘anane): i.e. Cloud-Man. The same explanation is incorporated into the Targum of 1 Chronicles 3: 24:

Anani is the King Messiah who is to be revealed.

The second tour de force is that of the Babylonian Rabbi Nahman bar Jacob of the early fourth century AD, who obtained the obscure Messianic title, bar niphle (‘son of the Fallen One’ in Aramaic = the ‘son of David’) from Amos’s allusion to the raising up of the fallen tent of David. His Galilean interlocutor, Rabbi Isaac the Smith, was not impressed, no doubt because for him niphle was not an Aramaic but a Greek word meaning ‘cloud’ (nephele). It is in fact likely that in Galilee, where Jews were to some degree Hellenized, Daniel 7:13 was the source of the half-Aramaic, half-Greek Messianic title, bar nephele, ‘son of the cloud’. 36

In Mark 14:62 the High Priest questions Jesus ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus replies ‘I am: and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Bruce writes about this statement:

It is as though Jesus meant ‘If “Christ” (“Messiah”) is the term which you insist on using, then I have no option but to say “Yes”; but if I may choose my own words, I tell you that you will see the Son of man…’ In this reply the language of Daniel 7:13f. is fused with that of Psalm 110:1, where one whom the psalmist calls ‘my lord’ is invited in an oracle to take his seat at Yahweh’s right hand until his enemies are subdued beneath his feet. 37

The conflation of the Davidic King with the Son of Man figure shows that Jesus both wished to avoid nationalist concepts of Messiahship by employing the Danielic term, and also to underline that He was not simply human. It is clear that the High Priest understood what Jesus was claiming, since he then accuses Jesus of ‘blasphemy’. Rowe notes that the Hebrew equivalent of bar nasha is ben ‘adam. 38 Rowe observes that in various Psalms, especially 80:17, this phrase is used of the Davidic King. As with the figure in Daniel 7:13-14, he is so closely associated with Israel as to be their representative. 39 Rowe notes that C. H. Dodd, an important Biblical scholar, in his book According to the Scriptures (p. 101f), saw that Psalm 80:17 with its identification of ‘”God’s right-hand Man” (the one who “sits at God’s right hand”) with the divinely strengthened “Son of Man,” might well be regarded as providing direct scriptural justification for the fusion of the two figures in Mark 14:62.’ 40 It can be inferred from this, and from the other Jewish traditions identifying the Son of Man with the Messiah and as the divine Son that the New Testament portrayal of a divine Messiah was not arbitrary or the result of Hellenising or pagan influences as Muslims claims; rather, it reflected existing Palestinian Jewish traditions, including, of course, those in the Old Testament.

(iv) The Son of Man is connected with judgment – cf. Daniel 7:26. The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins – Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24. Jesus has authority to judge because He is Son of Man – John 5:27. This shows the influence of Daniel 12:2, especially v28f. The Son of Man specifically judges Israel (i.e. the generation to which Jesus came) – Matthew 24:30, referring to the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, presents the Roman destruction of the city as the vindication of Jesus’ Messiahship (the same point is there in Acts 7:55-56) – cf. Matthew 26:64. The ‘Great Tribulation’ of AD 70 displays that Jesus is enthroned in heaven (not ‘sky’ as NIV) – cf. Acts 2:30, 33, 34-35, 36 – and note v40, cf. Matthew 24:34: that is, the Judgment on the Jews of AD 70 establishes that Jesus is the Messianic King. The Son of Man is also the universal judge – Matthew 25:32, despatching the Lost to Hell and the Righteous to their inheritance – i.e. Heaven.

(d) The Son of Man is a royal figure – He is given authority and sovereignty – Daniel 7:14; Jesus received this upon the Ascension – v13, Acts 2:30 – He sits on a throne. He judges from a throne, Matthew 25:31, as King, v34. Again, this universal authority reflects Messianic expectations, as witnessed in Psalm 2:8. Moreover, He gives the kingdom to the saints – Daniel 7:18, 22, 27; Matthew 25:34; Luke 21:28, 31. Note that this occurs through judgment – Daniel 7:22, 26-27; Luke 21:27-28.

(e) The Son of Man is associated with suffering. Whilst the actual figure in Daniel does not suffer, we must remember he represents the Saints who are enduring harassment. In Daniel 7:21ff, we encounter the ‘little horn’, usually considered a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Coele-Syria, who began the religious/cultural persecution of Judæa in 168-167 BC, of which the most serious abuse was the desecration of the Temple in 167 by the erection of a pagan altar to Zeus – the ‘Abomination of Desolation’. 41 Bruce informs us what this meant in practice:

The idea of centralization of the worship was abolished along with the other distinctive features of the old order; altars in honour of ‘the lord of heaven’ were now set up throughout Judaea – in the market place of Jerusalem and in every town and village throughout the territory. The inhabitants of each place were required to sacrifice at these local altars, and severe penalties were imposed on those who refused, as also on those who persisted in observing those Jewish practices whose abolition had been decreed by the king. What followed was in effect a thorough-going campaign of persecution on Religious grounds – perhaps the first campaign of this kind in history. To circumcise one’s children, to be found in possession of a roll of the sacred law, to refuse to eat pork or the meat of animals offered on these illicit altars, were capital offences. 42

This persecution, which involved brutal and often indiscriminate execution, was resisted by the guerrillas known as the ‘Maccabees’, more properly the surname of Judas, the son of the priest Mattathiah who began the resistance. After a four-year fight they prevailed against Antiochus, and eventually in 142 BC Judæa won its independence. Bruce notes the reference to this in the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees 13:41 – ‘In the 170th year [of the Seleucid era] the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel.’ 43 The Saints of the Most High, after their suffering, were vindicated by victory, and received the kingdom. The text of Daniel 7:21ff predicts this outcome:

21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom… 25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he will intend to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. 26 But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Wright comments on the chapter: ‘But when the “most high”, the “Ancient of Days” takes his seat, judgment is given in favour of “the saints”/”one like a son of man” (verses 13, 18, 22, 27); they are vindicated and exalted, with their enemies being destroyed, and in their vindication their god himself is vindicated…’ 44 Later in the Book of Daniel, 9:25, we read of an ‘anointed one, a prince’. The Old Testament scholar John Goldingay suggests that since non-Israelite rulers in Daniel are otherwise described, the likelihood is that here we encounter an Israelite figure. 45 Later, this ‘anointed one’ is ‘cut off’, v26, as Rowe states, ‘presumably by an untimely death.’ 46 Rowe also comments that saints of the Most High ‘suffer persecution and apparent defeat at the hands of the final king (vv. 21, 25; cf. Rev. 13:7).’ 47 It is at this point that Rowe observes that ‘in some of the psalms the Davidic king is said to experience suffering, while in Psalm 80, as ben adam, he is identified with Israel in their tribulation prior to his exaltation.’ 48 Earlier, Rowe noted the suggestion that ‘the king appears in situations of profound suffering, as in Psalm 22. A consistent line of scholarship has maintained the likelihood that the king took part in a temple ritual… in which he suffered humiliation before being restored to his throne.’ 49 Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings proposes a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, p. 58ff, and this seems to be borne out by the references in Enoch of the Son of Man being the ‘light of the Gentiles’, 48:4, and the ‘Chosen’, 46:2, terms usually attributed to the Servant, Isaiah 49:6; 41:8. In 4 Esdras 16:35 the subject is described as ‘servant of the LORD’. This suggests the existence of a tradition linking the Danielic and Isaianic figures.

From this, it can be understood that once the equation of the Son of Man with the Messiah is grasped, the New Testament concept of the suffering Messiah, as in Mark 10:45 (‘For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’) is not a Christian innovation, but reflects Israelite history and Old Testament doctrine. The suffering Son of Man/Messiah that was Jesus died to ransom His people, but His suffering was vindicated when He rose again (and note the resurrection references in Daniel 12), and then came to God to receive universal royal authority, as does the son of man figure in Daniel 7. Just as the foes of the saints are destroyed in Daniel, Matthew 24:30 predicts the divine vengeance on the city where the Lord was crucified – and the days of vengeance did indeed invest Jerusalem in AD 70, the sign that Jesus is the Son of Man who ascended to heaven to receive cosmic kingship. It is important to note how this was achieved. Jesus spoke of His crucifixion as an exaltation and glorification, John 8:28; 12:23; 13:31. The cross was His avenue to the throne, and even on the cross He dies as King of Israel, John 19:19.

5. Servant of the LORD

In the prophecy of Isaiah, we encounter a figure called ebed YHWH – the Servant of the LORD. The ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah, 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 deal with the activities of this figure. At times the figure appears to be Israel, at others he seems to be an individual. In Isaiah 42:1ff, the Servant appears to be an individual who is commissioned for service by being anointed with the Spirit, who brings forth justice (mishpat) to the Gentiles. In 49:1ff, at first the figure appears to be an individual, then is identified as ‘Israel’ in v3, and then in v5 is commissioned to return Israel to YHWH! It would appear from this description that the Servant is a prophet, and it should be noted that the phrase ‘my servants, the prophets’, is a frequent occurrence in the Old Testament – e.g. Jeremiah 44:4. In Isaiah 49:6, his commission is greater than a particular call to Israel – he is to be a light to the Gentiles. In 50:4ff, he seems to be definitely an individual, and in v6 is presented as suffering – ‘I gave my back to those striking me, and my cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not cover my face from humiliation and spitting.’ Despite this, the figure trusts in the vindication of YHWH, vv. 7-9.

The paradox becomes greater in 52:13-15. God declares that His Servant will be ‘exalted’ (or glorified) and ‘lifted up’, the Septuagint employing the very words (dokew and ‘uqow) Jesus uses in texts such as John 12:23, 32 to describe His crucifixion, which will provide salvation for all humanity. 50 In the Isaianic text the Servant is simultaneously exalted whilst suffering, v14 – again, a parallel with Jesus in the gospel texts mentioned. In v15 it is stated that it is precisely through this means that he will sprinkle many nations (‘many’ is a Semitism for ‘all’). Motyer comments: ‘…the Servant “shall sprinkle… many nations”; his work is priestly, and many nations receive his priestly ministry…’ 51 Thus, the Servant is not just a prophet, he is simultaneously a priest. In 53:1-12, the Servant becomes a figure whose suffering is seen by others as the judgment of God, yet paradoxically, he suffers not for any wrong-doing of his own, but for the sin of everyone else, vv. 5, 12, and this by the determinate plan of God – vv. 6, 10, and through his suffering those for whom he is undergoing this scourging are declared righteous, v11.

Hence, when John 12:38ff quotes Isaiah 53, and v41 declares that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke about Him, the Gospel was not being arbitrary. Further, whilst other prophets may have suffered as a consequence of proclaiming their message to a sinful or apostate people, only this Servant suffers in the predestination of God as the very means of bringing salvation to those same sinners. We never encounter another person proclaimed to be a prophet whose suffering is seen as salvatory for others. Whatever privations Muhammad and his followers may have endured in Mecca prior to the Hijrah, it is never claimed that this suffering in itself was the actual means of salvation for those persecuting the Muslims. However vehemently Muslims assert the prophethood of Muhammad, they never claim that he was simultaneously a priest. Muslims are always loud in their denunciation of the idea of representative or vicarious suffering/sacrifice. 52 Yet it is precisely by the suffering of the Servant that redemption for all humanity is effected. His suffering does not bring salvation, justification, righteousness or anything similar for Himself, but rather for others. This figure cannot be Muhammad, but it clearly fits the Gospel portrayal of Jesus. As such, it demonstrates that the New Testament claims of His death being a priestly, sacrificial self-offering reflect the Old Testament and Jewish tradition.

(a) The Servant and the Son of Man

We earlier noted the suggestion in Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings that there is a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, and parallel references in Enoch and 4 Esdras. 53 One of the reasons Bruce suggests this identification is that the sufferings of the Isaianic Servant ‘are explicitly said to procure the removal of sin for others… there is some reason to think that the Daniel texts we have been considering , and some others associated with them, had the Isaianic Servant Songs in view and were indeed intended to provide an Interpretation of them.’ 54 Bruce finds this association in the references to the ‘wise’ in Daniel:

One of the designations of the faithful in the time of trial depicted in Daniel’s visions is maskilim, the ‘wise’ or the ‘teachers’ (i.e. those who acquire wisdom or those who impart it, the latter activity naturally following from the former). The reference is especially to those who communicate to others the insight which they themselves have gained into the times of the end; ‘none of the wicked shall understand, but the maskilim shall understand’ (Dan. 12:10). Daniel himself is given such insight: when Gabriel is about to impart to him the revelation of the seventy heptads, he says, ‘I have come out to make you wise (le haskileká)… know therefore and understand (wetaskél) that… there are to be seven heptads…’ (Dn. 9:22, 25).

When the minds of many are shaken by the apostates, ‘those who make the people wise (maskilê ‘am) shall make many understand’, although their faithfulness involves them in severe persecution (Dn. 11:33). So severe will the persecution be, indeed, that some even of the maskilim will fall away, but their defection will but serve to refine those who remain faithful (Dn. 11:35). And when at last the righteous are delivered and the faithful departed are raised to everlasting life, ‘the maskilim shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness (masdiqê hárabbin) like the stars for ever and ever’ (Dn. 12:1-3).

It would be rash to draw too certain inferences from the coincidence between these instances of the hiph’il conjugation of skl and the opening words of the fourth Servant Song, hinneh yaskil ‘abdî, ‘behold, my servant will deal wisely’ (Is. 52:13); but that we have to do with more than a mere coincidence is suggested by the statement in Isaiah 53:11 that the Servant will by his knowledge ‘make the many to be accounted righteous’ (yasdiq… lárabbîm) -i.e. he will fulfil the role assigned to the maskilim in Daniel 12:3. But if Daniel is thus providing an interpretation of the figure of the suffering Servant, it is a corporate interpretation. 55

To Bruce’s observations I would add another. As we noted at the beginning of this section, the Servant at certain times seem to be Israel, whilst at others the figure appears to be an individual. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the Saints of the Most High – in other words, faithful Israel. Israel was depicted as God’s son, and so when Jesus was described as the Son of God, one aspect of the term referred to His being the true Israel, a point emphasised in the Gospel of Matthew by the reference to Him as ‘the Son of Abraham’, 1:1, and by the Wilderness Temptations. In the Gospel of John, Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the true Vine’, 15:1, in a context of sonship – ‘my Father is the vine-dresser’. By this Jesus did not mean that other vines were impostors, but that He was the true Israel. In Psalm 80:8, 14, Israel is described as the ‘vine’ God brought ‘out of Egypt’.

Parallel to the latter clause, we find Israel depicted as the son of God He rescued out of Egypt – Hosea 11:1 ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.’ This is interpreted in Messianic terms in Matthew 2:14-15 ‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.”‘ We have already examined the connection between Psalm 80 and the Son of Man figure, and it is significant that a variant of v15 in the psalm is ‘son’, rather than branch. At any rate, the representation of Israel as God’s Son, the link between faithful Israel and the Son of Man, and the fact that the Suffering Servant is depicted as Israel provides a connection between the different figures. Like the picture in Daniel, there is suffering, vindication and exaltation (cf. Isaiah 53:12).

(b) The Servant and the Messiah

There are indications in Isaiah itself that suggest a Messianic connection with the Servant. In 49:8 we read the following ‘Thus says the LORD, In an acceptable time have I answered you, and in a day of salvation have I helped you; and I will preserve you, and give you as a covenant for the people…’ As the Old Testament scholar Martens elaborates, ‘…the servant songs tapped the traditions of the exodus. Israel in exile is promise a return after the pattern of the earlier exodus… As at the exodus, Yahweh will have compassion on his afflicted (49:13; cf. Ex. 6:3)…. The servant delivers from a captivity which more than physical.’ 56 Earlier in Isaiah, we also read of the Second Exodus, but in this case, the agent is clearly a Messianic figure – ‘stem of Jesse’, a reference to David’s father. Motyer writes ‘The reference to Jesse indicates that the shoot is not just another king in David’s line but another David.’ 57 In this respect, we should note Grogan’s observation that the Servant in some ways ‘seems to sum up in himself elements of the three great offices of prophet, priest and king… like a king he wins victories and divides spoil (Isaiah 53:12) and is exalted to a place of great authority (Isaiah 52:13).‘ 58 Obviously, by definition, the Messiah is a king. Mark 1:11(the Baptism) conflates a messianic psalm, Psalm 2, with a Servant passage, Isaiah 42:1 – the Son is the Servant with whom God is pleased.

Like the Servant in 42:1; 61:1, the figure in Isaiah 11 is anointed with the Spirit, and like the Servant, whilst effecting the exodus, he also gathers the nations (Gentiles) to him:

1 And there will come forth a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots will bear fruit.

2 And the Spirit of the LORD will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD…

10 And it will come to pass in that day, that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, who will stand as a sign of the peoples; and his resting-place will be glorious.

11 And it will come to pass in that day, that the LORD will set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, who remain, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12 And he will set up a standard for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

It should also be noted in 11:4 that the Davidic figure destroys the wicked – i.e. the enemies of God. We have previously noted the Isaianic references in John 12, and two aspects of the ‘lifting-up’, which is explicitly identified with the means of Jesus’ death in v32, is that this exaltation is the means of the vanquishing of the Devil, v31 ‘Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’ Simultaneously this exalted death is the instrument for the gathering of all humanity to Himself – v32 ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.’ Again, in v20, Gentiles come and request to see Jesus, at which point He declares the time had come for the Son of Man to be glorified, v23, another allusion to His death. His crucifixion is the means of bringing the Gentiles as well as the Jews into a covenant relationship with God. In Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos. This is accompanied by the bat-qol in v35 identifying Jesus in terms of the Servant as ‘My Chosen’, as well s being God’s Son. Jesus death is the ultimate exodus that delivers people from spiritual darkness, in the way Martens suggested the Servant effects in the Second Exodus from Babylon.

(c) The Servant and Miracles

Both Islam and the Bible present Jesus as performing miracles, so this point is not contentious. What is interesting for this study is that just as the Messianic term ‘Son of David’ is associated with healing and deliverance, the Servant figure is likewise. In Matthew 8:16-17, we read the following, with reference to Isaiah 53:4:

16 ‘And when evening arrived, they brought to him many demon-possessed people: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick: 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.’

It follows that it is a common function of the Son of David and the Servant to heal and exorcise, indicating a Messianic connotation with the Servant figure. So, when Jesus heals or drives out demons, He does so as Messiah – as Son of David, and as the Servant of the LORD. This is important for the Christian-Muslim debate. When Jesus died on the cross, He did so to ‘exorcise’ the Devil – to cast out his dominion, John 12:31. This exorcising action is effected by the Isaianic paradox – i.e. by the suffering of the Servant. Similarly, the spiritual healing Jesus wrought by His suffering is demonstrated by 1 Peter 2:24, quoting Isaiah 53:5 – ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin, and live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.’ Jesus clearly saw Himself as the representative suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:12 – ‘numbered with the transgressors’, as witnessed in Luke 22:37 ‘For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, “And he was numbered with transgressors”: for that which refers to me has its fulfilment.’ Jesus definitely saw Himself as the one who would suffer death for sinners to bring them redemption.

(d) The Servant and ‘the Anointed One’

France points to another Messianic connection with the Servant to be found in Isaiah:

Isaiah 61:1-3 describes a figure closely similar to the Servant as depicted in Isaiah 42:1-7: both are endued with the Spirit of Yahweh, open blind eyes, and bring prisoners out of darkness. Both are, in other words, sent and equipped by Yahweh to deliver the oppressed and wretched, and both are characterized by their gentleness. This similarity has many to regard Isaiah 61:1-3 as a fifth ‘Servant Song’. 59

As France observes, Jesus identifies Himself with this figure in the Nazareth synagogue, at the beginning of His public ministry. 60 Jesus claims the immediate fulfilment of the passage – ‘To-day this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears’, Luke 4:21, which France describes as ‘a deliberate identification of his work as that described in Isaiah 61:1-3. He is the Lord’s anointed; the Messiah has come.’ 61 To France’s suggestions we should add that the pericope in Luke follows the Wilderness Temptations, when Jesus is assaulted for being the Son of God, which itself follows the Baptism, where the bat-qol describes Jesus as the ‘beloved Son, with whom I am pleased’, reflecting Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42:1. There is thus a logical progression in the events of Jesus’ ministry, as both Servant and Messiah, and as the Anointed Deliverer.

It is also significant that after being anointed by the Spirit at the Baptism, Jesus is said to enter the Wilderness being full of the Spirit, Luke 4:1, where he battles the Enemy, and then after His victory in the desert, He returns ‘in the power of the Spirit into Galilee’, 4:14. The implication in v23, and suggested by Gospel parallels (Matthew 4:23ff; Mark 1:23ff), is that Jesus had been performing ‘the deeds of the Messiah’ as we examined earlier – works of healing and exorcism. As France notes, the pericope identifying these acts, Matthew 11:5/Luke 7:22, is based on Isaiah 61:1 and 35:5-6 – ‘God’s time of salvation has come. Jesus is the one anointed to be the bringer of that salvation.’ 62 The two Isaianic texts are also linked by the common theme of divine judgment, retribution or vengeance, 35:4; 61:2. A further point of significance is that 35:4 warns ‘behold your God’, indicating a divine epiphany, just as 40:3, quoted of the ministry of John Baptist preparing the way for Jesus, Matthew 3:3. This indicates that the anointed figure we encounter in Isaiah is also divine.

(e) The Servant and Mark 10:45

A text that both conflates the Son of Man and Servant figures in pointing to the redemptive death of Jesus is Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28) ‘For the Son of man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’, which reflects Isaiah 53:12 ‘he bore the sin of many’. Guthrie observes ‘The idea of suffering would naturally link with the Isaianic figure.’ 63 We may compare this verse with Mark 8:31 ‘And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again’; cf. also Luke 19:10 – ‘For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.’ At first glance this seems strange, for, as we have seen, the Son of Man, in Daniel does not suffer himself. However, he does represent people who are suffering, and as the Isaianic figure is presented, it is through such suffering that He enters into His glory (cf. Luke 24:25-26). Mark 10:45 does indeed seem to presents us with Jesus’ death being representative/vicarious, which definitely fits the description of the Servant figure. Thus the description of the Anointed One/Messiah/Son of Man/Servant is that he enters His reign by a sacrificial death which secures redemption for sinners.

Lindars writes about this text, and its Isaianic connotations, especially with respect to its sacrificial aspects:

The sacrificial significance of lutron in the present passage is fixed by the words which immediately follow it, ‘for many’ (anti pollon). An astonishingly similar phrase occurs in the formulaic passage 1 Tim. 2.6, ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’ (ho dous heauton antilutron huper panton); cf. Titus 2.14. Seeing that the sacrificial connotation of lutron derives from the idea of a ransom-price (e.g., for manumission of a slave), the most likely Aramaic equivalent would be kopher… The word ‘ransom’ (lutron) should be regarded as interpretative. It is not a quotation from Isa. 53:10, but… the ransom idea is a legitimate way of interpreting the prophecy as a whole… the feature which gives to the saying its sacrificial connotation, i.e. the prepositional phrase ‘for many’ (anti pollon), also occurs in Mark’s version of the eucharistic blessing of the cup (Mark 14:24, huper pollon), and this is reflected in Paul’s version of the blessing of the bread (1 Cor. 11:24, huper humon, ‘for you’). 64

The problem of ‘ransom’ (lutron) not being an exact equivalent of m#) (asham), the latter normally meaning an ‘offering for sin’, is answered by the fact that lutron usually translates into Hebrew as Kopēr, ‘a covering’, similar to the Aramaic term Lindars mentions. The noun in related to the verb kipper which in Leviticus 5:16 expresses the effect of the m#) – the term employed in Isaiah 53:10. France, explaining Mark 10:45 in terms of its Old Testament background, makes the following observations:

Firstly, the meaning of substitution is not absent from m#):aaa while in Numbers 5:7, 8 it is a restitution to the one wronged (though, presumably, except in cases of actual theft, the restitution of an equivalent), in other cases it signifies the sacrifice presented to make atonement for the sinner; he is guilty (m#)) but the presentation of an m#) in his place removes his guilt. This is hardly distinguishable from the substitution of an equivalent, or, therefore, from the meaning of lutron. So in Isaiah 53:10, ‘the Messianic servant offers himself as an m#) in compensation for the sins of the people, interposing for them as their substitute.’ lutron or whatever Aramaic word lies behind it, is therefore not far from equivalent to m#). Secondly, Isaiah 53 as a whole presents the work of the Servant as one of substitution, in that in his suffering and death he bears the sins of the people, resulting in their healing; God places their sins on him, and bruises him for their iniquities. This idea of substitution is admitted to be central to lutron, and is even more obvious in anti [i.e. ‘instead of’]. Even if no linguistic echo were established, dounai thn quchn autou lutron anti pollwn is a perfect summary of the central theme of Isaiah 53, that of a vicarious and redeeming death.

pollwn (‘many’). This is probably the most commonly noticed allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark 10:45. mybris used in Isaiah 53:11, 12 to describe the beneficiaries of the Servant’s sacrifice (LXX polloiv, pollwn). Jeremias describes it as ‘a veritable keyword in Isa. 53’. Most scholars take it for granted that its occurrence in Mark 10:45 is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53; it is hardly the word unless it had some such purpose. The other allusions to Isaiah 53 in this verse suggest that this too is a feature drawn from that chapter, where it is no less peculiar, and rendered conspicuous and memorable by its repetition.

The cumulative effect of these parallels in word and thought between Mark 10:45 and Isaiah 53 is sufficient to demand a deliberate allusion by Jesus to the role of the Servant as his own…The fact that the allusion occurs almost incidentally, as an illustration of the true nature of greatness, far from indicating that the redemptive role of the Servant was not in mind (for it is specifically the redemptive aspects of Isaiah 53 to which Jesus alludes), is in fact evidence of how deeply his assumption of that role had penetrated into Jesus’ thinking, so that it emerges even in an incidental illustration. ‘It is as if Jesus said, “The Son of Man came to fulfil the task of the ebed Yahweh“.’ 65

Similarly, Guthrie argues for the propriety of Mark 10:45 reflecting the Servant passages, and also points to Isaianic references in the Eucharistic words of Jesus ate the Last Supper:

There is, of course, no mention of ransom (lytron) in Isaiah 53, but there is a close connection between ransom and vicarious suffering. There is no great step from the servant making himself an offering (āšām) for sin (Is. 53:10), and the Son of man giving his life as a ransom (or equivalent substitute). Yet another pointer in the same direction is the use of ‘many’ both in Isaiah 53:12 and in Mark 10:45.

Some reference must be made to the possibility of an allusion to the servant concept in the words of institution at the last supper (Mk. 14:24 et par). Although the major background is clearly Exodus 24 and Jeremiah 31, it is possible that Isaiah 53 may also have contributed. The references to the covenant, to the ‘pouring out’, and to the ‘many’ all find parallels in the servant songs. It is not too much to claim that Jesus is here giving a definite theological explanation of his own. His statement is a contributory factor in our understanding of his function as servant of Yahweh. 66

The Eucharistic words of Jesus are an essential sign of the historicity of the Cross, an indication, if one were needed, that the Islamic denial of the Crucifixion is unhistorical. Jesus clearly foresaw that the redemption of sinners and the fulfilment of the Covenant demanded His death. Against the Muslim argument that such predictions were vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the event), the obvious response is that the nature of the Servant of the LORD as prophesied in Isaiah demanded such suffering, and demonstrated that this Passion would be both redemptive and vicarious/representative. Centuries before the advent of the New Testament Church, Israel was expected a Suffering Servant – one whose Passion would bring salvation for sinners. It really would require a miracle of ingenuity to invent such close correlation between the picture of the Servant in Isaiah and what Jesus predicted at the Last Supper in Mark 14:24. To quote France again:

The phrase ‘the blood of the covenant’ is… a typological reference to Exodus 24:8. However, the Servant is twice referred to as a covenant to the people. O. Cullmann goes so far as to rank the re-establishment of the covenant as one of the two ‘essential characteristics’ of the Servant. There are, of course, many other Old Testament references to the covenant, and this alone could not constitute an allusion to the Servant theme, but it does not stand alone. The following words are toekcunnomenon uper pollwn (‘which is poured out for many’; Mt. to peri pollwn ekcunnomenon).

The word ekcunnomenon is reminiscent of Isaiah 53:12 hreh ‘he poured out his soul’. But whereas in Isaiah 53 hreh is a strange and rather mysterious metaphor, in Mark 14:24 ekcunnomenon is the natural word for the shedding of blood, and need not in itself demand an Old Testament background. Like the reference to the covenant, its allusion to the Servant idea is only clearly established by its conjunction with the more obviously allusive phrase uper (peri) pollwn.

‘uper pollwn is as strange an expression for Jesus to use here as was anti pollwn in Mark 10:45, and the allusion to Isaiah 53 is as widely recognized here as there. In fact the two references reinforce each other. While ‘uper (and still more the Matthean peri) is not so clearly substitutionary as anti, it is a very appropriate word for the vicarious death of the Servant. So not only the word pollwn but the whole idea of ‘dying on be-half of’ which is central to Mark 14:24, renders an allusion to the Servant theme virtually certain.

The connection of these words with the covenant idea is significant. In Isaiah 42-53 Yahweh makes his Servant a covenant to the people, and this involves his vicarious death for their redemption. Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, whose primary purpose is to explain to the disciples how his coming death is to benefit them, are drawn not only from Exodus 24:8 (and probably Jeremiah 31:31), but also from Isaiah 53. His work is to re- establish the broken covenant, but this can be done only by fulfilling the role of the Servant in his vicarious death. To make this point Jesus chooses words from Isaiah 53 which are as deeply imbued as any with the redemptive significance of that death, in that they highlight its vicarious nature.

Thus here, if anywhere, we have a deliberate theological explanation by Jesus of the necessity for his death, and it is not only drawn from Isaiah 53, but specifically refers to the vicarious and redemptive suffering which is the central theme of that chapter. 67

(f) The Servant and the Triumphal Entry

Another Messianic connection, one indicating that the Messiah would suffer and die to establish His ministry, is found in the figure of the Shepherd-King of Zechariah 9-14. The Entry into Jerusalem, with Jesus riding humbly on an ass, Mark 11:1ff; Matthew 21:1ff; Luke 19:29ff, reflect the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9-10 – ‘9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king comes to you; he is just, and endowed with salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10 … he shall speak peace unto the nations…’ Humility, of course, is a characteristic of the Suffering Servant, and contrasts with the usual royal perceptions. 68 More suggestive analogies are found with respect to Zechariah 12:12 and 13:7. In Zechariah 12:10-12, we find the following reference to mourning:

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and they will weep bitterly for him, like the bitter weeping for his first-born.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves.

France points out that this figure is both Messianic and causes salvation to be effected through his murder, and thus provides a link with the Isaianic figure of the Suffering Servant. He also suggests this provides the basis for Matthew 24:30 – ‘then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’:

Whatever the explanation of the strange first person yl) the one pierced is clearly connected with the Messianic figures of 11:4-14 and 13:7; in the former passage the subject is the rejection of the good shepherd by the people, and in the latter his smiting by the sword of God… these passages predict the hostile reaction of Israel to the Messianic king of 9:9-10, involving not only contemptuous rejection, but (whether figuratively or literally) his murder. It is only after they have murdered him that the memory of his martyrdom will cause their repentance, and thus, after thorough purification, their final salvation. It seems, then, that in this martyrdom with its issue in the salvation of God’s people Jesus saw a prediction of his own fate. 69

Hence, here we have a picture of a suffering Messianic figure. It should also be noted that the one pierced in the Zechariah passage is God. However, In John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7 the object of piercing is clearly Jesus, referring to the spear piercing Him on the Cross, John 19:34. The interchange between the figures of God and David in the Zechariah passage is significant for the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament. The other Zechariah text, 13:7, is further evidence both of a suffering Messianic character and also an indication of the divinity of the figure: ‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, says the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered…’ France comment that this shepherd ‘is described by Yahweh as ytym(…rbg…y(r (‘my shepherd, the man that is my fellow’, RV), implying a close relationship with Yahweh.’ 70 Later, France observes that this designation indicates a peculiarly close relationship to YHWH:

Yahweh describes him as ytym(…rbg…y(r (RSV ‘My shepherd… the man who stands next to me’). tym(implies kinship; its only other use in the Old Testament is to describe a ‘fellow-Israelite’, and it is probably derived from a root denoting ‘family connection’. This figure is thus more than Yahweh’s ‘associate’ or even ‘companion’; he is his ‘kinsman’. Thus the two passages Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 together suggest a relationship between Yahweh and his representative, the smitten Shepherd-King, which amounts at least to a close ‘kinship’, even to identification. And these two passages are both applied by Jesus to himself. In neither case is the phrase in question actually cited) but the identification of himself with this Messianic figure, which Jesus’ allusions take for granted, could not have been made without an awareness of the implication that he was closely related to Yahweh, and that his suffering was the suffering of Yahweh himself. 71

Similarly, Fairbairn, the great expert on Biblical typology, observed how this passage indicated that this shepherd was divine, and that this was one aspect of what Jesus was claiming in Matthew 26:31, since the passage claims that the figure is the LORD’s fellow ‘or rather His near relation – for so the word in the original imports; and hence, when spoken of any one’s relation to God, it can not possibly denote a mere man, but can only be understood of one who, by virtue of His divine nature, stands on a footing of essential equality with God.’ 72 The other point of course, is that this is ‘a Messianic personage’, as France suggests, and the text clearly indicates that He is made to suffer by God:

The terminology strongly suggests this exegesis, and it is strengthened by the close correspondence with 12:10, for in both passages the wounding of a figure closely associated with Yahweh leads, through mourning or refining, to salvation.

Jesus’ application of the passage is explicit. He is this Messianic shepherd, and as such he is to be smitten. His Messianic work is to be accomplished through suffering, for only so can the predicted salvation come. 73

It can be seen from this that when Jesus, in His Eucharistic words at the Last Supper cited this prophecy as being of Himself, clearly with relation to the Cross (Matthew 26:31 ‘Then Jesus said to them, All of you will fall away because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’), He was not being arbitrary in presenting an image of a suffering Messiah. It should be remembered that in the Old Testament, Israel is portrayed as the Flock of which YHWH is ‘Shepherd ‘- i.e. ‘Ruler’ – e.g. Psalms 23; 78:52; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3. The term is also used of the Kings – under God, Kings were shepherds of Israel -1 Samuel 17:34-36; Jeremiah 23:1-4. Interestingly, it appears to be a definite Messianic term – Ezekiel 34:23 predicts a Davidic Shepherd, as does Jeremiah 23:4f. By this title, then, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, seen especially in His calling of the Gentiles, John 10:16. He was also making an implicit claim to deity. Most pertinently, This displays that there was a tradition that a Messianic figure would suffer, representing His people.

McKenzie comments on this representative royal role ‘…the Jerusalem king became the representative of Israel before Yahweh, the leader of his people in cult and the recipient of the divine oracles by which the will of Yahweh was communicated to Israel.’ 74 The King caused the people to be either holy or sinful. For example, under Manasseh, the people were led astray – 2 Kings 21:7-9; 2 Chronicles 33:7-9. The Rule of an evil king caused the people to forsake the covenant and thus cease to fulfil the purposes of God. When, chastised and repentant, Manasseh obeyed the covenant, the people likewise conformed to the covenant – 2 Chronicles 33:15-17. Hence Kingship in loyalty to the Davidic Covenant causes the People of God to be holy. In this light, we can understand the import of Jesus dying as the representative ‘King of the Jews’ – in connection with the Servant theme, His crucified glorification, representing sinners, enables their sanctification.

(g) The Servant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Gentiles

A further point in connection with this is how both the Servant figure and the Davidic King are related to the incoming of the Gentiles. The Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel 7:19, promises that the Dynasty will be eternal, and David’s response is to exclaim that this is the ‘Law for Humanity’ – tôrat hā‘ādām – not just for Israel. Walter Kaiser suggests the best translation for this is ‘charter for humanity’. 75 Personally, I feel that the obviously covenantal aspects of the promise are best served by retaining the reference to ‘law’. Certainly, Kaiser is correct when he argues that ‘the ancient plan of God would involve a king and a kingdom. Such a blessing would also involve the future of all mankind.’ 76 The Kingdom of Israel was ultimately to be worldwide. We find indications of this in Psalms 2:7-8; 72:8-11, Amos 9:11-12, and of course, in Zechariah 9:9-10. This concept of the Davidic King being the ‘Law for Humanity’ parallels the ministry of the Servant in being ‘a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles’, Isaiah 42:6.

To conclude on the Suffering Servant/Messiah theme, Vermes notes rabbinical traditions of a slain Messiah connected with the figure of Zechariah 12, including the Targum on the passage. 77 Chilton observes that the Isaiah Targum ‘The Targum shows us that the term “servant” could he taken as a designation of the messiah (cf. 43:10). This is particularly the case at 52:13 and 53:10. The Targum indeed interprets 52:13-53:12 as a whole so as to insist on the glorification of the messiah, but it also …refers to the possibility that the messiah might die (53:12 “he delivered his soul to death”).’ 78 Kümmel observes that 4 Ezra 7:29 states that ‘my servant the Messiah shall die’. 79 There does seem to have been a definite Jewish tradition, both in the Bible and in interpretations based upon it, of a suffering or slain Messiah. Jesus could appeal to the Biblical traditions of a lowly, humble Shepherd King, who would suffer, be vindicated, and then enter His glory, whilst securing redemption for sinners by his action, including the Gentiles. France notes that the emphasis of Jesus falls ‘almost exclusively on Zechariah 9-14, Isaiah 53, and Daniel 7, …where it can plausibly be claimed that the suffering of the Messiah is predicted.’ 80

(h) The Servant and the sword

Before ending this section, we should return to the character of Jesus in Luke 22:37, the verse followed by the enigmatic reference to ‘two swords’, and preceded by the apparent injunction of Jesus to purchase a sword. Of course, we never encounter Jesus engaging in political violence as did some of His contemporaries, nor did he wield the sword like Muhammad. Muslims often find this pacifism incomprehensible, especially since all prophets brought the same message, and presumably believed in jihad, as indeed the Qur’an affirms the Injil does – Surah Tauba 9:111. However, the fact that we encounter a reference to the Suffering Servant in this passage in Luke argues against what the Qur’an affirms. Bruce explains the meaning of this difficult text:

Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally. He goes on to tell how, a few hours later, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples let fly with a sword -probably one of the two which they had produced at the supper table – and cut off an ear of the high priest’s slave. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ and healed the man’s ear with a touch (Luke 22:49-51).

So what did he mean by his reference to selling one’s cloak to buy a sword? He himself was about to be condemned as a criminal, ‘reckoned with transgressors’, to use language applied to the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:12. Those who until now had been his associates would find themselves treated as outlaws; they could no longer count on the charity of sympathetic fellow-Israelites. Purse and bag would now be necessary. Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow-members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.

But Jesus does not envisage bandits as the kind of people against whom his disciples would require protection: they themselves would be lumped together with bandits by the authorities, and they might as well act the part properly and carry arms, as bandits did. Taking him literally, they revealed that they had anticipated his advice: they already had two swords. This incidentally shows how far they were from resembling a band of Zealot insurgents: such a band would have been much more adequately equipped. And the words with which Jesus concluded the conversation did not mean that two swords would be enough; they would have been ludicrously insufficient against the band that came to arrest him, armed with swords and clubs. He meant ‘Enough of this!’ – they had misunderstood his sad irony, and it was time to drop the subject. T. W. Manson rendered the words ‘Well, well’. 81

A modern New Testament expert, Professor Richard Hays of Duke University, has also examined the text in depth, and his conclusions are similar to those of Bruce about the rejection of militant attitude in the passage:

Again in this passage the reference to a sword has a figurative purpose. On the night of his arrest, just after his last supper with the disciples, Jesus reminds his followers of an earlier phase in their mission when they could rely on the goodwill and hospitality of those to whom they preached; however, they must now be prepared for a time of rejection and persecution. They will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of the fact that they must now expect to encounter opposition. As I. Howard Marshall observes, ‘The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition which Jesus and the disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.’ The disciples, however, give continuing evidence of their incomprehension of Jesus’ destiny by taking the figurative warning as a literal instruction: ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ Jesus’ response is one of impatient dismissal, indicating that they have failed to grasp the point: ‘Enough, already!’ Joseph Fitzmyer explains that ‘the irony concerns not the number of the swords, but the whole mentality of the apostles. Jesus will have nothing to do with swords, even for defense.’ The truth of this reading is confirmed by the subsequent scene at Jesus’ arrest: The disciples ask, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’ and one of them, without waiting for an answer, cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. Jesus, however, rebukes him (‘No more of this!’) and heals the injured slave (Luke 22:49-51). Here again, literal armed resistance is ex-posed as a foolish misunderstanding of Jesus’ message.

Such a misunderstanding is particularly ironic in view of Luke 22:37: the purpose of the figurative remark about buying a sword was to warn the disciples that the Scripture was about to be fulfilled. The passage cited is Isaiah 53:12: ‘And he was counted among the lawless.’ It should not escape the attention of Luke’s readers that this citation comes from the concluding verse of Isaiah’s prophetic description of the suffering servant, whose life was ‘handed over to death’ for the sake of the sins of many. This is the sort of dramatic irony that Luke, as an author, savors: while Jesus is trying to instruct the disciples about his destiny as the righteous sufferer, they are brandishing swords about, as though such pathetic weapons could promote God’s kingdom. No wonder Jesus impatiently puts an end to the conversation. 82

There are other indications that the Suffering Servant is a passive figure in this sense. In Matthew 12:14ff, we encounter the fulfilment of Isaiah 42:2-3. Jesus demonstrates that He is no Zealot, and is uninterested in the kind of militant confrontation that the Hadith presents of Him. The Suffering Servant is no Mujahid:

14 But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. 15 And Jesus perceiving it, withdrew from there: and many followed him; and he healed them all, 16 and warned them not to make him known: 17 in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet it might be fulfilled, saying, 18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved with whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare justice to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he not will not break, and smouldering flax he will not quench, until he leads justice to victory. 21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope.

Clearly, Jesus’ attitude and conduct reflects the picture of the Servant in Isaiah, demonstrating that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus is neither arbitrary nor contrived. Jesus acted exactly as the Old Testament prophecy predicted He would behave. The Islamic picture of Jesus, whereby after His Second Coming He literally slays the Antichrist with a lance, is wholly innovative and contradictory to the ancient traditions of how the Servant would conduct himself.

6. The Prophet

Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts another prophet like Moses; Acts 3:22-23 explicitly identifies this with Jesus (22 Moses said, ‘the LORD God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers. You will listen to everything he says to you. 23 ‘And it shall be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet, will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’), and 7:37 (This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, ‘God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers’) implicitly makes this identification.

It has been a consistent polemic of Islamic apologetics that Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts Muhammad, rather than Jesus. 83Essentially, this rests upon the phrase ‘from among your brothers’. On the basis that Ishmael and Isaac were brothers, and on the claims that Arabs were descended from Ishmael, and so were brothers of the Israelites, the claim is presented that Muhammad is the eschatological prophet foretold in the passage. 84 Of course, the immediate objection is that even if the racial identification were correct, this would not be evidence that Muhammad was the prophet in question. Secondly, and a point that totally undermines the Muslim claim, it should be remembered that Isaac had two sons, Jacob, who became Israel, and Esau, also known as Edom, the father of the Edomites, later called the Idumeans, who were Judaised under the Maccabeans. Hence, the racial brothers of the Israelites were actually the Edomites/Idumeans, rather than the Ishmaelites. Logically, according to the Islamic position, the prophet should have come from this people, rather than the Ishmaelites/Arabs.

However, this ignores Deuteronomy 18:15 – ‘the LORD shall raise up to you a prophet like me from among you, of your brothers; you shall listen to him.’ The prophet is to come from the midst of the Israelites, and clearly this does not apply to Muhammad, though it does fit the picture of Jesus. Moreover, the Hebrew word used for ‘brother’ is x)= (‘âch). The term is also used elsewhere in Deuteronomy, notably in 17:15, where, permission having been granted Israel to establish a king over them, they are told of the restrictions upon his identity. Primarily, he must be the one chosen by the LORD. Secondly, he must be from ‘among your brothers; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.’ Clearly, the Kings of Israel had to be Israelites, and since the same terminology is employed here as in 18:15, 18, this demonstrates that the prophet had to be an Israelite. It is noteworthy that when King Herod Agrippa, c. 40-41 AD, read the passage about the ethnic identity of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, ‘he burst into tears, as he bethought himself of his Edomite ancestry.’ 85Clearly, the reference to ‘brother’ was recognised as meaning ‘fellow-Israelite’.

(a) The Prophet and the Law

R. E. Clements observes that the text in Deuteronomy 18:15 is in the iterative imperfect tense, which ‘expresses a distributive sense.’ 86 For this reason he translates it ‘Yahweh your god will raise up for you from time to time a prophet like me from among you, from your own kin. Him you shall listen to.’ However, the Jews came to believe that an ultimate prophet ‘like Moses’ would arise from among them. Clements notes that ‘Early Jewish interpretation regarded the passage in an eschatological sense and took it to indicate the coming of of a special prophet in the future who would be like Moses, and who would fulfil a particular task in connection with the law.’ 87 Of course, this is what Jesus actually does perform such a work. Jesus claims authority to give a new Law – so like Moses, He is the Law-giver – the new Moses, antitype of the old. Moses was the Giver of the supreme revelation to Israel – the Torah: the parallel of John 1:17 suggests that Jesus brings a superior Torah (and we may link this with Hebrews 8:6). This is underlined by the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:lff, e.g. v21, where Jesus, while not abolishing the Law, supersedes it by fulfilling it, rendering the perfect obedience to it, and dying on behalf of sinners, so that His faultless obedience could be accounted to sinners.

The Law was the revelation of the mind of God: it was His revelation to Man. The Torah was called the Ten Words (dabarim), Deuteronomy 4:13, and 5:5 terms it the ‘word of the Lord’. John 1:1 states that Jesus is the Word of God – the embodied expression of the mind of God, clearly associated with the Law, v17, and revelation, v18. This should be linked with 2 Samuel 7:19 – where, as we have seen, David responds to divine promise of an eternal dynasty by exclaiming ‘this is the Law for Mankind!’ – (tôrat hā‘ādām). Since Jesus is the eternal Davidic King, He is the embodied Torah. Moreover, torah basically means ‘a body of teaching’ – and Jesus is the Great Teacher – John 3:20. Jesus was

(b) The Prophet as the Servant and Taheb

The death of Jesus as the Righteous One who fulfilled the Law, and thereby being the one who would ‘fulfil a particular task in connection with the law’ is emphasised by two factors. As we have seen, Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos – an obvious parallel with Moses. The bat-qol, identifying Jesus as ‘My Chosen’, in echo of the Isaianic Servant, points to how this special function of ‘the prophet like Moses’ involved His death for others, as the Servant. Fuller notes that the Isaianic Servant was considered ‘to be the eschatological prophet like unto Moses’. 88 he also observes ‘certain Mosaic functions are later ascribed to the Davidic Messiah…’ 89

Fuller also observes that the Samaritans had a Messianic expectation, though not linked to David, since they only accepted the Pentateuch as the canon. This Samaritan Messianic figure was called the Taheb, the ‘one who restores (or ‘returns’)’, and Fuller quotes Cullmann (Christology, p. 19) as observing that this figure ‘performs miracles, restores the law and true worship among the people, and brings knowledge to other nations’. 90 It should be remembered that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, so clearly the passage in Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him if miracles are an essential function of the eschatological prophet. 91

The incident with the Samaritan woman in John 4:7ff should be understood in this light. When Jesus informs her that she has had several husbands, and is living with one who is not her husband, she replies, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’, v19. Later, in v25, she states ‘I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ): when he comes, he will declare all things to us. 26 Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am he.’ Clearly, in this case, Jesus was claiming to be the ‘Mosaic Messiah’ – the ultimate prophet, for that is how the woman would have understood it, and indeed, this is how she presents it to her compatriots – v29, on the basis of Jesus supernatural intuitive knowledge. It should be remembered that there is a special emphasis in the Gospel of John on Jesus as the divine revealer – His miracles are called shmeia ‘signs’, 2:11. Jesus is the specific revealer of God – 1:18.

(c) The Revelatory death of the Mosaic Prophet and ‘Righteous One’

Even the death of Jesus is revelatory – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’, cf. Exodus 6:7; 7:5, where the exodus is a simultaneous revelation to the Israelites and Egyptians that the God of Israel is YHWH – ‘I am’. A further parallel is found in John 19:18 where Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyenenteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’. This is an allusion to Moses’ arms being upheld by Aaron and Hur in Exodus 17:12 LXX, where Israel battled the enemy (Amalek), and prevailed as long as Moses kept his arms up. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified (even to the point of physical resemblance, His arms being raised), therein destroying the enemy – Satan. Fuller comments on the New Testament picture of Jesus – ‘Jesus as the Mosaic servant-prophet – the Redeemer and saviour – leads the eschatological people of God into the promised land of the kingdom of God.’ 92

Fuller also observes that another title associated simultaneously with the Davidic Messiah, the eschatological prophet and the Servant was that of ‘o dikaiov ho dikaios ‘the Righteous One’. 93 This was a title of the Messiah, Zechariah 9:9 – ‘…your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation’; Jeremiah 23:5 (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:35). It was also employed of the Servant, Isaiah 53:11 – ‘my righteous servant’. Barclay observes that the existence of the righteous averts the vengeance of God – Genesis 18:23-33. 94 Jesus is the Righteous One – Matthew 27:19; Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Peter 3:18 – ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God’; 1 John 2:1 – ‘if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’.

(d) The prophetic silence and the bat-qol

One of the indications that Jesus was the ultimate prophet was the prophetic silence that had existed for four centuries. Dunn observes ‘The gift of prophecy was commonly thought to have ceased after the post-exilic period…’ 95 Especially significant in terms of Jesus’ experience of the bat-qol at both the Baptism and Transfiguration is the observation by Vermes that the bat-qol had been the only instrument of divine revelation during this prophetic silence. 96 He notes on the same page the famous decision by Judas Maccabaeus to remove the defiled Temple altar stones ‘until a prophet should arise who could be consulted about them’, 1 Maccabees 4:46. By contrast, the claimed prophetic ministry of Muhammad began totally in private – no public ‘heavenly voice’ confirmed his calling. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus meant ‘that Jesus was both called and charismatically endowed to be God’s messenger…’ 97

The theological import of this is the context in which the heavenly voice speaks – eschatological fulfilment, the public announcement of Jesus’ ministry as divine Son, Messiah and Suffering Servant. The prophetic clock was now ticking again. The only prophet to immediately precede Jesus was John the Baptist, who proclaimed that he was only preparing the way for the one following him. Jesus claimed to be a prophet, Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33. He was also recognised as ‘that prophet’ – the eschatological prophet. John the Baptist declined that designation, John 1:21, but Jesus was seen as fulfilling that role – 6:14 ‘This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world.’ Likewise the multitude in 7:40 exclaim ‘This is truly the prophet.’ The essence of a prophet was of a Man anointed with the Spirit, Hosea 9:7, commissioned by God to bring a message either condemning or encouraging, but always aimed at producing faith – cf. John 8:26-30. David saw his prophetic words as the work of the Spirit, 2 Samuel 23:2. Micah ascribes his prophecies to the Spirit, 3:8. Zechariah says that the ‘law’ (torah) and ‘words’ (dabarim) which the Lord spoke through the former prophets were ‘sent by His Spirit’.

Thus we see that the Spirit inspires the revelation of God; He is the author of prophecy. The Servant, the Superlative Prophet, who brings with His message social liberation and righteousness, Isaiah 61:1ff, does so because He is anointed with the Spirit, v1 (Isaiah 42 tells of how, because He is anointed with the Spirit, He brings Justice to the Gentiles, i.e. makes them worshippers of YHWH). We have already seen that in Luke 4:18f, Jesus declares Himself to be the fulfilment of Isaiah 61:1f. Significantly, Dunn observes that in the Qumran scroll 11QMelch, ‘the figure of Isa. 61:1 had been identified with the eschatological Prophet.’ 98 Dunn further notes that within Judaism, ‘to possess the Spirit of God was to be a prophet’. 99David Hill, Reader in Biblical Studies at Sheffield University, echoes this – ‘Within the Judaism of the time, the possession of the holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, was regarded as the mark of prophecy…’ 100 It is thus significant that John 3:34 records of Jesus ‘For He whom God sent speaks the words of God: for He does not give the Spirit by measure.’ In addition to Jesus’ possession of the Spirit, Dunn makes the important observation that Jesus’ actions were in themselves prophetic:

Jesus may have consciously set himself within the prophetic tradition by performing symbolic actions: the entry into Jerusalem, the purge of the temple, and above all the last supper (perhaps also the more obscure meal in the desert – ‘feeding the five thousand’ and the puzzling ‘cursing of the fig tree’) come to mind here. It is possible that Jesus thought of himself as the eschatological prophet, view of his application of Isa.61.1 to himself, but it would be more accurate to say that he saw his ministry as the fulfilment of several eschatological prophecies. 101

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman demonstrated His possession of the gift of prophetic insight. Dunn comments: ‘This “ability” to lay bare “the thoughts of the heart” was regarded by Paul as the distinctive charisma which marked out the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14.24f…), and it appears to have been regarded as the mark of the prophet by Jesus’ contemporaries in the same way, if Luke 7.39 is any guide.’ 102 Jesus also predicted the future – e.g. Matthew 24:3-35. Of particular interest is that He predicted His own death and resurrection – Luke 9:22 presents Jesus as saying ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.’ In a sense, the Last Supper was a prophetic enactment of His death on behalf of sinners. Barclay makes the important observation that ‘the prophets were characteristically martyrs’, noting how Jezebel slew the prophets, 1 Kings 18:13; 2 Kings 9:7, cf. Jeremiah 2:30. 103 Jesus noted how the paradoxical characteristic of Jerusalem, the supposed holy city, was that it slew the prophets and messengers of God – Matthew 23:37. Jesus knew that Jerusalem would treat Him, as the ultimate prophet, in the same way – Luke 13:33. 

(e) The Prophetic message of Jesus

The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God, i.e. the sovereign reign of God. He was the proclaimer of its restoration – Mark 1:15. This verse reflects Isaiah 52:7ff, which immediately precedes the Servant Song at v13. Ladd notes that ‘The prophets had promised a time when the good news would be proclaimed that God was visiting his people… A herald would appear publishing peace, announcing good tidings of salvation, saying to Zion, “Your God reigns…” In the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus claimed that this gospel was no longer hope but event (Luke 4:18).’ 104 Jesus was both prophet and prophetic fulfilment. Moreover, the message of the kingdom was intrinsically a case of realised eschatology – ‘The gospel is itself the greatest of the messianic signs. The gospel was not a new teaching; it was itself event. Preaching and healing: these were the signs of the presence of the kingdom.’ 105 We have already noted the connection of these factors with the ministry of the Son of David and the Servant., and the ‘deeds of the Messiah’ in Matthew 11:4-5.

The Kingdom of God was characterised by the intervention of the Spirit against demonic power, and thus by the miraculous – Matthew 12:28. Ladd comments ‘The meaning of Jesus’ exorcism of demons in its relationship to the Kingdom of God is precisely this: that before the eschatological conquest of God’s Kingdom over evil and the destruction of Satan, the Kingdom of God has invaded the realm of Satan to deal him a preliminary but decisive defeat.’ 106

Jesus was the embodiment of this doctrine – Luke 17:21 – ‘the kingdom of God is in your midst’. Its dynamic expression culminated in the death of Jesus as King on the cross. We have already seen how the Cross exorcises Satan, demonstrating the dynamic, sovereign nature of the crucifixion, and the salvation its effects. Hence, Jesus as the ultimate prophet is a charismatic warrior against sin, Satan and sickness, bringing us back to the Servant and Anointed One figures of Isaiah. In this regard, His prophetic enactment of His death at the Last Supper was entirely in keeping with His being the Ultimate Prophet.

(f) Jesus as Apostle

Only once in the New Testament is Jesus explicitly termed an Apostle, in Hebrews 3:1 ‘Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.’ It is significant that the term is parallel with ‘High Priest’. Barclay explains ‘The Greek word apostolos is really an adjective. It comes from the verb apostellein, which means “to send forth”…’ The nuance is similar, though not totally equivalent to the Muslim concept of rasul. Of course, even if the exact term is not employed, the concept is certainly present elsewhere in the New Testament, especially where apostellein is used. Jesus declared that He had been ‘sent’ – Matthew 10:40 ‘He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him that sent me.’

What is particularly striking, and an example of how Jesus united all these distinct but frequently related titles in Himself is how He could say that He was sent as the Son. The parable of the wicked tenants is especially helpful in this context. There, after the sending of several messengers, clearly the prophets, the prophetic climax is reached when the Son is sent. Moreover, this ultimate prophet, who is the Son, is killed. Jesus was clearly predicting His death as the ultimate prophet and divine Son. Again, we encounter this concept of the commission of the Son in the Gospel of John, e.g. 3.17, 28; 5.36; 6.29, 57; 8.42; 10.36; 12:49; 13:20; 14:24; 17.3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25. We have previously noted the emphasis on revelation in the Fourth Gospel. On the one hand, this can be associated with the message Jesus brought – John 7:16 ‘Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me’, cf. 3:34. The miracles attested His commission by the Father – 5:36. On the other, His ministry needs to be considered – as emphasised earlier, what is of special import is that Jesus was commissioned as the Son, who could be co-honoured with the Father, 5:23, and that the Son was sent to die – 3:16-17, so that those for whom He died could be saved. Jesus was sent to die.

Barclay observes an important aspect of the background to the term ‘apostle’ in Jewish usage:

Amongst the later Jews the word was in common use in its Hebrew form shaliach, which also means one ‘who is sent’. In all religious matters the Sanhedrin was the supreme governing body of all Jews not only in Palestine but also all over the world. When the Sanhedrin wished to despatch an instruction, a command, a warning to Jews in any part of the world, the bearer of it was known as a shaliach or apostolos… Saul, for instance, was the shaliach or apostolos of the Sanhedrin when he went to Damascus to organise a campaign of persecution against the Christians (Acts 9.1, 2). In Acts 28.21 the Jews of Rome say that they have received no letters from Judaea concerning Paul. That is to say, no shaliach or apostolos had come from the Sanhedrin with instructions as to how Paul was to be treated. 107

This understanding of apostolicity in Jewish usage aids our understanding of the revelatory ministry of Jesus. Jesus came as the representative of the Father to convey His will, John 4:34 ‘Jesus said to them, My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.’ However, there is an even more pertinent nuance to the phrase that Barclay demonstrates:

It is here that a new and very important element enters the meaning of the word. To the Jew the apostolos or shaliach was not only a messenger; he was a delegate who for the time being and for the particular duty assigned to him exercised all the power and the authority of the Sanhedrin. Hence the rabbis said: ‘The one who sends (that is, his apostolos or shaliach) is the equivalent of the man himself.’ ‘A king’s ambassador is as the king himself.’ An apostolos is more than a messenger; on him power and the authority of the one who sent him. 108

This helps us understand the import of Matthew 9:6 ‘But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he said to the paralytic), get up, and take up your bed, and go home.’ The One sent acted on the authority of the One who sent Him. The evidence was that the man was healed. To come back to the ‘prophet like Moses’, Barclay’s comments on the shaliach at this point are most illuminating:

To four great prophets the name of Shaliach was given, to Moses, to Elijah, to Elisha and to Ezekiel. It was given to them because God had in a very special way delegated his power to them so that they were able to perform miracles and to do the things which only the power of God could do. Moses brought water out of the rock; Elijah brought the rain, and restored to life one who had died; Elisha also restored one to life, and also opened a mother’s womb; and, based on Ezekiel 37, the rabbis said that Ezekiel would receive the key to the graves at the resurrection of the dead. The apostolos was not only the messenger of God; he exercised the power of God which had been delegated to him. It is in fact significant that in the passage of Hebrews in which Jesus is called apostolos the very next verse begins with a reference to Moses. By the power of God Moses delivered the people from Egypt; by the power of God Jesus delivered men from sin.

It is also to be noted that the writer to the Hebrews join in this same verse the two titles Apostle and High Priest. And one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ And so the apostolos brings to men not only the power but also the mercy of God.

So, then, the word apostolos as applied to Jesus means that Jesus was uniquely sent by God, and that Jesus is delegated by God to bring to men both the power and the mercy of God. 109

It can be seen here that when Jesus indicated that the Father had sent Him to die, the priestly aspect of His ministry was inter-connected with that of His prophetic commission. To ensure that no one misconstrued that it was purely this commission which made Him equal to the Father, Jesus in his prayer in John 17:5 could speak of His pre-existent glory that He enjoyed with the Father. Finally, the concept of the shaliach helps us with an issue often problematic for Muslims – the fact that the gospels and epistles were not directly written by Jesus Himself, but by His apostles/disciples. In John 20:21, Jesus says ‘…as the Father sent Me, so I send you.’ Each Evangelist was the shaliach of Jesus, and so could speak (and write) on His authority. He commissioned them with His Spirit for this purpose. Thus, the New Testament most definitely is the revelation of Christ.

(g) Final thoughts on Deuteronomy 18

Hill comments on the employment of Deuteronomy 18 in the life of Jesus as follows, showing how the ministry of Jesus was seen as fulfilling this prophecy:

It is probable that we should understand the words ‘listen to him’ (Mark 9.7 and par.) as an intended allusion to the ‘him shall you heed’ of Deut. 18.15, and it is in the Transfiguration narrative of Matthew (17. 1-9), together with the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7) that the Mosaic-prophet theme comes to the fore with clarity, though not to the exclusion of other imagery and not just as ‘a second edition of Moses, as it were, on a grand scale, but one who supersedes him’. In John’s Gospel we find, as one aspect of the portrayal of Jesus, clear indications that he is the fulfilment of the Deuteronomic passage. The sayings in 7.40 and 6.14 are based on the expectation of the prophet like Moses. In the former verse the people affirm ‘This is really the prophet’, because it was expected that the prophet like Moses would repeat the miracle of the dispensing of water at Horeb: and if we adopt the reading of P66 in John 7.52 (as. in our view, we should) then what is contested is that the eschatological prophet (like Moses) will come from Galilee. After the miracle of the loaves it is said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’ (6.14), for what has been experienced is reminiscent of the miracle of the manna. In connection with this verse it should be noted that ho erchomenos is exactly the same expression as used in the Baptist’s question to Jesus: ‘Are voui he who is to come (ho erchomenos)?’ (Matt. 11.3, Luke 7.19) …this suggests that ho erchomenos had titular significance, possibly designation Messiah (cf. the LXX and Targumic interpretations of Gen. 49.10, and the Jewish interpretation of Hab. 2.3), but more probably a designation of the expected eschatological prophet. 110

7. The Word of God

John 1:1 presents Jesus as the ‘Word’. The context makes it clear that this means the divine Word, to the point that the Word is said to be God – ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ This is not a self-designation of Jesus, but rather a description employed by John of Jesus, though such depiction entirely agrees with Jesus’ own presentation of Himself as the ultimate revelation of God. Ladd states that John used it because it was ‘a term widely known in both the Hellenistic and the Jewish worlds in the interests of setting forth the significance of Christ.’ 111Ladd notes that Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus (6th century BC) and the Stoics employed the concept of the Logos. The Alexandrian Jew Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 42) used the concept as a bridge between the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds. 112

For Philo, the Logos is the first-born son of God – protogonov ‘uiovprotogonos huios – to the extent that he even calls the Logos a ‘second god’ – deuterovyeovdeuteros theos. Guthrie observes other interesting aspects of Philo’s concept:

1. The logos has no distinct personality. It is described as ‘the image of God… through whom the whole universe was framed’. But since it is also described in terms of a rudder to guide all things in their course, or as God’s instrument (organon) for fashioning the world, it seems clear that Philo did not think of logos in personal terms.

2. Philo speaks of the logos as God’s first-born son protogonos which implies pre-existence. The logos is certainly regarded as eternal. Other descriptions of the logos as God’s ambassador (presbeutēs), as man’s advocate paraklētos) and as high priest (archiereus), although offering interesting parallels with Jesus Christ, do not, however, require pre-existence.

3. The logos idea is not linked with light and life in Philo’s doctrine as it is in John’s…

4. There is no suggestion that the logos could become incarnate. This would have been alien to Greek thought, because of the belief in the evil of matter.

5. The logos definitely had a mediatorial function to bridge the gap between the transcendent God and the world. It can be regarded as a personification of an effective intermediary, although it was never personalized. Philo’s logos has, therefore, both parallels and differences from John’s logos… 113

However, Ladd observes that ‘Philo’s Logos concept is employed in the interests of a dualistic cosmology that removes God from immediate contact with creation, whereas John uses the Logos concept to bring God in Christ directly into his creation.’ 114 Neither is the Logos personally distinct in this conception, and it should be remembered that Hellenistic thought regarded matter as evil, so the Johannine concept of incarnation would be foreign to Philo, as well as to Greek philosophy in general. Fuller observes that the Gospel Logos doctrine ‘is not derived from the Greek philosophical tradition. The Logos of Heraclitus and the Stoics was the immanent principle of law and order in the universe, whereas the Logos of the prologue [of John] is a transcendent being who comes into this world from outside.’ 115 Nonetheless, the existence of the Philonic Logos shows that there was a tradition of the personified (though not personalised) Logos in Judaism. The Christian concept was neither arbitrary nor contrived.

This becomes more explicit when we consider the Old Testament background to the Logos. The Hebrew term for ‘word’ is rb1d1 dabar. The great Old Testament scholar, Professor Edmond Jacob of Strasbourg University, observed ‘That God reveals himself by his word is a truth confirmed by every one of the Old Testament books. It is by his word that he reveals himself as the living God…’ 116 He notes that the term has a ‘dynamic’ quality:

This dynamic quality of the word already appears in the names by which it is denoted. The most usual term and the one which has become classical for the word is dabar, which must probably be associated with a root which in Hebrew has the meaning of: to be behind and to push; dabar could then be defined as the projection forward of what lies behind, that is to say, the transition into the act of what is at first in the heart. The realistic character of dabar is always strongly stressed, so that the term will denote thing as well as word (Gen. 20.10; 22.1, 20; 40.1; 48.1 etc.) and no term throws into clearer relief the fact that the Hebrew mind did not distinguish between thought and action. Realism and dynamism are features equally characteristic of the root ‘amar; derived from a root having the sense to be raised up or to be clear, the word would be the visible manifestation of the thought and of the will. In distinction from dabar, the stress with ‘amar is chiefly upon the spoken word; the expression lemor which introduces speeches is generally preceded by dabar (wayedabber lemor) which alone possesses creative dynamism. 117

This dynamism is realised in the creative power of the divine word. The obvious texts that relate to this are Genesis 1:3ff, Psalms 33:6, 9 and 47:15ff. It was by His word that God created the universe. Guthrie observes that there is a corollary to this creative aspect of the divine word:

But not only is the Word creative: it is also sustaining. Such passages as Psalm 147:15-18; 148:8 show God’s providential care for his creation through his powerful Word. Indeed that Word is so powerful that it cannot fail to accomplish its purpose in the world (Is. 55:11; Ps. 147:15). Moreover, judgment is executed by the Word of God (Ho. 6:5). In these senses the Word of God is seen as the powerful agency of God. 118

Immediately, we can see parallels with the Logos concept in the Gospel of John. Jesus was the Word that created the cosmos – John 1:3 – ‘All things were made through him; and without him nothing was made that has been made.’ Jesus definitely accomplished the divine commission – 17:4 ‘I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do’; in 19:30 He exclaims from the cross tetelestai ‘It is finished’. It is worth noting that what Isaiah 55:11 asserts about the word of God (‘So shall my word be that goes forth from My mouth: it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish what I desire, and it shall succeed in the matter for which I sent it’) may provide the background to the Johannine motif of Jesus coming from, and going to God. 119 Jesus is also the Agent of divine judgment – 5:22. We also encounter Jesus as the Judge in the Synoptic gospels, e.g. Matthew 25:31ff.

We earlier noted the emphasis in the Gospel of John upon the revelatory nature of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus reveals the Father, 1:18; 17:26. His miracles are called ‘signs’; even His death is revelatory. In this respect, the concept of the Logosideally fits the nature and ministry of Jesus. Both Islam and the Bible hold that God is incomprehensible apart from His self-revelation. The only totally adequate revealer of God is God Himself, who can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite – John 1:14 – ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us’.

In this respect Jesus reveals the nature of God in terms of His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2 – ‘God has in these last days spoken by His Son’. To encounter Jesus is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation – ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’, John 14:9. However, the bodily revelation of Jesus is itself not the completion of the divine revelation, because He is not eternally bodily present on the earth, and because the transformation He works is not complete apart from the divine indwelling, which is effected by the Holy Spirit. Since all three persons share the same essence of deity, whenever the Spirit indwells a person, the latter has experienced the inward revelation of the Triune God. The revelation of God was effected by the Word entering the human scene by dwelling among us; ultimately, this is secured by His dwelling within us – John 14:16-20 – the triune God, through the Holy Spirit, dwells within everyone born of the Spirit.

The Father reveals the Son by sending Him, the Son reveals the Father by His presence and work, (Matthew 11:27), the Spirit reveals the Son and thus the Father by applying this work with His presence. Revelation points to the Triune nature of God. We know what God is like when we experience the Father, by the Holy Spirit, revealing the Son in our lives. This revelation is in conformity to the way God made men – as beings capable of intelligent relationship, especially love. Man is made in God’s image, and is social – made for relationship and fellowship. The expression of divine love and desire for fellowship is effected through divine revelation. The theanthropic Person of Jesus is the climactic expression of revelation in that in a unique way, God comes to Man. The perfect Man who is also God can express in human terms the mind of the Creator.

We have noted earlier that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Law – the Torah. Indeed, he specifically fulfils the Davidic covenant of the Torah for Humanity. It is noteworthy that the Ten Commandments are actually entitled the dabarim of the LORD.Jacob notes that in Judaism, the authority of the dabarim ‘became merged with that of God himself.’ 120 Indeed, Morris observes that in some Targums, ‘the Word’ (represented in the Targums by the technical phrase Memra’, equivalent to Biblical Hebrew ‘amar, a synonym for dabar) is employed as a periphrasis for God, and that in a Genesis Targum, the First Couple heard ‘the voice of the Word of God’ walking in the Garden, Genesis 3:8. 121 The structure and wording of John 1:1 very obviously reflects Genesis 1:1, so, in the light of Targumic usage, when we read in v14 that the Word became flesh, we can understand that the Gospel is not being arbitrary or contrived in presenting the Word as God; the distinctive element is that the divine Word was incarnated.

This is strengthened by links between the divine Name YHWH and Memra’. C. T. R. Hayward, suggests that Memra’ directly represented the name which God Himself revealed to Moses from the burning bush, YHWH (or ‘HYH, vocalised as ‘ehyeh), translated as I AM/WILL BE THERE (cf. Exodus 3:14b, ‘Say to the people of Israel: I AM THERE: (‘ehyeh) has sent me unto you.’). He notes that Codex Neofiti I in the Palestinian Targum renders Exodus 3:12 (‘And He said For I will be there (‘ehyeh) with you, rm( hyh) yk…’) as ‘And he said: For I will be there, My Memra’ with you, rm( yrmm ywwh) swr)…’ Other Targums read, ‘And He said: For My Memra’ will be for your support…’ 122 Hayward suggests that this employment of Memra’ as representing the Name ‘HYH was the original usage of the term, and only when this original meaning had been lost, did it come to be used as a replacement of YHWH. The expression ‘Name of the Memra’ of YYY‘ (‘YYY’ being a Targumic representation of the ‘Tetragrammaton‘ – YHWH), frequent in Codex Neofiti, ‘reveals that the spheres of meaning and content’ of Memra’ and YHWH ‘are not coterminous. Memra is not a replacement for YHWH.’ He infers from this that Memra’ is ‘God’s Name’ ‘HYH which by midrashic exposition refers to His presence in past and future creation, history and redemption. Memra’ is God’s mercy, by which the world is created and sustained.’ Hayward applies this perception to John’s use of logov and concludes:

St, John may have presented Jesus as the Memra’, the revealer of God’s merciful, active presence in creation, redemption, and covenant, as having come in flesh to tabernacle among men. Jesus personifies God’s ‘HYH, the living proof that the God revealed to Moses at the bush is with His people … As Memra’, Jesus would represent God’s ‘HYH the self-naming of God, one with God kai Yeov ‘hn ‘ologov …Jesus has manifested God’s Name to men, according to John 17:6. St. John, then, if our hypothesis be correct, depicts Jesus as the Memra’, who is God’s Name, manifesting God’s glory, full of the grace and truth of the covenant, dwelling with us in the flesh, which Jesus himself describes as a Temple (2.19), the very dwelling place of the Memra’ … if the Memra’s effect on the prologue is left out of account, an essential element of the Logos-doctrine will have been passed over in silence.’ 123

It should be noted that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan II on Exodus 3:14 reads ‘And the Memra’ of the LORD said to Moses…’ Where this becomes particularly relevant for the debate with Islam is the relationship between Logos and the ‘I AM’ sayings of Jesus. John 8:58, of course, clearly affirms the pre-existence of Jesus, and given the crowd’s reaction of attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy, it is clear that they understood Him as claiming deity. Granted that Jesus does not explicitly proclaim Himself as Logos, the fact is that He does employ egw eimi ego eimi of Himself, as in 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 58; 13:19; 18:5. Given that ‘the Word’ had become a representation of the divine Name YHWH, it can be observed that John’s usage was effectively reflecting Jesus’ own assertion of His identity as YHWH.

Similarly, H. Mowvley has suggested Exodus 33:7ff as a background to John’s use of Logos. The Tent of Meeting was where God used to speak to Moses, and ‘… just as Moses met God and heard his word in the Tent of Meeting, so men may now meet him and hear him in the flesh of Jesus.’ Behind John’s use of ‘eskhnwsen in 1:14, Mowvley sees reference to the Tent of Meeting in Exodus 33. Similarly the reference to his glory recalls the reference to the shining of Moses face (LXX dedoxastai‘h ‘oqiv tou crwmatov tou proswpou ‘autou) when he went in before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. 124 The Biblical scholar M. D. Hooker sees the Prologue as concerned with the exegesis of the Divine Name and having a background in Exodus 33-34. 125 Ladd observes that ‘eskhnwsen ‘is a biblical metaphor for God’s presence.’ 126

With regard to the Palestinian Targum, represented by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Codex Neofiti I, Martin McNamara has noted the Palestinian Targum’s treatment of Numbers 7:89, a passage relating to the same matter as Exodus 33:7ff. The Hebrew Text of Numbers 7:89 reads, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the Voice speaking with him from above the mercy-seat that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and he spoke with him.’ Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan reads thus, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he heard the Voice of the Spirit that conversed with when it descended from the highest heavens above the mercy-seat above the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and from there the Word (Aramaic dibbēra’) conversed with him.’

Codex Neofiti I uses dibbēra’ twice in its paraphrase, ‘And when Moses used to go in to the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he used to hear the Voice of the Word speaking with him … from there the Word used to speak with him.’ In similar fashion, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrases Exodus 33:11, ‘Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend’, as follows ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses, speech to speech. He used to hear the Voice of the Word (dibbēra’) but the Glory of the countenance he used not to see, as a man speaks with his friend. And after the Voice of the Word had ascended, he returned to the camp and related the words to the congregation of Israel.’ 127 Again, we can see how the term ‘the Word of God’ was a synonym for YHWH Himself.

John’s employment of the term Logos also adequately conveyed a major emphasis of the Gospel we have already considered – the emphasis on Jesus’ ministry, including His death, as revelatory. In Exodus 3:14 God revealed Himself to Moses, specifically with a redemptive aim – to liberate the people of God from their demonic oppressors. We must remember that the conflict between YHWH (through Moses) and Pharaoh is presented as a cosmological conflict between YHWH and the false gods of Egypt – the demonic powers of darkness – Exodus 12:12. When YHWH brought the plagues upon the Egyptians, He demonstrated His superiority over the nature-gods of Egypt. When the Angel of death takes the life of every Egyptian first-born son not covered by the blood of the lamb, YHWH demonstrates His power over the living god of Egypt, Pharaoh. The deliverance from Egypt is presented as ‘redemption’ – Exodus 6:6, one that involves judgment. Equally, the redemption the Logos effects is a judgment against the demonic forces, John 12:31, whereby Jesus delivers people from the grasp of Satan. Just as the Exodus event was a revelation to Israel and the Egyptians, Exodus 6:7; 7:5, the death of Christ is both revelatory and redemptive, as well as being a judgment – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’.

Guthrie comments on the relationship between the revelatory and legal characteristics of the dabarim:

Yet the more frequent idea of the Word in the OT is as the means of revelation. In the work and writings of the prophets, the expression ‘Thus says the Lord’ or similar words abound. Each prophet was conscious of being the mouthpiece of God… A development from this prophetical idea is when the ‘Word’ came to sum up the whole message of God to man as in Psalm 119:9, 105. It is virtually identified with the law, but the important feature is the emphasis on the divine revelation in its application to the psalmist’s way of life. 128

This becomes very pertinent to the Gospel of John when we consider tendencies within Judaism to regard the Torah as the pre-existent ‘first-born of God’, as God’s intermediary, Agent of creation, and means of spiritual life – the latter especially pertinent, since the Gospel asserts of Jesus in 1:4 that ‘In him was life; and the life was the light of men.’ We can see how this personification prepared the way for the incarnation, and how this explains the background of the Johannine concept, proving that it was not a contrived innovation:

The third Jewish source which has sometimes been appealed to is the rabbinic idea of the Torah,which was regarded as an intermediary between God and the world. There are several parallels between this and the Logos of John’s prologue.

First, the Torah was believed to have been created before the foundation of the world; in other words, its pre-existence is asserted. Secondly, the Torah lay on God’s bosom. Thirdly, ‘my daughter, she is the Torah.’ Fourthly, through the first-born, God created the heaven and the earth, and the first-born is no other than the Torah. Fifthly, the words of the Torah are life for the world.

In John’s prologue, however, the superiority of Jesus Christ, as the divine Logos, to Moses the law-giver is expressly brought out (Jn. 1:17). Moreover, whereas the law was ‘given’ through Moses, ‘grace and truth’ the distinguishing marks of the new law, ‘came through Jesus Christ’. In other words John’s assertions go beyond the assertions of the rabbis. Jesus more than fulfilled the function of the pre-existent Torah. 129

Indeed, the concept of the dabar in general was, in the progressive revelation of God, undergoing a personification that approached personalisation. Jacob observes this tendency:

The other attempt at crystallization appears in the tendencies towards making an hypostasis of the word. Although it is impossible to speak of an hypostasis of the word in the canonical hooks of the Old Testament, it must he recognized that many of the affirmations point in that direction. To speak of the word as a reality which. falls and which unlooses catastrophe (Is. 9.7), or as a devouring fire (Jer. 5.14; 20.8; 23.29), or as a reality which is present with someone like one person with another (2 Kings 3.12), is to look upon it less as an effect than as an active subject akin to the angel or the face of Yahweh. The same hypostatic function of the word, which receives its full development in the pseudepigrapha, has its roots in the Old Testament without any need to admit foreign influences. The tendency to hypostatize was more obvious in the case of wisdom than of the word, but it is the latter which provided a foundation for the theology of wisdom. 130

From all of this, we can understand what was involved in the Logos concept. Essentially, YHWH – the Word – became incarnate, John 1:14, to reveal Himself and redeem sinners. Moreover, the aim of the incarnation, revelation and redemption was similar to that of the Exodus – to bring Man into a spiritual relationship with God, one by which Man would enjoy personal knowledge of God through Jesus, John 10:14ff. 38. Because of the Incarnation, and through the reception of the Holy Spirit, human beings can know God, because in the person of Christ God has revealed Himself – His person, John 1:18, not just His will. Islam, by contrast, cannot wholly address this issue. Sunni Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which is almost a part of God – His Speech in fact. The purported revelation of Qur’an, according to Sunnis, is virtually equivalent to the Incarnation in Christianity, only that in the case of Islam, the Word became a Book, rather than flesh. In Islam, God reveals His will, not His person. Thus a Muslim, even if he memorises the Qur’an, never enters into an intimate, supernatural relationship with the person of God. Rather, he merely attempts to obey the divine precepts.

Moreover, as any Muslim will affirm, the Qur’an only truly exists when untranslated; that is, it is only really the Qur’an when it is in Arabic. The language of the Qur’an is an essential part of the revelation – S. 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:44; 42:7; 43:30. Thus, despite its claim to be ‘mercy for mankind’, the Qur’an is contextually limited by time and space, especially in terms of accessibility. There is not the same revelatory action of interaction between God and Man, especially since the Qur’an is effectively limited to those who know Arabic. Jesus, however, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is universally accessible, whatever the language or ethnic group, and this is demonstrated by His easy movement from Aramaic to Greek when He deals with Gentiles like the Centurion, and through the Spirit He still speaks to people of any language. The Word became Man, not specifically Meccan/Quraish (or any other language).

8. Priest

In the Old Testament the functions of Priest and King were rigidly separated, the former being reserved to the tribe of Levi, the latter to Judah, cf. 1 Samuel 13; 2 Chronicles 26:16ff. Clearly, Jesus, in order to be the Davidic King, had to spring from Judah, yet in order to offer sacrifice, He had to be a priest. Moreover, He had to be an eternal priest – Zechariah 6:12-13 states that the Messiah, who will build the Temple, will be a priest on his throne, uniting the two offices – ’12 …Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD; 13 Indeed, He will build the temple of the LORD; and He will bear the glory, and will sit and rule upon His throne; and He will be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”‘

We can see from this that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as simultaneously a priest and king was not arbitrary or innovative, but rather a question of fulfilled prophecy. Before going further, we should note the following:

1. In contrast to the Prophet, the Priest is Man’s representative to God.

2. He has to be appointed by God – Hebrews 5:4, cf. 7:28.

3. He offers sacrifice – 7:27.

4. He blesses the people – Leviticus 9:22; cf. Luke 24:50-51.

5. He makes intercession for them – Hebrews 7:25.

6. The priestly ministry of Jesus does not depend upon ancestry, but life – v16.

7. Unlike the Aaronic, His is an eternal ministry – vs. 3, 8, 17, 21, 24-25, 28.

8. His ministry – i.e. the once-for-all sacrifice, v27, effects ‘perfection’ i.e. what Paul terms justification, which contrasts with the imperfect Levitical order – v11.

9. Based on Psalm 110:4, Jesus’ ministry is a royal priesthood – Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17.

The last-mentioned is crucial: Psalm 110 is the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. 131 We have seen its usage at the trial of Jesus before the High Priest, where in answer to whether Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, He responds ‘I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’, Mark 14:61-62. This conflates Daniel 7:13ff with Psalm 110:1 – Jesus will sit at the right hand of God, i.e. enjoy the place of authority. We encounter the idea of the glorified Son of Man in Mark 13:26, in the Eschatological Discourse foretelling the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Hence, the sign of the heavenly Son of Man is in juxtaposition to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and thus to the end of the sacrificial system of Judaism. This conclusion of the Jewish sacrificial cultus is also a theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8:13.

The important point is that the ministry of the priestly order of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. Hebrews 7:6-8 points to Melchizedek, the Jebusite Priest-King of Salem, who received tithes from Abraham and blessed him, Genesis 14:18ff. The argument of the epistle is that Jesus derives His office from this priesthood – 7:17. Because Levi, in the loins of his ancestor, was blessed by Melchizedek, the latter priesthood is superior to the former, v9. Centuries after the incident with Abraham, Jerusalem, the city of Melchizedek, was conquered by David. As Bruce writes,

David thus became successor to the dynasty of which Melchizedek was the most illustrious representative. David belonged to the tribe of Judah, and so, therefore, did his descendant the Messiah, ‘great David’s greater Son’. There was therefore complete appropriateness in identifying Christ, of the tribe of Judah, with the one acclaimed by the divine oath as ‘a priest for ever after the order of Meichizedek’. And part of the argument of the letter to the Hebrews is designed to show that the priest of Melchizedek’s order is greater in every way than a priest of Aaron’s line. 132

Hence, the claim that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek is sound. Muslims might object that Jesus Himself does not use the self-designation of ‘priest’, but the fact is that He does employ the motif of Psalm 110 and apply it to Himself, indicating that He did see Himself as the Messianic priest-king after the order of Melchizedek. Moreover, inasmuch as He conflated the ministry of Isaianic Servant with that of the Son of Man and Messiah, He claimed a priestly ministry, the most obvious example being Mark 10:45. He had come to make a sacrificial offering to God on behalf of the people. Furthermore, He had been sent to do so by God the Father – John 3:16-17. We noted earlier the concept of shaliach/apostolos, and that, as we observed previously, one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ The idea that Jesus was sent to perform a priestly ministry entirely agrees with this concept.

What is especially distinctive about the sacrifice Jesus offers is that unlike the Aaronic High Priest, He does not offer an animal, nor have to do this annually, and neither need He offer a sacrifice for Himself. Rather, He is Himself the sinless offering for the sins of the people. We have previously noted the connotations of the ‘Shepherd’ concept, but for our purpose here, we need only consider John 10:11 – ‘I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’ The Messianic priest-king had come to sacrifice Himself for the sake of His sheep. We should also remember Mark 12:36-37, which quotes Psalm 110:1, and points to the deity of Jesus. The ‘Shepherd’ title was used of both God and the King. This points to a difference between the God of Islam and the God of the Bible. The former is depicted as demanding that His worshippers be ready to sacrifice their lives for Him; the latter is revealed as the God who takes human nature to die for human beings, specifically for sinners.

When Abraham was to sacrifice his son, he said ‘God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering’. God indeed does precisely that, substituting a ram for Isaac – v13. The Binding of Isaac became known as the ‘Akedah. The daily sacrifice of a lamb in the Jerusalem temple was termed the Tamîd.The Midrash Leviticus Rabbah connects the Passover with the ‘Akedah– ‘When I see the blood of the Paschal Lamb… I will remember the blood of the ‘Akedah.‘ The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 22, states ‘And now I pray for mercies before Thee, O Lord God that when the children of Israel offer in the hour of their need the Binding of Isaac, their father, Thou mayest remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all their need.’ Of course, the Passover lamb recalled the deliverance from Egypt, whereby the wrath of God did not fall upon those protected by the blood of the lamb. Guthrie asserts that the paschal lamb was intended as a sin-atonement, and draws attention to Pesahim 10:6 in this regard. 133

When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming to be baptised, He exclaimed ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’, John 1:29, cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19. Although the Baptist’s designation would draw on the cultic sacrifices we have examined, and thereby present Jesus as the priestly offering, it should also be noted that ‘the Lamb of God’ is also an allusion to the Servant in Isaiah 53:7 – ‘as a lamb that is led to the slaughter…’ Philip the deacon explains this passage as referring to Jesus in his encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:32ff. Guthrie observes that Isaiah 53:12 refers to the Servant bearing ‘the sins of many’ i.e. ‘all’ – which is the same as saying He bore the sins of the world. 134 Ladd observes that the Aramaic word talya may be translated as either ‘lamb’ or ‘boy, servant’. 135 There would appear to be a conflation of these closely-related concepts to underline that Jesus is the High priest who offers Himself for the life of the world. This is demonstrated by another passage in which Jesus stresses His heavenly origins, and that He came to die so that others might have eternal life – John 6:51 ‘I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ That this was a priestly action is confirmed by John 10:15-18 – Jesus freely lay down His life for His sheep.

9. Saviour

This term in many ways sums up what has gone before. It has already been noted that Jesus means ‘YHWH saves’. Luke 2:11 presents Jesus as ‘Saviour’. The term is richer in meaning than is often appreciated. The Gospel of Luke has a strong emphasis on the restoration of the Kingdom, and of its liberating nature – 21:28, 31. In the Old Testament, the Judges have the title yasha – ‘saviours’, Judges 3:9, 15. The Septuagint terms Othniel and Ehud as soter – Greek for ‘saviour’, a title also given them by Nehemiah 9:27 – ‘en oiktirmoiv sou toiv megaloiv ‘edwkav ‘autoiv swthrav kai ‘eswsav ‘autouv ‘ek ceirov ylibontwn‘autouv. The context makes it clear that the deliverance involved is political/military liberation from alien oppression.

1. The same thought is apparent in Luke – note the liberation motif in 1:68-71, 2:30, and 3:6 – the idea of being rescued from ones enemies. Cf. 1 Samuel 11:13; 14:45; 19:4.

2. ‘Saviours’ are characterised by charismatic endowment by the Spirit – ‘The typical charismatic figures …are all heroes, most of them military leaders, who deliver Israel from its foes.’ 136 Jesus was likewise endowed with the Spirit – Luke 3:22; 4:18. Immediately upon being so-endued, He was deliberately impelled by the Spirit to enter the desert to combat Satan.

3. The saviour by His act wrought liberty and unity; the New Testament sees this in universal terms – John 4:42 – ‘Saviour of the World’, cf. Luke 2:31-32. His action unites Jew and Gentile – John 11:50-52. In this respect, Jesus is the ultimate and anti-typical Saviour – the ‘saviours’ of the Old testament typified His ministry. This provides a connection with the ministry of the Servant.

4. John 12:31-33 sees the Cross as a military engagement against Satan. Salvation is also from sin, Psalm 51:14; and from death, Hebrews 5:7. These are our foes.

5. God is Saviour – Psalms 24:5; 18.45:15,21; Luke 1:47; Titus 3:4, etc. Jesus is the Ultimate Saviour because He is divine.

6. The dramatic nature of salvation is seen in John 19:18, which we examined earlier – the crucifixion of Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyen enteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’, an allusion to Exodus 17:12 LXX. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified, therein destroying the enemy – Satan.

B. The Islamic view

1. ‘Isa bin Maryam

It is uncertain how the term ‘Isa emerged. The usual idea is that it derived from the Syriac Yeshū, which in turn derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua. 137 Normally, Arab Christians normally refer to Jesus as Yasu. In Christ in Islam, Ahmed Deedat makes a tremendous faux-pas about the origins of the name ‘Isa: ‘Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus.’ 138 In fact, Yeshua(0#$2334^w&hy” in the Old Testament is normally translated ‘Joshua’; ‘Esau’ r#51(9 means ‘rough’. The names have no connection with each other. The Greek for ‘Joshua’ is ‘ihsouv ‘iēsous, and this is not only used in the New Testament with regard to the Messiah, but is also used of Joshua the conqueror of Canaan and Joshua the High Priest (among others) in the Septuagint, e.g. Joshua 1:10′kai ‘eneteilato ‘ihsouv toiv grammateusin tou laou legwn‘ Zechariah 3:3’kai ‘ihsouv ‘hn‘endedumenov ‘imatia rupara kai ‘eisthkei pro proswpou tou ‘aggelou‘ Hence, since the Greek form is ‘ihsouv the ‘Latinised’ form to which Deedat objects is no arbitrary innovation of either the so-called ‘Christian nations’ or even the actual Christians themselves.

Deedat further compounds his incompetence by stating that ‘The word is very simply “ESAU” a very common Jewish name used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”‘. In fact, it is only ever used of the brother of Jacob, which rather undermines Deedat’s assertions. Every reference in Genesis is to this individual. In Christ in Islam and Christianity, Gilchrist comments on Deedat’s blunder on this issue:

The Jews just simply did not call their children by this name. Jacob and Esau were enemies for most of their lives and their descendants, the Israelites and the Edomites, were often at war with each other. No Jewish children were ever named after the brother of Jacob, the father of the Israelites, for he stood against Jacob and was rejected by God (Hebrews 12:17). It is thus a fallacy to suggest that the original name of Jesus was Esau. 139

Zwemer considers the theory of one Dr Otto Pautz that ‘Isa did indeed derive from Esau, because the Jews in Medina caricatured Jesus in this way, although Zwemer rightly is guarded about this speculative hypothesis. 140Gilchrist finds this theory attractive:

For reasons that have never been apparent Muhammad chose to call him Isa. Deedat’s interpretation of this name as “Esau” tends to lend support to the suggestion made by some that the Jews in Arabic cunningly misled Muhammad by subtly perverting the true name of Jesus into the name of their forefather’s irreligious brother. If Deedat’s conclusion is correct, it militates heavily against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an.

There can be no doubt, however, that Esau is no nearer to the original and true name of Jesus than Muhammad’s Isa. This fundamental error sets the tone for the whole of Deedat’s treatment of the contrast between Christ in Islam and Christianity and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Jesus of the Bible, rather than the Isa of the Qur’an, is the true Jesus. 141

Cotterell also notes this theory that ‘the Jews referred contemptuously to Jesus as ‘Isā because of the obvious near-homophony with Esau (Hebrew ‘Esā), the despised brother of Jacob… Nöldeke suggest that Muhammad adopted the name in good faith, unaware of the pejorative overtones.’ 142 This would be in keeping with the Qur’an’s borrowing from a mixture of Jewish and Christian canonical and apocryphal sources. Another theory noted by Zwemer is that ‘Isā was probably formed to rhyme with Moses – Musa. 143 The Qur’an is indeed fond of such rhyming techniques. The difficulty, as Zwemer observes, is that ‘Isā is used in five cases of conjunction with Musa. However, Zwemer’s objection is not insurmountable. Rhythmic considerations may well have been the original impetus for its usage, and thereafter the name simply continued to be used elsewhere. It would be interesting to know what name the Arab Christians of Najran used for Jesus. Significantly, a Christian inscription to Rahman has been found in Yemen, and Muslims also employ this term for Allah. Perhaps archaeology may eventually be able to assist in this question.

The term ‘son of Mary’ does not exist as a title in the Bible, but only once as a description – Mark 6:3 ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?’ The reference to Jesus as the ‘brother’ of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon demonstrates that the usage is not titular. With regard to its Qur’anic usage, the term is used both as a proper name and as a title in Islam. An example of its titular usage in the Qur’an is found in Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:57 ‘When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!’ In the hadith, there seems to be greater emphasis on its titular employment, e.g.:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?

Zwemer notes that in the twenty-five places where ‘Isā is used, in sixteen He is called the Son of Mary. 144 It has been frequently observed that much of what Islam asserts about Jesus is negatory in character, informing us much more about what He is not than what He is. With respect to the Incarnation, Islam denies the deity of Christ:

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:116116 They say: ‘Allah hath begotten a son’; Glory be to Him. Nay to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth; everything renders worship to Him.

Surah An-Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him…

The term ‘Son of Mary’ is not actually explained in the Qur’an or Hadith, but it appears to be related to the Islamic dogma of the virgin birth, as well as a polemical denial of the eternal divine sonship of Jesus. Yusuf Ali makes this suggestion:

401 …Jesus is no more than a man. It is against reason and revelation to call him Allah or the son of Allah. He is called the son of Mary to emphasize this. He had no human father, as his birth was miraculous. But it is not this which raise him to his high position as a prophet, but because Allah called him to his office. The praise is due to Allah, Who by His word gave him spiritual strength-“strengthened him with the Holy spirit. The miracles which surround his story relate not only to the “Clear Signs” which he brought. It was those who misunderstood him who obscured his clear Signs and surrounded him with mysteries of their own invention.(3.62)

Cotterell also examines a possible Ethiopian origin for the term, but finds the evidence inadequate:

The suggestion that the title ‘Son of Mary’ originated in Abyssinia, and indicated a high view of Mary rather than a low view of Jesus, fails at two points. Firstly, it is supposed that the title was brought back from Abyssinia by returning Muslim refugees, after the first hijra. However, the title occurs in Meccan Suras, decisively in Sura 19 which, according to tradition, was recited to the Abyssinian Nagash (Eth. negūs, ‘king’) by the refugees. Secondly there is no evidence that the title ‘Son of Mary’ was used by the Abyssinian church: it does not appear in the Ethiopic Qiddase. In any event the use of the title by the Abyssinian church is highly unlikely since its strong monophysite position ensured that the deity of Christ all but eclipsed his humanity. 145

In the Arabic Infancy pseudo-gospel, ‘Son of Mary’ is used of Jesus a few times, (although not necessarily in a titular sense, save possibly when Satan addresses Him in v34). This may be the source of the term in the Qur’an, especially since this apocryphal work presents Jesus as speaking in the cradle. This is an attractive proposition since the work has a high Mariology, referring to the mother of Jesus as ‘Lady Mary’. For example, in v3, the following is said of her ‘Thou art not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women.’ Islam appears to give a higher status to Mary than does the Bible. Surah 21:91 presents the virgin birth as being as much about Mary as it is about Jesus. They are jointly held to be a sign from Allah:

Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.Surah An-Muminun 23:50And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.

The elevation of Mary herself to being a sign is perhaps an attempt to compensate for any pressing need for Jesus to be born of a virgin. This remains a major failing inadequacy of Islamic polemics – its failure to explain why Jesus had to be virgin-born. Yusuf Ali comments about this verse (21:91):

The virgin birth of Jesus was a miracle both for him and his mother. She was falsely accused of unchastity, but the child Jesus triumphantly vindicated her by his own miracles (xix. 27-33), and showed by his life the meanness of the calumny against his mother.

If the Infancy pseudo-gospel was indeed the source for this title, then whoever authored the Qur’an engaged in the most deliberate editing of a text to fit his/their presuppositions, since the text begins with the affirmation ‘In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God’ and as soon as Jesus is born, He speaks, saying ‘I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.‘ The absence of any canonical background for the titular use of ‘Son of Mary’ demonstrates the contrived nature of the term, in contrast to the firm basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition for the titles of Jesus. Clearly, the historical Jesus is the Biblical one.

2. A Prophet/Apostle

The Qur’an presents Jesus both a prophet and an apostle:

Surah Maryam 19:30He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet…Surah Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah…

According to Islam, Allah has sent messengers/apostles to every people. Every apostle (rasul) is a prophet (nabi) but not every prophet was an apostle. Surah Yunus 10:48 states that every nation has received a messenger. Islamic fiqh says the following about messengers:

AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)

MESSENGERS AND MUHAMMAD

He sent Messengers to mankind to establish a plea against them. He completed their mission, admonition and prophethood with His prophet Muhammad – may Allah be pleased with him and please him – whom he made the last of the Messengers, giving glad tidings, warning and calling people to Allah, with His permission. The Prophet was an illuminating lamp and Allah revealed to him His book, which is full of wisdom. He explained through it His true religion and guided by it along the right path.

With regard to the distinction between prophets and apostles, the comments of Yusuf Ali on S. 19:51 are helpful:

Moses was (1) especially chosen, and therefore prepared and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, in order that he might free his people from Egyptian bondage; there may also be a reference to Moses’s title of Kalimullah, the one to whom prophet (nabi), in that he received inspiration; and (3) he was a messenger (rasul) in that he had a Book of Revelation, and an Ummat or organised Community, for which he instituted laws.

Zwemer comments on the distinction as follows:

The number of prophets and apostles sent by God, according to Moslem teaching, amounts to 124,000. Others say 240,000, and others 100,000. These statements show that the words, prophet and apostle, in Moslem usage have not the same dignity, which we infer from their usage in the Old and New Testaments. Three hundred and thirteen are said to have been apostles who came with a special mission. A prophet, according to Moslem teaching, is a man inspired by God, but not sent with a special dispensation or book; while an apostle is one who comes either with a special dispensation or to whom a special book has been revealed. All apostles are prophets, but not all prophets are apostles. Jesus was both. 146

The Muslim author Suzanne Haneef appears to agree with this. She defines a prophet as one receiving divine revelations ‘…which constitute a source of guidance for men. If the revelation is in the form of a written scripture, the prophet is in addition a “messenger” (rasul) as well.’ 147 In the same passage she rejects predictive activity as part of the definition of prophethood. Vos defines the activity of the Biblical prophet (Hebrew nabhi) as ‘an authorized spokesman for the Deity’, in whose word ‘a divinely-communicated power resides.’ 148 This is the same as saying that a prophet was inspired by the Spirit of YHWH. Abraham is said to be a prophet, Genesis 20:17 and 2 Kings 16:13ff defines prophets as those servants of YHWH who attempt to restore the people to the covenant-law.

However, it is quite clear from the Old Testament that there was a predictive element, and from what we have seen earlier, much of this concerned the Messianic Age. Whilst there is some affinity between the Biblical and Islamic concepts of prophethood, the concept of apostleship held by Islam does not exactly correspond to the Biblical usage of the term, as can be inferred from what is said of the apostolic commission of Jesus. The Shaliach concept is rather different from the Muslim idea, and one suspects Muslims would find the notion objectionable. This in itself allows us to say that the Islamic concept of apostleship lacks Biblical and Jewish traditional background, being simply an innovation by Muslims.

As to the question of the prophetic message of Jesus, Muslims hold that He came to confirm the Shari’ah, the same legal-code revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Islamic exegete Mawdudi comments:

…Jesus did not bring any new religion but followed the same way that was followed by all the Prophets before him and invited people to the same. He believed in what was intact in his time from among the original teaching of the Torah. The Injil also testifies the same (Matthew 5:17, 18 ). The Qur’an reiterates this fact over and over again that each and every Prophets who was set by Allah to any part of the world, confirmed the message of all the Prophets who had gone before him and exerted his utmost to complete the work which they had left as the holy heritage, for he did not come to refute them or efface their religion or establish his own religion instead. Likewise Allah did not send down any of His Books to refute any of His own previous books, but to support and confirm them. 149

That is, the message and ministry of Jesus was the proclamation of Islam and the Shari’ah, as stated in Surah Maida 5:49:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

In our examination of the Biblical concept of the Eschatological Prophet, we saw how the ministry of Jesus fulfils the law. He did not come simply to repeat it. Interestingly, the Qur’an appears to be self-contradictory in this regard, perhaps reflecting its borrowing from Christian sources which address this issue of fulfilment. Surah 3:50 states ‘(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.’ Unlike the Biblical concept of fulfilment, this seems very arbitrary.

One difference between the Islamic and Biblical views is that Jesus is portrayed solely as a local prophet – to Israel – e.g. S. 3:49 – ‘And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel’; S. 61:6 – ‘And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.”‘ Jamal Badawi asserts this restrictive mission – ‘MISSION specifically TO THE ISRAELITES (3:49, 5:75, 61:6)’. 150 Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.429 states that ‘…Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I [Muhammad] have been sent to all mankind.’

This reflects the traditional Muslim view as suggested by Badawi that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, although none of the texts Badawi mentions explicitly restrict the ministry of Jesus to Israel. Indeed, S. 5:110 could be interpreted as commissioning Jesus to speak to humanity as a whole – ‘When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity…’ {Pickthall). Moreover, Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91 states – ‘We made her and her son a Sign for all the worlds‘ (the proper translation of the Arabic – even though Yusuf Ali renders it ‘for all peoples’). The phrase is used of Muhammad in v107 of the same chapter. Only the Hadith establishes the unique claims of Muhammad to universal prophethood. It follows that Islam is intrinsically inconsistent with regard to this issue. This inconsistency becomes more glaring when consider the Return of Christ. If Jesus was only sent to Israel, why at His return does He become the ruler of the global Islamic State? Surely this prerogative should be restricted to Muhammad?

It is important to recognise that Jesus is viewed purely as a prophet, rather than as the Prophet. Given that S. 33:40 presents Muhammad as ‘the Seal of the Prophets’, it is clear that in Islamic terms, such a description would apply only to him. In regard to Jesus, the Qur’an effectively belittles Him – S. 5:75 ‘Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him.’ Jesus does nothing out of the ordinary, beyond bringing the Injil. There is nothing distinctive about Him as a Messenger that is not true of other prophets according to Islam (at least not before the Second Coming). This naturally involves Islam ignoring what is involved in being the Eschatological Prophet. We have seen the connection of the term with the Suffering Servant, whose passion is of a vicarious nature, something that Islam does not claim for Muhammad. It is noteworthy that Baagil, rather ludicrously, attempts to apply Isaiah 42:1 to Muhammad, but in doing so, he ignores the vicarious suffering that brings salvation in the other Servant Songs, and Muslims do not believe that Muhammad experienced a representative Passion that brings salvation to those with faith in him. 151 The term also has Messianic connotations, and the Qur’an is clear that only Jesus is termed ‘Messiah’. Whilst Muslims, such as Deedat, like to claim that Deuteronomy 18 is a prophecy of Muhammad, it is instructive that the Qur’an makes no such explicit assertion. To be sure, it does claim that the Torah predicted his coming, S. 7:157, but no specific verse or passage is identified as the source of this.

Another aspect of the Prophet in regard to the Servant and Messiah is the performance of miracles. We have already noted that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, and thus, on that basis, Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him, since miracles are an essential, identifying function of the Eschatological Prophet. The Qur’anic Jesus does indeed perform miracles, but again, according to Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504 ‘Every Prophet was given miracles…’ (with the exception of Muhammad). The performance of miracles is viewed as a general prophetic function. The Islamic Jesus performs some miracles found in both apocryphal and canonical texts, and does so as an Apostle:

Surah Al-i’ Imran 3:49

“And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.

3. Al-Masih (Messiah)

Islam believes that Jesus is the Messiah, e.g. S. 3:45, although it never explains or comments on the term, demonstrating that the term has been lifted from the Bible, and that Islam remains dependent upon Christian sources for an explanation of the title. Yusuf Ali comments: ‘Christ: Greek, Christos = anointed: kings and priests were anointed to symbolise consecration to their office. The Hebrew and Arabic form is Masih. (3.45)’ Given that neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever define the term, it is quite legitimate to point to the Biblical and traditional Jewish concepts as providing the only basis for the title – which, as we have seen, involves a Messiah who is the Son of God, divine Himself, and one who vicariously suffers for His people. Deedat comments on the term:

The word “Christ” is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning “to rub”, “to massage”, “to anoint”. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices… Christos means “Anointed”, and anointed means appointed in its religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God’s Messenger. Every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the “anointed” ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah… Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. 152

In presenting the concept this way, Deedat is forced to ignore the Biblical and Jewish traditional concept of a climactic Anointed figure, whether royal, prophetic or priestly. No one (and nothing else) in the Bible is ever presented as the Maschiach in the titular sense, a major failing of Deedat’s polemic. Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an present John the Baptist as ‘anointing’ Jesus; in the Bible, the Holy Spirit does that, as God’s Son, Messiah, Prophet and Servant, with its priestly connotations. There is nothing in the Qur’an to indicate that Jesus is King in the sense of a reigning executive. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Jesus ever rule. Nor is any implication that He was ‘anointed’, the meaning of ‘Messiah’, ever presented in either the Qur’an or the Hadith. Again, Deedat has to obscure the meaning by making it just mean ‘appoint’. No one in the Qur’an is ever presented as ‘anointed’, something Deedat also ignores.

At any rate, the Islamic use of the title is itself logically inconsistent, since a king is only a king if he reigns, and in the Qur’an, Jesus never does. The Hadith presents Jesus as ruling after His Second Coming, but He does so as Amir or Imam, rather than Messianic King. Moreover, even in this respect Islam is glaringly lacking in logical progression. There is no indication, and definitely no prediction in the Qur’an that Jesus would ever reign in any sense. The Hadith presents the Islamic Jesus ruling after His return, having slain the Antichrist and destroyed all other religions:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.656Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said, “… the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said, “…son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

Another problem for Islam is that the Messiah, as Son of David, is specifically required to perform miracles. This, the Islamic Jesus does, it is true, but not as Messiah, but rather as an Apostle. We encounter no ‘deeds of the Messiah’ such as characterised the eschatological expected figure of Biblical hope and Jewish tradition. In fact, we see nothing in the Qur’an distinctive about the Messianic ministry of Jesus. Indeed, it is fair to say that in the Qur’an, Jesus has no ‘Messianic’ ministry – He does nothing as the Messiah. If the term were excised, the Qur’anic account would read just as well. The term is totally redundant and superfluous to His function and ministry in the Qur’an. This in itself demonstrates the borrowed nature of the term. The distinctive Christian belief over against Judaism is that Jesus is the Messiah, and Islam, claiming Muhammad was the climactic prophet in the line of Moses and Jesus, had to incorporate the title when it claimed Jesus as a prophet. However, by its ignorance of the connotations of the term, it has emptied the title of its meaning. Small wonder Deedat attempts to widen its employment, to play down its significance. This renders him dangerously close to heresy, since no one else in the Qur’an is entitled Al-Masih. Unwittingly, the Qur’an affirms the uniqueness of Jesus in this respect. This, and the emptiness of the Qur’anic use of the term indicates the Qur’an’s borrowing from Christian sources.

Largely as a result of a polemical debate with Medinan Jews, Islam denies the crucifixion, and so rejects the concept of a vicariously-dying Messiah – Surah An-Nisaa 4:157. That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them…’ Hence, a major function of the Messiah – His vicarious suffering leading to His divine vindication – is lost. Montgomery Watt has argued that the Jewish-Muslim debate was the origin of the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion. 153 The Medinan Jews are said to have responded to Muhammad’s claims of being a prophet in the line of Abraham, Moses and Jesus by denying the prophetic standing of Jesus, since they had been able to kill Him, which God would not have permitted if He had been a genuine divine emissary. Since that Muhammad claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus, the resultant implication is that if Jesus were a false prophet, Muhammad was likewise. Hence, we can comprehend Islam’s rejection of the reality of the death of Jesus, as being essential to safeguard not so much Him, but rather Muhammad against Jewish polemics. The Jews are not totally absolved of guilt, since the Qur’an definitely accuses them of attempted murder against Jesus.

4. A Servant of Allah

In Surah 19:30, the baby Jesus announces that He is ‘the servant (‘abd) of Allah’. However, whilst this is a description of Jesus, it does not appear to function as a title, and certainly not as a unique one (angels are described as servants in S. 4:172, and Zechariah is so-defined S. 19:2). There is no specific ministry that He accomplishes as a Servant. Zwemer in The Muslim Christ suggests that the statement in S. 4:172 ‘Christ will not scorn to be a slave unto Allah…’ (Pickthall) is a reference to ‘the title of the Messiah in Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah.’ 154 Whether this is so or not, there seems to be no specific theological necessity for Jesus to suffer according to Islam. Rather, the Qur’an simply makes the historical observation that this occurred, and notes that this was the common inheritance of the prophets:

Surah Al-Baqara 2:87ff87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!

91 When it is said to them: ‘believe in what Allah hath sent down’ they say ‘We believe in what was sent down to us’; yet they reject all besides even if it be truth confirming what is with them. Say: ‘Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by if ye did indeed believe?’

Surah An-Nisaa 4:155155 (They have incurred divine displeasure): in that they broke their Covenant: that they rejected the Signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; we need no more)’; nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy and little is it they believe.

156 That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.

157 That they said (in boast) ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah’; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 6093Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalib

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, “You have a resemblance to Jesus whom the Jews hated so much that they slandered his mother…Ahmad transmitted it.

It is quite possible that the original references to Jesus being the Servant of Allah did reflect the traditional Christian usage, but its distinctives, being at odds with Islamic soteriology, were excised. We noted how a similar excision appears to have taken place with regard to material from the Infancy pseudo-gospel. This is likely, since the Qur’an has tampered with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, where after the sin of the First Couple, God addresses the Serpent, saying ‘and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.’ The text predicts a Deliverer who will undo the work of Satan at cost to Himself, pointing to the Sacrificial death of Christ. New Testament texts reflect this and apply the prophecy to Jesus, such as John 12:31, which specifically deals with the Cross – ‘now the ruler of this world shall be cast out’, and 1 John 3:8 ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil.’

A comparison of Genesis 3:15 with the Qur’an reveals that instead of a promised Deliverer, there is a prediction of Guidance – S. 2:38 ‘We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve’; S. 20:123 ‘He said: Go down hence, both of you, one of you a foe unto the other. But if there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief.’ It is clear that Guidance of this sort has a salvatory function from what is stated in S. 7:35 ‘O Children of Adam! If messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.’ Thus in Islam, the ministry of guidance is equates with the Biblical ministry of sacrifice. hence, we should not be surprised to find Islam presenting not a Jesus who, as Suffering Servant willingly and in the divine plan suffers a sacrificial death, but rather merely a prophet who relays divine revelation.

The Qur’an presents the ministry of Jesus is portrayed as being met by unbelief and hostility. The Jews are depicted in the Qur’an as being guilty of unbelief with respect to the ministry and message of Jesus, S. 3:52ff. In particular, a major aspect of the suffering of the Islamic Jesus is found in S. 4:156, which indicates that Mary was accused of immorality, implying that Jesus was illegitimate: ‘That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.’ Yusuf Ali comments: ‘The false charge against Mary was that she was unchaste. Cf. xix. 27-28. Such a charge is bad enough to make against any woman, but to make it against Mary, the mother of Jesus, was to bring into ridicule Allah’s power itself.’

However, for all this, there is no indication in the Qur’an that Jesus vicariously suffers for all humanity in order that they may be saved. Instead, the sufferings of Jesus at the hands of the Jews is employed to explain and justify the removal of prophethood from that people to the Arabs, and thus argue for the Apostolic/Prophetic ministry of Muhammad, Surah Maidah 5:78 – ‘Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.’ Thus, instead of the sufferings of Jesus leading to blessing upon those for whom He suffered, it leads rather to disaster for them! Neither does the ministry of Jesus as the Servant bring salvation to the Gentiles, since He is supposedly only sent to the Jews (but consider the significance of Jesus as a sign for mankind, indicating that the Qur’anic redactors failed to eliminate all traces of the historical Jesus who suffers for humanity as a whole).

Of course, it is theologically impossible for Islam to accept the need for the crucifixion, since it rejects the concept of Vicarious Reconciliation, affirming the necessity of submission to God by obedience to Islamic law (the Shari’ah). The Muslim writer Abdalati declares on this subject that ‘Islam rejects the …Crucifixion… This rejection is based on the authority of God Himself as revealed in the Qur’an and on a deeper rejection of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins.’ 155 Perhaps, however, Islam did not completely succeed in excising the concept of the Suffering Servant. The following Hadith may reflect the original Christian concept of the death of Christ (although the prophet is unidentified), especially as Luke 23:34 says: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.63

Narrated by Abdullah

As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, ‘O Lord! Forgive my people as they do not know.’

5. A Word from Allah

One interesting title of Jesus in the Qur’an is Kalimat’Allah – Word of God. This on the surface presents a parallel with the Biblical concept of the Logos. However, Muslim tend to deny this. For example, Yusuf Ali denies that the term has an absolute sense, i.e. He is only a Word from God, not the Word of God:

381 Notice: “a Word from Allah”, not “the Word of Allah”, the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii. 59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by Allah’s word “Be”, and he was. (3.39)

Gilchrist quotes a Christian writer, speaking of Surah 3.45, makes the same point about the form of the words in the text:

Further, in the verse from the Qur’an which we have quoted, Christ is called ‘His Word’, that is, ‘God’s Word’. The Arabic shows that it means ‘The Word of God’, not merely ‘a Word of God’. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God’s mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15). 156

With respect to S. 3:39, this particular verse is difficult, since it refers to John the Baptist confirming a ‘Word from Allah’, and whilst this could refer to Jesus, it also could refer to Scripture. More obvious examples are found in the following two texts:

Surah Al-i-Imran 3:4545 Behold! the angels said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

46 ‘He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.’

47 She said: ‘O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it ‘Be’ and it is!

Surah An- Nisaa 4:171171. O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit from him…

Zwemer comments that ‘modern Arabic usage clearly distinguishes between the Word of God in the sense of Holy Writ, which is always referred to as Kalâm Allah and the Word of God as His Messenger, which is Kalimet Allah. There are, however, only these two passages in which this New Testament title is given to out Saviour.’ 157 As with Al-Masih, there is no clear definition of what the term means in the Qur’an, but from what S. 4:171 states, it would appear that it means less than deity. In that verse He is presented as an apostle, a spirit from God, and God’s Word, in the context of the denial of Trinity. However, it is difficult to understand exactly its import. Baagil claims that it means that Jesus was directly created ‘in the womb of Mary’ without ‘the agency of sperm, just only with the decree of Allah’. 158 Jamal Badawi says much the same: ‘A WORD FROM ALLAH (3:39,45; 4:170). Word is not the “Logos” or the second person in Godhead. It is the creative command of Allah “KON” or “be” (2:117, 3:47,59, 6:73, 16:40, 19:35, 36:82, 40:68). ‘Words’ of Allah is used in (18:109, 8:7, 31:27) and others.’ 159Andrew Vargo, commenting on Badawi’s transmission on ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200’ on ‘Jesus in the Qur’an – Humanity’, reports Badawi as stating the following on the issue:

Host: The Qur’an calls Jesus the Word, just as the Bible, how is this different?

Jamal Badawi: The problem is the meaning of the term Word. There is a difference, the Christians believe that the Word is the absolute of God, John. This was the influence of Platonic philosophy. The Qur’an has nothing to do with the Logos, the Word means a command or sign from God. Sura 16:40:

For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, “Be”, and it is.

We are all words of God because we are all created by God’s command. There are 12 places in the Qur’an where words of God are used, so it is not unique to Jesus. 160

On this basis, the thrust of the term is ontological, rather than functional, although Badawi has perhaps overstated his case, in that its unique usage in regard to Jesus would seem to indicate some connection with the virgin birth. Further, his comments about the Platonic origin of the term as used in the Gospel of John are plainly inaccurate, as we have seen, since it is obvious that the dominant influence has been Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Sam Shamoun heavily criticises Badawi’s Qur’anic exegesis:

In none of the examples that Badawi presents is a person ever called God’s Word. The verses without exception refer to God’s ability to create by his Word or refer to the fact that God’s words are inexhaustible… (see endnotes) We are again left wondering how do these verses parallel the fact that Jesus is the only being who is called the Word of God? Badawi cannot produce one single reference to show that other beings or prophets are called God’s very own Word. Instead, he hopes to confuse the situation by bringing in irrelevant issues such as the fact that the Quran mentions God’s words as being inexhaustible or that he creates what he likes by his command or Word. And? Whoever said that God’s words are not inexhaustible or that God cannot create whatever he chooses by his powerful Word? Yet, this still does not touch the issue that not a single being, including angels themselves, is ever called the Word of God except Jesus.

Badawi must assume that Jesus is called the Word of God solely because he was created by God’s command. There are two main problems with his argument. First, Jesus is not simply a by-product of God’s command, but is the very Word of God to man: Sura 3:39…John is to bear witness to a Word from God, namely Jesus the Christ. Here, Jesus is the one who is the Word from God. The fact that he is a Word from God implies preexistence, that Jesus preexisted as God’s Word. This point is brought out more clearly in the two following passages: Sura 3:45… According to this passage God’s Word is not a mere abstraction but rather a person. This is due to the fact that the Word of God is given a personal name, Jesus. This implies that Badawi’s argument that Jesus is only a by-product of God’s creative command cannot be sustained. Hence, according to this one passage the Word of God is personal and shall take on the name of Jesus.

[Commenting on 4:171] Jesus is both the Word of God, not just a word from him, given to Mary and a spirit that proceeds from God himself. Hence, in one sense the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus and yet in other places it affirms that he is the divine preexistent Word and Spirit from God. Secondly, if it were true that Jesus is God’s word solely because he was created by the command of God then we would expect to find Adam called the Word of God (according to Sura 3:59) since he was also created by God’s command. Yet, neither Adam nor anyone else is ever called the Word of God. 161

Even if we differ from Shamoun’s claim that the Qur’anic term definitely points to the pre-existence of Jesus, it is likely that the Biblical concept was the original form that the Qur’an adapted and emptied of meaning. It is definitely employed in a titular sense by Islam, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith, and only ever of Jesus, never any other prophet, not even Muhammad:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5762

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

When some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast…

Sahih Muslim Hadith 380Narrated by AbuHurayrah and Hudhayfah

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, would gather the people. The believers would stand until the Paradise is brought near them. They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open Paradise for us. He would say: What turned ye out from Paradise was the sin of your father, Adam. I am not in a position to do that; you should go to my son, Ibrahim, the Friend of Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: He (Ibrahim) would say: I am not in a position to do that. Verily I had been the Friend (of Allah) from a long time ago; you should approach Moses (peace be upon him) with whom Allah conversed. They would come to Moses (peace be upon him) but he would say: I am not in a position to do that; you should go to Jesus, the Word of Allah and His spirit. Jesus (peace be upon him) would say: I am not in a position to do that. So they would come to Muhammad (peace be upon him)…

It is the unique titular usage of Kalimat’Allah that is so interesting. The Qur’an makes other ontological points about Jesus, mainly negative, e.g. that He was not God, but none of them function as a title. Yet this term does just that. The question is why? The issue becomes even more intriguing when we consider that the titles of other prophets appear to be functional, rather than ontological in nature, again pointing to the uniqueness of Jesus. This last point undermines an assertion of Deedat:

Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like “Rasulullah“, meaning “Messenger of God”, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet “Rasullullah” has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a “Friend of God”, but its Arabic equivalent “Khalillullah” is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God’s friends. “Kaleemullah“, meaning “One who spoke with Allah” is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms. 162

The titles of the prophets in Islam in each case describe a particular relationship that messenger enjoyed with God. It is significant that that the relationship that Jesus is said to enjoy with Allah is the only one that is ontological in nature. There surely must be more to the term than just the idea that Jesus was the result of a divine fiat. Gilchrist argues ‘The Qur’an says no more of Adam than that “he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration” (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, “from his Lord”, but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the “Word of God”. As there is, nonetheless, no explanation of the title in the Qur’an, we shall have to turn, as we did with the title Al-Masih, to the Christian Bible to find its real meaning…’ 163 Zwemer observes about the term in relation to the titles of other prophets, ‘The title given to Moses is Kalim Allah, and the common explanation is that Moses was the mouth-piece of God in the sense that God spake to him, and made him His special confidant; but Jesus is the Kalimet Allah or Word of God, because He communicates God’s word, God’s will to men.’ 164 Zwemer further notes ‘If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God’s will; but since God Himself calls Him “the Word of God”, it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God’s will, and the only perfect manifestation of God.’ 165 Gilchrist’s observation is very pertinent:

There are two key factors that the Muslims are only too inclined to overlook – the application of the title to Jesus alone and the fact that he is clearly described in Surah 4.171 as “His Word”, meaning not a Word from God alone but the Word of God. Abdul-Haqq states the first factor quite plainly – the title is “an expression uniquely used of Jesus Christ”. The Qur’an, in Surah 3.59, states that “the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam” and promptly defines that likeness. God simply said “Be”, and he came to be (kun fayakuun), implying that both were made by the single word of God in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God. 166

As stated earlier, the likelihood is that the title reflects the Christian usage, but that Qur’anic redaction has diluted its original significance. There appears to be no other reason for its employment. No doubt Muhammad and the early Muslims encountered Christians referring to Jesus as ‘the Word of God’, and so included it in their new religion, albeit in a slightly transformed fashion. It is important to recognise that the Christian usage claims a heavy background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, notably the targums. What background can the Islamic title claim, especially if it is interpreted as Badawi and Yusuf Ali assert? Especially as the Qur’an nowhere explains the function of the title? We noted earlier that probably because of the virgin birth, Jesus is described as a ‘sign’ to mankind. Possibly the concept of Jesus being ‘the Word’ is related to this as well. It would seem that the miraculous supernatural origins of Jesus are maintained even in the Qur’anic redaction, to some degree.

6. A spirit from Allah

Usually coupled with the previous title is the reference to Jesus as being a spirit from God – Ruh’Allah. The Spirit of God (Ruh’Allah) is to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quddus). The former is Jesus, the latter Gabriel. This often causes confusion for both Christians and Muslims. With regard to the title as used of Jesus, as in 4:171, Zwemer observes that ‘the commentators are not agreed as to its real significance, and whether it is a name that can be applied to Jesus Christ, or whether the passage simply signifies that Jesus, with all other mortals, was partaker of the creative Spirit of God.’ 167 Badawi observes about the term ‘A SPIRIT FROM ALLAH (4:171): same applies to other humans (15:29, 32:9, 38:72).‘ This makes it clear that he sees nothing singular about the term, although it should be noted that the texts to which Badawi refers concern the creation of Adam. The immediate question is that if this is all Islam means by the term, why has it become a defining title of Jesus, not least in the Hadith, as we have noted earlier with regard to ‘the Word’? For the text does not simply say that God breathed His spirit into the womb of Mary, but rather that Jesus was a spirit from Him. Gilchrist writes:

In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, “a Word from him”. Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, “a Spirit from him”. On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. Once again no attempt is made to explain the title in the Qur’an, yet it frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form. It is the closest the Qur’an comes to admitting the pre-existence of Jesus before his conception on earth. The lack of any explanation of its meaning, however, or why it should be applied uniquely to Jesus just as the other two titles are, suggests that Muhammad once again heard and adopted Christian teachings and titles applying to Jesus without understanding them or seeing their ominous implications for his dogma that Jesus was only a prophet like all the other prophets.

Precisely in the passage already mentioned, where Muhammad uses the epithets ‘Logos’ and ‘Spirit’ with reference to Jesus and seems to approach the concept of trinity, it can be clearly understood that Muhammad did not realise the implication of these Christian expressions which he had acquired from hearsay. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 71). 168

The Muslim answer appears to be found in the Hadith, which gives the impression that all human spirits were characterised by some form of pre-existence, and that Jesus was simply one of these:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 122

Narrated by Ubayy ibn Ka’b

In regard to the words of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, “Your Lord brought forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam.” (7:172) Ubayy said: He gathered them and paired them then fashioned them and endowed them with the power of speech and they began to speak. He then made an agreement and covenant with them. He made them bear witness about themselves (saying) Am I not your Lord. They said: Yes. He said: I call to witness seven heavens and seven earths regarding you and I call witness your father Adam regarding you lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: We do not know this. Bear this in mind that there is no god besides Me and there is no Lord besides Me and do not associate anything with Me. It is I Who should be sending to you My messengers in order to remind you My agreement and My covenant and it is I who would send you My Books. They said: We bear witness to the fact that Thou art our Lord, Thou art our Object of worship. There is no Lord besides Thee and there is no object of worship besides Thee. They confirmed this (pledge). Adam was raised above them so that he would see them and he saw the rich and the poor, those having handsome faces and even those inferior to them and he said: My Lord, why is it that Thou hast not made Thy servants alike? He said: I wish that I should be thanked. And he also saw the Prophets, some amongst them like lamps with light in them, distinguished by another covenant regarding messengership and prophethood, viz. the words of the Blessed and the High: And when We made covenant with the prophets – up to His words: Jesus son of Mary (33:7). He was among those spirits and He sent him to Mary (peace be upon both of them). And it is narrated by Ubayy that he entered by her mouth.

Transmitted by Ahmad.

The doctrine of this tradition does not seem to agree with that of the Qur’an, and it smacks of being contrived, possibly with a view to countering Christian polemics about the eternal nature of Christ. At any rate, the provenance of the hadiths with regard to the Qur’an is debatable, whatever Muslims affirm. Certainly the text in S. 33:7 in no way implies the pre-existence of the prophets or human beings in general. If the term is simply a description of Jesus’ origins, it is strange that it has come to function as a title, and one that distinguishes Jesus from other Messengers. As with ‘the Word’, this title is never employed of any other prophet. Gilchrist observes how the term has come to be used in a titular sense:

Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (“O Spirit of Allah”). It is a very common title in many works. In one place his disciples are found saying to him:

“O Spirit of God, describe to us the friends of God (Exalted is He!) upon whom there is no fear, and who do not grieve”. (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 86). 169

Even if the titles of the prophets are not exclusive as Deedat claims, it requires some explanation as to why an ontological description is applied uniquely to Jesus, whereas other prophets are known by functional or relational titles. No other human being in the Qur’an is ever described as a spirit in this way. Rather, the term Ruh is applied to angels, such as Gabriel, e.g. 70:4; 78:38; 97:4. In fact, the ‘Spirit’ in these texts is usually, though not universally identified as Gabriel. In this case, we have a heavenly being identified as a spirit. It is natural, consistent exegesis to interpret ruh in other cases as being of this nature. Gilchrist comments:

“Candid Muhammadan writers freely admit that this title ‘Spirit of God’ carries with it some speciality such as can be predicated of no other prophet” (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 21). It is very interesting to note that the very expression applied to Jesus in Surah 4.171, ruhun minhu, appears in exactly the same form in Surah 58.22 where we read that God strengthens true believers with “a spirit from him”. The Muslim translator Yusuf Ali appends the following comment to this verse:

Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything the phrase used here is stronger, “a spirit from Himself”. Whenever anyone offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that Faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with the divine spirit which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1518). 170

Although Jesus is not described as ‘the Spirit of God’, the close relationship He enjoys with the Third Person of the Trinity, being born through the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, being anointed by Him at the Baptism, pouring out the Spirit on believers, no doubt led to confusion among early Muslims, very likely as the Qur’an misconstrues so many other Christian doctrines, not least the identity and nature of the Trinity, which it seems to view as God, Mary and Jesus, thereby excluding the Spirit. Of course, the Spirit is given the title ‘Spirit of Christ’ in Romans 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11. In John 20:22 we read that Jesus breathed on the disciples saying ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas the Israelite v10, (First Greek form) which many have suggested as one of the sources of the Qur’an, we find the crowd acclaiming the child Jesus after a miracle with the words ‘Truly the Spirit of God dwells in this child.’ In v15, we read of the child Jesus ‘He spoke by the Holy Spirit, and taught the law to those that were standing round.’ If Muhammad and the early Muslims misunderstood Christian doctrine on this point, their confusion might have led them to misconstrue the Spirit as another term for Jesus, and then they would have adapted and transformed the concept, diluting it to fit Islamic presuppositions. This would appear to be a likely source for the Qur’anic idea. Certainly, the title is ontological, rather than functional, and it is never actually explained in the Qur’an, suggesting that the Christian concept in some form is understood as its background.

---

Conclusion

It follows from our examination of the titles of Jesus in the Bible that the New Testament designations of Him were neither arbitrary nor contrived. They were rooted in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. These names and titles described both the nature and function of Jesus. Even when a designation may not have been fully recognised as a title (or possibly, even at all), such as the term ‘Son of Man’, there was sufficient Old Testament and Jewish background to allow the hearers some measure of understanding. If people did misconstrue, such as thinking Jesus came to establish a political kingdom, His reference to the Suffering Servant helped to set the record straight. The tittles appear to be inter-related, and could only be fulfilled in their totality (as well as individually) by one person. There is an inner logical consistency in their concepts and in the application of them to Jesus. What emerges from the titles we examined is that Jesus is a divine figure who descended from heaven to die on our behalf, to atone for and liberate us from sin. We have been able to account for all the designations of Jesus in this way. Further, the titles explain both the ontological nature and functional roles of Jesus, the latter flowing naturally from the former.

With the Muslim titles, however, this logical coherence is largely absent. None of them can claim a background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. What background they possess appears largely to consist in a diluted transformation of canonical and apocryphal gospels. Throughout, their character betrays contrivance and innovation. They present a confused picture of Jesus’ origins, and frequently tell us little about His ministry. This is especially true of the cardinal title found in both the Bible and the Qur’an – the Messiah. The term is unexplained by the latter, and can only be understood by studying the former. In regard to other Biblical titles, it is clear that the Qur’an misunderstands the concept of ‘the Son of God’, and what it denies is not what Christians believe. It is possible that ‘Son of Mary’ arose as a Qur’anic title partly as a result of anti-Christian polemic. Other titles have been grossly diluted, such as the Servant, and virtually emptied of meaning. Titles such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of David’, ‘Priest’ and ‘Saviour’ have disappeared altogether, probably because they could not be adapted, especially the priestly activity of the Servant. The understanding of Jesus’ prophetic and apostolic ministry in Islam is not identical to that in the Bible, not just to the New Testament, but to what the Old Testament and Jewish tradition expected of the Eschatological Prophet and the Shaliach. The lack of any basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition is crucial for the debate as to the identity of the historical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus conforms to this tradition, fitting the picture presented. The Islamic Jesus is frankly foreign to this picture. Naturally, because divine scriptural revelation ended with Jesus and those He appointed as His Shaliach representatives.

---

References

1. Morris, Leon, The Lord from heaven, (IVP, Leicester, 1958, 1974), pp. 57-58.

2. Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 137.

3. Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Theology, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), p. 301.

4. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 237-238.

5. Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (SPCK, London, 1992), p. 330.

6. Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, (Fontana, London, 1965), p. 24.

7. Ibid.

8. Motyer, Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah, (IVP, Leicester, 1993), pp. 102-103.

9. France, R. T., Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1989), p. 285.

10. Ibid, p. 285.

11. Carson, D. A., ‘Christological ambiguities in Matthew’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, Rowdon, Harold. H. (ed.), (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 105.

12. Grogan, Geoffrey, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979), p. 43.

13. Cullmann, Oscar, Christology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 273.

14. Richardson, Alan, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1959), p. 150.

15. Ibid.

16. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 207.

17. Ibid., p. 189.

18. Lindars, Barnabas, Jesus Son of Man, (SPCK, London, 1983), pp. 148-149.

19. Verseput, Donald, ‘The Role and Meaning of the “Son of God” title in Matthew’s gospel’, New Testament Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 537-538.

20. Moo, Douglas, Romans 1-8, (Moody, Chicago, 1991), pp. 40-41.

21. Ladd, George Eldon, A Theology of the New Testament, (Eerdmans, USA, 1974), pp. 166-167.

22. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 310.

23. Dunn, James, Jesus and the Spirit, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 23.

24. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 149.

25. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.

26. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 36.

27. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.

28. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unique Son, that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    John 3:17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
    John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
    John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains with him.
    John 5:19 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing: for whatever things he does, these the Son also does in like manner.
    John 5:20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does: and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.
    John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.
    John 5:22 For neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all judgment to the Son;
    John 5:23 that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.
    John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
    John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
    John 8:36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
    John 14:13 And whatever you shall ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
    John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that the son may glorify you.

29. Walker Jr., William O., ‘John 1:43-51 and “The Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (Issue 54, 1994, Sheffield), p. 41.

30. Kümmel, Walter, The Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1974), p. 269.

31. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 270.

32. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 148.

33. Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, (C. U. P., Cambridge, 1931, 1935), p. 218.

34. Bruce, F. F., ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 58.

35. Young, E. J., The Prophecy of Daniel, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1949), p. 154.

36. Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew, (SCM, London, 1973, Second edition), pp. 171-172.

37. Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 54.

38. Rowe, Robert D., ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 88.

39. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 82.

40. Ibid.

41. Bruce, F. F., Israel and the Nations, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1963, 1983 revised edition), pp. 144-146.

42. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 146.

43. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 166.

44. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 294.

45. Goldingay, John, Daniel, (Word, Dallas, 1987, UK edition 1991), p. 261.

46. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 93.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., p. 75.

50. saiah 52:13-15: 13′idou sunhsei ‘o paiv mou kai ‘uqwyhsetai kai doxasyhsetai sfodra 14on tropon ‘eksthsontai ‘epi se polloi ‘outwv ‘adoxhsei ‘apo ‘anyrwpwn to ‘eidov sou kai ‘h doxa sou ‘apo twn ‘anyrwpwn 15′outwv yaumasontai ‘eynh polla ‘ep‘ ‘autw kai sunexousin basileiv to stoma ‘autwn ‘oti ‘oiv ‘ouk ‘anhggelh peri ‘autou ‘oqontai kai ‘oi ‘ouk ‘akhkoasin sunhsousin

51. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 426.

52. Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, (Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Kuwait, 1984), p. 32.

53. Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 58ff.

54. Bruce, ibid., p. 58.

55. Bruce, ibid., pp. 58-59.

56. Martens, E. A., Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), pp. 207-208.

57. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 121.

58. Grogan, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, p. 39.

59. France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament, (Tyndale, London, 1971), pp. 132-133.

60. France, ibid., p. 134.

61. France, ibid., p. 134.

62. France, ibid., p. 134.

63. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 262.

64. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 77-80.

65. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 120-121. (The quote about ebed Yahweh is from Cullman, Christology of the New Testament, p. 65.

66. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 262-263.

67. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 122-123.

68. France, Ibid., p. 106.

69. France, Ibid., pp. 106-107.

70. France, Ibid., p. 108.

71. France, Ibid., p. 154.

72. Fairbairn, Patrick, Typology of Scripture Vol. 1, (1900; reprint by Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1989), p. 371.

73. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 108-109.

74. McKenzie, John, A Theology of the Old Testament, (Chapman, London, 1974), p. 250.

75. Kaiser, Walter, Towards an Old Testament Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978), p. 155.

76. Ibid.

77. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp. 139-140.

78. Chilton, Bruce, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, (SPCK, London, 1984), p. 200.

79. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 109.

80. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 109.

81. Bruce, F. F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983), p. 241.

82. Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1996), pp. 241-242.

83. Deedat, Ahmed, What the Bible says about Muhammad, (IPCI, Birmingham, undated), p. 5ff.

84. Ibid., p. 12.

85. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 209.

86. Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Tradition, (Blackwell, Oxford, 1978), p. 12n.

87. Ibid., p. 13.

88. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 47.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504
    Narrated by Abu Huraira
    The Prophet said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed, but what I have been given, is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me…’

92. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 48.

93. Ibid., p. 47.

94. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 82.

95. Barclay, William, Jesus as they saw him, (SCM, London, 1962), p. 367

96. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 92.

97. Hill, David, New Testament Prophecy, (Marshall Morgan & Scott, Basingstoke, 1979), p. 49.

98. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 57.

99. Ibid., p. 82.

100. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 58.

101. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 83.

102. Ibid.

103. Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 238.

104. Ladd, George Eldon, The Presence of the Future, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1974), p. 165.

105. Ibid., pp. 151-152.

106. Ibid., p. 151.

107. Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 322.

108. Ibid. pp. 323-324.

109. Ibid., p. 323.

110. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 54.

111. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 238.

112. Ibid., pp. 238-239.

113. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 322-323.

114. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 241.

115. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 223.

116. Jacob, Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament, (Hodder & Stoughton, London,1958), p. 127.

117. Ibid., p 128.

118. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.

119. Dahms, J. V., Isaiah 55:11 and the Gospel of John, (Evangelical Quarterly, April-June, 1981), pp. 78-88.

120. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 129.

121. Morris, The Lord from heaven, p. 94.

122. Hayward, C. T. R., The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel (New Testament Studies 25, 1978) pp. 16-32.

123. Ibid.

124. Mowvley, H., John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35′, (Expository Times).

125. Hooker, M. D., The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret, (New Testament Studies 21 1974), p. 40-58.

126. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 242.

127. McNamara, Martin, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, (PBI, Rome, 1956), p. 184ff.

128. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.

129. Ibid., p. 325.

130. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 134.

131. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 164.

132. Bruce, F. F., The Work of Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979, 1984), p. 74.

133. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 451.

134. Ibid.

135. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 250.

136. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, p. 248.

137. Cotterell, F. P., ‘The Christology of Islam’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 284.

138. Deedat, Ahmed, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

139. Gilchrist, John, Christ in Islam and Christianity: A Comparative Study of the Christian and Muslim Attitudes to the Person of Jesus Christ, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

140. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 34-35.

141. Gilchrist, Christ in Islam and Christianity, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

142. Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 284.

143. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 33.

144. Ibid., pp. 26-27.

145. Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 285.

146. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 30-31.

147. Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979), p. 20.

148. Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1948, 1975), p. 193.

149. Mawdudi, Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1 Al-Ma’idah, (Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1993), p. 47

150. Badawi, Jamal,Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html

151. Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, pp. 41-42.

152. Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

153. Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad in Medina, (Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 317.

154. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 28.

155. Abdalati, Hammudah, Islam in Focus, (American Trust Publications, 1975), p. 159.

156. Gilchrist, John, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

157. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.

158. Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, p. 21.

159. Badawi, Jamal, Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html

160. Vargo, Andrew, Responses to Jamal Badawi’s ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200′ http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200B7.htm

161. Shamoun, Sam, Jesus Christ in the Qur’an and Bible Part III, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi-jesus3.htm
     Sura 2:117: ‘The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be!’ – and it is.’
     Sura 3:47, 59: ‘She said: `O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’ He said: `So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is’… Verily, the likeness of ‘Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: `Be!’ – and he was.’
     Sura 6:73: ‘It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in truth, and on the Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) He will say: ‘Be!’, – and it shall become. His Word is the truth. His will be the dominion on the Day when the trumpet will be blown. AllKnower of the unseen and the seen. He is the AllWise, Well-Aware (of all things).
     Sura 16:40: ‘Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 19:35: ‘It befits not (the Majesty of) Allâh that He should beget a son (this refers to the slander of Christians against Allâh, by saying that ‘Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allâh). Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 36:82: ‘Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is!’
     Sura 40:68: ‘He it is Who gives life and causes death. And when He decides upon a thing He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 18:109: ‘Say (O Muhammad SAW to mankind). `If the sea were ink for (writing) the Words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished, even if we brought (another sea) like it for its aid.’ ‘
     Sura 8:7: ‘And (remember) when Allâh promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allâh willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).’
     Sura 31:27: ‘And if all the trees on the earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with seven seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words of Allâh would not be exhausted. Verily, Allâh is AllMighty, AllWise.’

162. Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

163. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

164. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.

165. Ibid., p. 37.

166. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

167. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 30.

168. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid.

The Son of Man

A Study in a title of Jesus

Many Muslims have profound problems with the identity of Jesus. It has been supposed that there is very little evidence in the Bible to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus is God. Any Christian who has spent much time talking to Muslims will no doubt have come up against the common challenge: ‘Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “I am God – worship me”?’This statement, of course, does not exist; hence the reason for its repeated use. Does this, however, mean that the same sentiment is not conveyed in the Bible? Is the deity of Jesus a fabrication of the Christian mind, a relic of pagan worship somehow incorporated into a corruption of the true religion of Allah? This is definitely not the case and it is the purpose of this essay to deal with just one of the many reasons why an open-minded reading of the Bible can leave the reader with no option other than to conclude that Jesus is indeed God.

Before beginning, it must be understood that the Jews of Jesus’ time held the name of God in such great respect that they would go to great lengths to avoid pronouncing it. This was to make sure that they were not guilty of breaking one of the greatest commandments of the Torah of Moses – ‘You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name’ (Exodus 20:7). This can be easily seen in one of the fundamental statements of Judaism, found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and reaffirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29. It reads thus:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

This, of course, does not negate the Christian assertion of Jesus’ deity, for neither Christians nor the Bible claim that Jesus is a god beside Allah (which the Qur’an seems to think). The concept of a triune God allows for a plurality of persons within one Godhead: three persons in one God.

The Hebrew word, here translated as LORD, is the personal name of the God of Israel, often transliterated as ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jehovah’. Whenever Jews recite this verse, known as the Shema, they do not pronounce the name of God, but substitute instead Adonai, the word translated as Lord (not all in capitals) in most English Bible translations.

Another example is that when English Jews are writing about God, they often miss out the middle letter and write G-d, to show respect for his name.

Against this background, it is not at all surprising that Jesus did not say ‘I am God – worship me’, for the reasons stated above. Instead, we see in the New Testament many inferences when Jesus talked about God. For instance, he spoke of God as ‘the Father’. In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:18), the son tells his father, ‘I have sinned against heaven and against you.’ From the context it is clear that he is referring to God when he mentions ‘heaven’.

The above has prepared us for the main subject of this essay. The phrase ‘Son of Man’ is found around 200 times in the whole Bible and 82 times in the four accounts of Jesus’ life and words, which we refer to as the gospels. In many instances it simply refers to an ordinary man and is not of any special significance. This can be seen in the 100 or so references in the book of Ezekiel, all of which refer to the prophet Ezekiel himself.

In Numbers 23:19, we find the statement, ‘God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.’ No doubt some Muslims will jump onto this reference as evidence against the claims of Christians. However, an unbiased reading of the passage in context will show that it is simply stating that God’s moral character is way above that of evil men, a sentiment which both Christians and Muslims will have no problem with.

For the purpose of our discussion, the foundation text is found in Daniel 7:13,14:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here, in Daniel’s vision, he saw two people inparticular. One is the Ancient of Days, a title which is given to God and mentioned three times in Daniel 7. The other person mentioned is one like a son of man, referring to the fact that he was human in his appearance. Some facts about this person in the passage are very instructive:

• He was given sovereign power

• All nations worshipped him (other English translations render this as ‘served’, but the Aramaic word in question is only used in the Bible to refer to serving God)

• He was the king of an eternal kingdom

We must ask the question, is it possible that Daniel’s vision could refer to one who was merely a man and nothing more? It is utter blasphemy to suppose that the whole world would worship or serve anyone but God whilst they were in his presence. Additionally, who can conceive that God would give sovereign (total) power to anyone else, let alone a mere man? Not one of the human prophets of God, in Christianity or Islam, would claim this. This leaves us with only one conclusion; namely, that this one like a son of man, was more than just a man.

This reference is one of many in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament, for want of a better word), which point to the coming of a great king who would rescue God’s people from their sins and release them from slavery. This expected deliverer came to be called the Messiah, which means ‘anointed one’. In the Old Testament, different people were anointed with special oil, in order to set them apart for a specific task, including prophets, priests and kings. It can therefore be concluded that the promised Messiah would combine the offices of prophet, priest and king in one person.

Since the time that the book of Daniel was written (in approximately 400BC), the Jews rightly saw this person in 7:13,14 as the Messiah. Therefore, at the time of Jesus, they were expecting the one like a son of man. So in the gospels the term ‘son of man’ was not simply a way of denoting any old human being, but was used as a title to refer to this special person in the prophecy of Daniel. We will see more of this below.

Below I shall list all the references to the Son of Man in the gospels, so that anyone with an interest can spend time looking them up and checking what is said here. Afterwards, I will go onto quote from those references which are more relevant to our discussion. Please take note that these references are to a specific person and not a general reference to a normal human.

Occurrences of the title ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels:

Matthew8:209:5,610:2311:1912:812:3212:4013:3713:4116:13-1716:2716:2817:917:1217:22,2319:2820:18,1920:2824:2724:30 x224:3724:3924:4425:3126:226:24 x226:4526:64Mark2:102:288:318:389:99:129:3110:33,3410:4513:2614:21 x214:4114:62Luke5:246:56:227:349:229:269:449:5811:3012:812:1012:4017:2217:2417:2617:3018:818:31-3319:1021:2721:3622:2222:4822:6924:7John1:513:133:145:276:276:536:628:289:35-3812:2312:34 x213:31

Now I would like to quote the most relevant occurrences and then to discuss their implications.

Matthew 9:5,6 – ‘Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…’ Then he said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, take your mat and go home.’

Matthew 12:8 – ‘For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.‘

Matthew 12:40 – ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.‘

Matthew 13:41 – ‘The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.’

Matthew 16:13-17 – When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?‘ They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’

‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?‘ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.‘

Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.‘

Matthew 17:9 – As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, ‘Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.‘

Matthew 17:22,23 – When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.‘ And the disciples were filled with grief.

Matthew 20:18,19 – ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!‘

Matthew 20:28 – ‘…the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.‘

Matthew 26:2 – ‘As you know, the Passover is two days away – and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.‘

Matthew 26:45 – Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.‘

Mark 8:31 – He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 – He said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.‘

Mark 10:33,34 – ‘We are going up to Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.‘

Mark 14:41 – Returning the third time, he said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.‘

Luke 9:22 – And he said, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.‘

Luke 12:40 – ‘You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.‘

Luke 18:31-33 – Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.‘

Luke 22:48 – …but Jesus asked him, ‘Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?‘

John 3:13-15 – ‘No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven – the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.‘

John 9:35-38 – Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ ‘Who is he sir?‘ the man asked. ‘Tell me so that I may believe in him.‘

Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.‘

Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,‘ and he worshipped him.

The above references give far more information about who exactly this ‘Son of Man’ is. Matthew 16:13-17, Luke 22:48 and John 9:35-38 make it crystal clear that it can only refer to Jesus. The other examples teach us much more about his character and purpose. We see that:

• He has power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6);

• He is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8);

• He is the king of a kingdom and the angels are his (Matthew 13:41);

• He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:13-17);

• He was to be killed and raised from the dead (resurrected) (Matthew 17:9,22,23;20:18,19;26:2; Mark 8:31;9:31;10:33,34; Luke 9:22;18:31-33);

• He was to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28);

• He was unique and came from heaven (John 3:13);

• All who believe in him are to have eternal life (John 3:14,15);

• He accepted worship (John 9:35-38).

In the light of the above, it will be seen that the Christian position on the person of Jesus has ample support from the Bible. Far from being simply a human prophet of Allah, he is unique, far above all other prophets. The following reference from Revelation 1:12-18 is yet again instructive. John, in his vision from God, says:

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw… someone ‘like a son of man’, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters… His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me andsaid: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades [Hell].

Christians and Muslims alike must be very careful not to make a mistake in their treatment of this issue, for it is one of immense importance. We would all do well to remember the words of Jesus in Luke 12:37-40:

You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

Toby Jepson

Muslims and the Crucifixion

By Toby Jepson

---

Introduction

Most Muslims deny that Jesus was ever crucified. I hope in this paper to examine and evaluate some of the reasons that are given in support of this assertion.

Claims such as this are usually made for one of two reasons: either there is factual evidence, or there is a need to make the claim despite a clear lack of evidence. It is my opinion that this claim falls into the latter category, although I shall examine some supposed evidence that is sometimes given in support.

The Opinion of the Qur’an

The Qur’an is, of course, the primary source of Muslim belief and practice. Surah 4:157 states:

And because of [the Jews’] saying, ‘We killed Messiah ‘Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah,’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Isa was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. 1)

Here we have a clear denial of the crucifixion. Note the idea that the likeness of Jesus was transferred onto another man. We shall return to this question below.

In the Muslim mind then, the issue is sealed: the Qur’an says it, so it must be. However, for the non-Muslim observer, this is not good enough. On something so important we would expect corroboration from other reliable sources. This would then help us to evaluate whether the Qur’an, a work at best from the 7th century, has any authority to pronounce on events in the 1st century.

Supposed Historical Evidence

There are Muslims who, to their credit, claim ample historical support for their denial of the crucifixion. Consider the following quote:

There are also several historical sources other than the Bible and the Qur’an which confirm that many of the early Christians did not believe that Jesus died on the cross…The Cerinthians and later the Basilidians, for example, who were among the first of the early Christian communities, denied that Jesus was crucified…The Carpocratians, another early Christian sect, believed that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but another in his place… 2

In attempting to dispel the ‘myth’ of Jesus’ crucifixion, the authors appeal to ‘historical sources’ that refer to some of the ‘earliest communities of Christians’. The implication is clearly that these groups, being near to the event, had real, historical reasons for denying Jesus’ crucifixion. They are portrayed as genuine, orthodox believers, fighting for the truth against a rising tide of heresy, in particular the ‘Pauline’ Christians and their ‘false’ doctrines such as the trinity and the deity of Jesus.

In order to judge this claim, we need to know who these groups were, what they believed and why they denied the crucifixion. Then we may evaluate whether they have any relevance to the debate.

The Basilidians

Basilides taught at Alexandria in Egypt, around 125-150AD. 3 The early church historians (Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Clement) differ as to exactly what he taught, but he seems clearly of the Gnostic school of thought. His followers appear to have expanded his doctrine after his death.

Irenaeus tells us that the Basilidians believed in one supreme God called Abraxas, who presided over 365 different heavens. Each heaven was ruled subordinately by a different order of angels, the lowest order creating the earth. The God of the Jews was one of these inferior angels. The gods of other nations (e.g. Ammonites, Moabites) were also angels of this order, whose interests therefore conflicted, resulting in fights and feuds between them and their followers. In the course of time all became corrupt and lost their original heavenly knowledge (gnosis in Greek).

In order to rectify this situation, Abraxas sent down his Son, the Christ, who joined himself to the man Jesus, teaching mankind the knowledge they had lost. The God of the Jews, obviously angry at this encroachment, was unable to harm the Christ, yet instigated his people against Jesus, whom they therefore killed. 4

Along with many in the 2nd century, the Basilidians held that matter was inherently evil. They could not accept that the resurrection of physical human bodies would serve any possible good, so they denied it. Denying a general physical resurrection, they had to deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, this obliged them to deny Christ’s crucifixion, instead saying that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place. 5

The Cerinthians

The Cerinthians were an earlier group, followers of Cerinthus, one of the original Gnostic teachers in the mid to late 1st century. Irenaeus and Jerome state that the apostle John wrote his account of the gospel primarily as a refutation of Cerinthus’ heresy.

Again, Cerinthus’ beliefs are unacceptable to both Christians and Muslims. He taught that the creator was not the Supreme God, but a power that was ignorant of and inferior to the one true God. The divine Christ was sent by the Supreme God and joined to the man Jesus, who himself was not born of a virgin, but in the normal way via sexual intercourse. In fact, Cerinthus did believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but simply taught that the divine Christ departed prior to the event, leaving the man on his own. 6 7

The Carpocratians

Carpocrates was an Alexandrian Gnostic from the early 2nd century. It is thought that 2 Peter and Jude were directed against early forms of his heresy. He taught that the creator was not the Supreme God and also denied the virgin birth. Jesus was portrayed as a man endowed with special knowledge from a previous existence, who rose above his fellow humans and attained his unique position as Christ. This led Carpocrates to suggest that anyone with sufficient knowledge and power could attain the same spiritual level as Christ did.

Some of their beliefs are uncertain, but Irenaeus states that they believed in a form of reincarnation, where escape from bodily existence was conditional on seeking out every possible human experience, despising the enslaving laws of society. Although the founders may not have been guilty of the grosser impurities, their principles certainly led to them. Carpocrates’ son, Epiphanes, argued that God must have been joking when he forbade Israel to covet their neighbours’ wives, as it was God who had given humans the desire for multiple sexual partners. 8 9

The Relevance of Gnostic Teachings

We must not deny the importance of this brief historical survey. To begin with, not all of these groups actually denied that Jesus was crucified. Some thought he was, yet downplayed the importance of the physical man, elevating the divine Christ who was supposedly separate. Others claimed that someone else was cunningly switched for Jesus before the crucifixion. What is clear is that they were basing their beliefs on flawed philosophy, not historical knowledge. They rejected the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ simply because it was distasteful to them.

Even more importantly, their worldview was one which both Christians and Muslims must reject completely. Some of the major beliefs of these groups are outlined again below:

• the God of Abraham and Moses (i.e. Allah) was a created being, an angel;

• there were many other Gods of the same order as the Creator (i.e. polytheism);

• Jesus was either a man who was joined to the divine Son at his baptism and then deserted before the crucifixion, or who by his own effort attained his status as Christ;

• the physical resurrection of humans at the Day of Judgement would not happen;

• physical matter (e.g. the human body) was inherently evil;

• the virgin birth of Jesus did not occur;

• no rules governed behaviour as good and evil were imaginary.

Not all of these ideas were held by the same group, but they give a good idea of where they were coming from. They were not ‘Christians’ at all but followed their own romantic idea of a ‘Christ’ that had no basis in history. By the same reasoning I can claim to be a devout Muslim because I think that I ‘submit’ to God in my own way, not according to the Qur’an. This is clearly not acceptable.

Neither were they good Muslims; yet the Qur’an tells us that Jesus’ followers were (Surah 5:111).

And when I inspired the disciples [of Jesus] to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: ‘We believe. And bear witness that we are Muslims’. 10

Therefore, the Gnostics’ opinion on the crucifixion is frankly worthless. Their beliefs are shown to have little to do with history, Christianity or Islam. They are interesting by all means, but are of little help to honest Muslims who wish to refute the crucifixion with sound evidence. Ironically, the Basilidian belief that someone was exchanged for Jesus before the crucifixion may be a possible source for the identical idea found in the Qur’an.

The Gospel of Barnabas

This fascinating book is seen by many Muslims as preserving an original and accurate account of the life of Jesus. Unfortunately, few have ever read it. The following quotes from the ‘gospel’ give the gist of its account of the crucifixion:

…the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus…The soldiers took Judas and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus… So they led him to Mount Calvary… and there they crucified him naked… 11

This clearly supports the Qur’anic assertion that another was crucified in Jesus’ place after having been made to look like him. This would be both convenient and convincing if the ‘gospel’ had any historical authenticity at all. Sadly, it is nothing but a pious mediaeval fraud, whose gross blunders of history, geography, language and more make quite amusing reading. Readers should consult one of several well-written critiques. 12 Suffice it to say that it appears to have been written by a disgruntled Christian in mediaeval Europe who converted to Islam and wanted to do something in support of his new-found faith, even before he had understood it fully. A few of its more major mistakes are listed below:

• It assumes that Jerusalem is a sea port and Capernaum in the mountains, whereas the reverse is true;

• It mentions both shoes and wine barrels, neither of which were invented by the time of Jesus;

• It claims that the Year of Jubilee occurred every 100 years (biblically it was every 50), a situation that only ever occurred once in history, under a mediaeval Pope;

• Its view of Hell is at odds with the Qur’an, but strangely reminiscent of the mediaeval Italian poet Dante, in his book The Inferno;

• It claims that Jesus was the Christ but not the Messiah (this it ascribes to Muhammad) – a terrible mistake as they are one and the same, Christ being derived from Greek and Messiah from Hebrew, both meaning ‘the anointed one’.

Thus it can be seen that this witness is again totally unreliable and gives us no insight into the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion. Muslims would do best to avoid this forgery, as it is only harmful to their cause.

Contemporary Reports that Support the Crucifixion

Having dealt with the claims against the crucifixion, it would be well to consider the positive evidence given by historians of the period soon after Jesus’ life. 13 There is ample evidence from early Christian writers, but I shall include only those from non-Christians, as these authors had no vested interest in Jesus or his crucifixion.

• Tacitus, a Roman historian from the 1st/2nd centuries, said: ‘[Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.’

• Lucian was a 2nd century satirist and referred to Jesus as, ‘…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world…’ He denounced the Christians for ‘worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.’

• Josephus, a 1st/2nd century Jewish historian, had this to say: ‘[Jesus] was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day’.

• It appears that other references were made that have been lost to us today. Bishop Apapius in the 10th century stated: ‘We have found in many books of the philosophers that they refer to the day of the crucifixion of Christ.’ He then goes on to list and quote the ancient works, some of which are not known to modern scholars.

As already seen, Muslims believe that someone was crucified and that people were made to think it was Jesus. Therefore it could be said that these quotes prove nothing. However, the Islamic view is that the early Christians knew that it was not Jesus, so it is strange in this case that all the sources speak of Jesus. We know from elsewhere that many Christians gave their life for the belief that Jesus died and rose again. This would never be the case if they did not believe it.

Conclusion

In this paper I have dealt with some sources that are used by Muslims to lend support to their denial of Jesus’ crucifixion. All have been shown to be late, unreliable and therefore of no worth to the debate. On the other hand, I have quoted contemporary sources outside Christianity that take the crucifixion as historical fact. From this brief overview it is clear that there is ample evidence for the crucifixion, but virtually none against.

We return to my assertion in the introduction, that Muslim denial of the crucifixion is based on need rather than fact. Their only authority in this case is the Qur’an, a book far removed from the event it claims to inform us of. It is in direct contradiction to the historical material we have looked at and therefore its authority on this question must be rejected. Muslims, in taking the Qur’an to be divine revelation, are forced to claim that all other sources that disagree with it are mistaken or corrupted. Yet as shown above it may well be one of these suspicious sources that forms the basis for the Qur’an’s denial in the first place.

We are left asking why the Qur’an should choose to deny the crucifixion without good evidence. I assume that this is related to the Islamic idea of prophethood, that God would not allow his great prophet to die such an ignominious death at the hands of traitors and sinners. However, once again the problem lies with the Islamic view. The righteous can suffer, as the book of Job makes abundantly clear. God does not rejoice to see the righteous suffer, but he often has a much larger agenda and is willing to allow it when a greater good will result. We see that nowhere clearer than in the crucifixion, where the only Righteous One offered himself as a loving sacrifice in order that all sinners could have the opportunity of forgiveness. We only need to accept the Bible’s perspective on the situation. I would urge all Muslims to do just that.

References

1. Khan, MM. The Noble Qur’an. Riyadh. Darussalam, 1996 (15th edition)

2. ‘Ata’ur-Rahim M, Thomson A. Jesus, Prophet of Islam. London. Ta-Ha, 1996 (revised edition). p47.

3. Cross FL. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford. OUP, 1997. pp168, 169.

4. Blunt JH. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought. London. Longmans Green & Co, 1891. pp67-69.

5. Ibid

6. Op Cit. pp104-106.

7. George L. The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. London. Robson Books, 1995. p71.

8. Ibid. p66.

9. Blunt JH. Op cit. pp102,103.

10. Khan MM. Op cit.

11. Gospel of Barnabas. Trans. Ragg L & L. No publisher or date given. Chapters 216, 217.

12. E.g. Campbell WF. The Gospel of Barnabas – its True Value. Rawalpindi. Christian Study Centre, 1989.

13. Material taken from McDowell J. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino. Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972. pp84-88.

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