Six Muslim Beliefs (Iman) and a Christian's Response
For a Muslim Enquirer Apologetic Paper by Jay Smith (with help and advice fromMarietta and Joe Smith) - May 1995
Contents
A preliminary discussion, using a Muslim's criteria, on the Six Beliefs (Iman)- Belief in One God (Allah)
- Belief in the Prophets
- Belief in the Holy Books
- Belief in Angels
- Belief in the Day of Judgment
- Belief in the Decrees or the Predestination of God (Allah)
- Sources
A: Belief in one God (Allah)
A1: The Muslim View
The first and greatest teaching of Islam is proclaimed by the Shahada: "La Ilaha illa-l-lah, Muhammadun rasulu-l-lah." ("There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah.") It is this very confession, which, once uttered sincerely, makes one a real Muslim. For a Muslim, Allah is one (Wahid), and has no partners, no equals. According to the Quran, Sura 28;88, it is stated: "And cry not unto any other god along with Allah. There is no god save Him." Thus, Allah is totally other. He created and maintains the world, and since Allah is one, no one else can share even an atom of His Divine power and authority. Islam makes it clear that Allah has no son, no father, no relative, and no associates.In the Hadiths, Muhammad is reported to have related the ninety-nine names of Allah, to express some of His attributes. A number of these are: that He is merciful (that he provides man with food, drink, the means of movement, and all the necessities of life), that He is all-powerful (omnipotent), that He is wise and all-knowing (omniscient), and that He is eternal (no beginning and no end).
A2: The Christian Response
Christians and Muslims worship the God of Abraham. As do Muslims, Christians believe in only one righteous and transcendent creator God. The key verse of the Torah of the Prophet Moses states that: "The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:4). God is one and He commands us to love Him totally. Jesus Christ, speaking more than a thousand years after the Prophet Moses says: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:28-30 and Matt.22:37).Thus, both the Torah and the Gospel (Injil) agree that God is one. We are commanded to love one God. Only He has the right to command our ultimate loyalty. All other gods which man invents are totally false (Hosea 13:2,3).
Perhaps the greatest criticism against Christians by Muslims is the view of the plurality of God, that God is three; and consists of "God the Father, Mary the mother, and Jesus the son." This view is as repugnant to Christians as it is to Muslims, and has its origins in a heretical Christian sect (called Choloridians) who had contact with Muhammad during his tenure in Mecca.
We must say, however, that from the Scriptures we find revealed a Divine unity of three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, commonly known as the "trinity." It is impossible to express the mystery of God as "triune." In fact, this word is not found within Scripture, but was coined three centuries later by the Church, to express what Scripture delineated as God comprised of three Persons, who are in complete unity of will, purpose, action and love, yet cannot be separated though they have different functions. The Scriptures speak of God, the Father, who as the co-Creator, blesses (Eph.1:3-4), initiates (Jn.17:2-9) and sends (Jn.17:3,18). God, the Son, speaks-out the creation (Jn.1:1), and acts physically into history, both during the time of the prophets (Gen.32:25-30; Ex.3:2-5; 13:21; 33:9-11; Judge 2:1), and as the savior, Jesus Christ (Jn.1:14). And finally God, the Holy Spirit, who is resident within the believer, guides, instructs and empowers him (Jn.14:16-17), and mediates Jesus Christ and his atoning work (Jn.15:26).
Jesus referred to this 'Trinity in Unity' when He commanded His apostles to go everywhere and persuade men to become His disciples, and baptize believers "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
It is important that God as "Father" must not be viewed within a biological context. Christians share with Muslims the prohibition against conceiving of God in the form of an image. God as "Father" refers, rather, to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and man.
Christians accept all the 99 names of God which Muslims repeat in praise to God. Even the name Allah is affirmed by Christians as one of the names of God, the same Arabic name which the Prophet Abraham used in Hebrew as "El" or "Elohim."
B: Belief in the Prophets
B1: The Muslim View
Islam makes a distinction between a messenger (rasul) who is sent with a Divine Scripture to guide and reform mankind, and a prophet (al nabbi) who simply carries information or proclaims Allah's news. Therefore, though all messengers are prophets, not all prophets are messengers. The number of Allah's prophets is said to be 124,000, yet the Qur'an mentions only 25. Adam was the first prophet, followed by others, some of whom are: Abraham, Jacob, Ishmael, Isaac, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, Jesus, and also Muhammad, the final and greatest of the prophets; or the "Seal of the Prophets."Allah raised up these prophets, among every nation (Sura 16:36), to provide mankind with firm and constructive guidance, so that they could walk the straight path of Allah, could live happily in this world, and could be prepared for life after death. Their fundamental message (Islam) was identical, remind- ing mankind of Allah's unity; the reward of a good life; the day of judgment; and the terrible punishment for unbelievers.
Their witness was not always received well, and sometimes with total rejection, even in their own communities (Sura 17:94). Yet, Allah promised to protect them from serious sins and from bad diseases. Thus, the belief that a prophet could never be killed; and their denial that Jesus, a prophet, died on the cross.
B2: The Christian Response
Christians believe that God appointed prophets and others to speak to mankind His Word, the story of His redemptive acts in history. God revealed (nuzul) the interpretation of His acts to prophets, who passed it on to man by preaching, teaching, and writing. Of the thirty or so prophets who are listed in the Bible, many are well known to Muslims, such as: Abraham, Moses, David, and John the Baptist; while others are not, such as: Miriam (Moses's sister), Nathan, Isaiah, Jonah, Joel, and Daniel; all of whom came before Christ. Others, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul, wrote after Christ's departure, and, though not recognized by Muslims, they are, for Christians, believed to be the last of the prophets.We know as well, that all of these prophets were descendants of Abraham and Isaac, sent down over a period of 2,000 years, chiefly to the people of Israel, whom God had chosen to be His Covenant people; in order that from them the Truth of God might be made known to all the people of the world.
They came from different classes of society, some rich, others poor, young and old; some scholars, and others with little education. Not all wrote books (Elijah, John the Baptist), but they all heard God's word, either through angels, by means of visions, by God's voice, or by receiving the message in their minds and hearts.
We know also that the prophets were not sinless, but were believers who knew their sins were forgiven. To some the power was given to perform miracles, which verified the message. Yet, others, such as John the Baptist, performed none.
Their message was profound, but clear. They defined the character of a righteous God, and what He requires of them, warning of His judgment on rejecting Him and His Law, yet, assuring them of his forgiveness and blessing if they accepted them.
The prophets most important message, however, was that since there are none who could obey the Law fully, they remained still in sin, and so deserved death. Yet, they need not despair, because God had promised to take upon Himself the guilt of their sins, by incarnating Himself and dying on the cross, thus taking upon Himself that penalty, and so freeing Him to forgive them from those sins, which then brought them back into a personal relationship with Him.
In evaluating whether Muhammad was a prophet, a Christian must see Muhammad in light of the total Biblical witness culminating in Jesus the Messiah. To the extent that the prophet Muhammad 1) fully accepts the former Scriptures, and 2) points to the central significance of Jesus as redeemer, and 3) to the extent that the life and teachings of Muhammad exemplify suffering redemptive love, which is demonstrated by Jesus the Savior, Christians should, and will affirm the Prophet Muhammad. (Unless my Muslim brothers can show me otherwise, I find him lacking in all three.)
C: Belief in the Holy Books
C1: The Muslim View
Whenever chaos, confusion, or evil filled human society, Allah sent a message, via His prophets, to reform society. These messages were contained in the Holy Books of Allah, of which 5 are accepted by Muslims today: the Suhuf (Scrolls), revealed to the prophet Ibrahim, and now lost; the Taurut (Torah), revealed to the prophet Musa (Moses); the Zabur (Psalms), revealed to the prophet Daud (David); the Injil (Gospels), revealed to the prophet Isa (Jesus); and the Qur'an (Koran), the Holy Book, or "final message to mankind," revealed to the prophet Muhammad. Each Scripture confirmed the preceding revelation, with the purpose of reforming mankind. Yet, according to Muslims, the first three existing revelations (Tawrut, Zabur, and Injil) include teachings which are confined to a particular tribe, community, or nation, and to a specific period. Furthermore, they believe that human imperfections, or abrogations have been introduced. The Bible, they say, seems to be a mixture of history and revelation. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to separate the true revelation in the Bible from that of history and human personality.Thus, the Qur'an, they believe, was sent as the perfection and culmination of all the truth contained in the earlier Scriptures. Though sent down in Arabic, it is the Book for all times, for all mankind. It guards the previous revelations by restoring the eternal truth of Allah (Sura 3:3-4a), and clears up all uncertainties.
C2: The Christian Response
Christians believe that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the inspired Word of God (2 Tim.3:16,17). By inspired, they mean that the messages of God were relayed to His chosen men who spoke or wrote them, using their own language, personalities and thought forms. (Inspiration, thus, does not mean divine dictation.) David wrote as an inspired poet, and Jeremiah spoke as an inspired preacher, and so on. The sixty-six Holy books, divide into two sections; the Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament, which means old covenant or sacred promise (between God and His chosen people), records God's revelation of Himself to them, while processing them to receive Himself as the Redeemer Messiah, who would be born as one of them.The Old Testament prophets recognized that the redemption for the world would be fulfilled through this Messiah (Jeremiah 31:31,33). Thus, they prophesied His coming hundreds of times, even speaking specifically of when and where His birth would occur, why He would come, how He would die, and that He would rise again; all hundreds of years before the events.
The New Testament (new covenant) is the historical record of the manner in which God fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, and established the new covenant. It contains the account of the life and teachings of the Messiah (the Gospels), the creation of the Church (Acts of the Apostles), explanations of Christian beliefs and conduct (Epistles), and a description of the end times, when God's purpose for mankind will be fulfilled (Revelation).
Christians accept only the Old and New Testament in the Bible as God's inspired written Word, consisting of teachings by more than thirty prophets and apostles, written in times of tremendous change and diversity, spanning more than 1,500 years, yet holding a common unifying idea; that God is at work in history with the intent to redeem and save mankind from death.
The Bible has been translated into over 1,600 languages, so that 93% of the world's population can read it in their mother tongue. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Bible continues to be the best-selling book in the history of mankind.
D: Belief in Angels
D1: The Muslim View
Muslims believe that Allah created a host of angels, all of whom are sinless, do not eat or drink, and have no determining sex. They, like humans, will die and be resurrected. The angels have differing ranks, but there are four who are the mightiest of all, and are known as the four archangels. They are:- Gabriel, Allah's chief messenger, or intermediary, who is referred to as the "Holy Spirit" in the Qur'an;
- Michael;
- Izrail, the Angel of Death; and
- Israfil, who will blow the trumpet on the last day to awake the dead.
The chief responsibility of the angels is to praise Allah, and to do his will. They do His will by watching over believers, interceding for them and aiding them in their battles (thousands were used at the great battle of Badr).
Many Muslims believe that all individuals on earth have two angels who are positioned above each of their shoulders, as 'recording angels'; one to record the good deeds man does, and the other to record his sins. At the time of death, two fierce black angels visit each corpse in the grave and ask him, "Who is thy Lord? What is thy religion?" and "Who is thy Prophet?" Depending on the response, the angels take the souls of the believers, and cause them to either fall into the fiery pit (Gahenna), or they send them across the razor sharp bridge, to paradise.
D2: The Christian Response
In the Bible there are many references to beings, other than men, who were created by God and were usually referred to as angels. They are God's messengers, and were often sent by God to make His will known to the prophets and to help believers. Angels appeared in human form to Abraham, Moses and others. The names of only two of God's angels are given in the Bible: Michael and Gabriel. The angel Gabriel was the one who informed Mary that she would have a son named Jesus.In addition to the holy angels who are obedient to God, we are told, in Scripture, that there are other created spiritual beings who were disobedient, who are enemies of God; the chief of whom is called Satan, the Devil, the dragon and serpent (Rev.12:3-9).
Many Christians think that Satan was created good, but because of pride disobeyed God. As a result, he, and the spirits who followed him, fell from their high and holy position in heaven. They are now doing all they can to destroy God's work on earth.
Satan deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden, and ever since he has been trying to turn people away from the living God. He even tried to persuade Jesus Christ to disobey God three times (in the wilderness), but failed.
Satan has great power, which is not equal to God, and in fact is limited by God. Thus, Christians do not need to fear him or his evil spirits who harm so many people, because of Satan's defeat through the historical death on the cross by the redeemer, Jesus Christ (Col.2:14,15). Because of that historical act, all believers have the strength, given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to resist and repel Satan and all his cohorts. God will finally cast Satan out of the earth and into the eternal fire, from where he will never bother man or God again.
E: Belief in the Day of Judgment
E1: The Muslim View
For a Muslim, sin is a private matter. The idea that one's sin is binding from one generation to the next does not exist. This is because Satan is the root of all sin; and Allah, who is all-merciful, will forgive those who ask for forgiveness. There is one sin, however, which is unforgivable, that of "shirk," the practice of associating anyone or anything with Allah. Thus, the sin of Adam and Eve (Adam and Hauwa), was not really their fault, as they were tricked by Satan, and they asked for forgiveness. Furthermore, their sin is not hereditary. Adam, having repented, was made Allah's first messenger on earth. How could Allah entrust such a high office to an evildoer?For the Muslim, salvation is attained not by faith, but by works, in observing the Five Pillars of Islamic practice, as well as avoiding the major and minor sins. Tradition indicates that on the Judgment Day, once the person is buried, the two recording angels appear, and the dead person sits up to undergo an examination. If he says the "Shahada" ("There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah"), he lies down peacefully and awaits his judgment. If he refuses the "Shahada," he is severely beaten for as long as Allah pleases.
Each individual is then put on a scale where his good and bad deeds, taken from their "book of destiny," are weighed. Yet, Allah reserves the absolute right to send the individual to wherever He pleases. If the book is placed in his right hand he is saved and crosses a razor sharp bridge as narrow as a hair.
On the other side is paradise, a perfumed garden of material and sensual delights, surrounded by rivers and flowing fountains, populated with black-eyed virgins, who are there to serve them with all variety of fruits (Suras 47 & 56).
On the other hand, a vivid hell (Gahenna) awaits those who fail the above test, a hell which consists of boiling water, gore and fire, a hell of extreme physical pain (Suras 4, 38, & 50).
E2: The Christian Response
According to Scripture, any sin is an abomination to a holy God, because it is, in essence, a rejection of His character. We believe, as Muslims believe, that Satan does tempt us. Yet, we are responsible for our own sins, and not Satan. We have the choice to reject Satan's tempting. But, the Scripture insists throughout, that the wages of sin is death, and since we are all guilty, therefore, we all deserve death. God, however, in His mercy, has not left us in that guilt, but has offered payment and forgiveness for those who receive it. He has sent His Son to die in our place, to take upon Himself our guilt. Therefore, those who believe in His redeeming death on the cross, and repent of their sins, are saved from eternal separation (John 3:16,17); while those who reject Him will be eternally condemned. Before His ascension into heaven, Christ promised to return a second time to judge the world. He warned his followers against false Christs and false prophets, saying that the whole world will know when He comes again; and that He will come as He was taken up (Acts 1:11). When He returns, He will raise all the dead to life (John 5:28-29), and will separate those who believe from those who reject, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.Those rejecting Christ, will live in eternal punishment, in total isolation from God; because, in rejecting God's Son, they have rejected God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well, and no sin is greater than this (1 John 2:22-23).
Those who have truly believed in Christ the redeemer, will not fear Christ the Judge, and will have eternal life (John 5:22- 24; Acts 17:30-31). This does not mean that they will go into a garden full of carnal pleasures, which, as we know in this life, separates us from God, but they will go into the presence of God Himself, to live forever with Him in love and in joy. For, as it says in Revelation 21:1-7, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people,... He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain."
F: Belief in the Decrees or Predestination of God (Allah)
F1: The Muslim View
"Islam," the word, means submission to the will of Allah. A Muslim, therefore, is one who submits, much as a slave submits to his master. The reason for this submission is found in the belief that everything, including good and evil, faith and unbelief, is preordained. As a religion, Islam is a code of political, ceremonial, civil, and criminal law, as well as moral and religious precepts, all promulgated in Allah's name, while leaving nothing to the believer's initiative. Muslims believe that Allah is in control of all of history. This belief embraces the doctrine of predestination, an acceptance of destiny, and resignation to fate (Kismet). Allah is sovereign. Thus, anything that happens is the will of Allah, and so is attributed to him. It explains why the phrase In sh'allah, "If Allah wills it," is so common in the Muslim world. For some, this idea that Allah has total control over history leads to fatalism and passivity. For others, it sets the mind at liberty from matters over which they have absolutely no control. Kismet makes the Muslim fanatically self-sacrificing in war, resigned in defeat, in bereavement and disaster, and inactive in the presence of preventable evil, such as epidemics, because these could be called the "Will of Allah."Furthermore, Allah is not bound by any moral obligation, as this would limit his sovereignty. Therefore, it follows that Allah is also the author of evil. He is under no necessity of his nature, to be right or just or merciful. Allah does not will an act because it is good; rather, it is good because he has willed it.
F2: The Christian Response
For the Christian, God's attributes are found in His holiness, grace and love (1 John 4:16). For a Muslim, Allah "loves" only those who do His will. Yet, we find that the God of the Bible not only loves those who are good, but He loves those who are sinners as well, even to the point of giving His life for them. (Romans 5:1-10) Unlike Allah of the Qur'an, who is portrayed as a distant God with whom no one can have a personal relationship, the Biblical view of God is one who very much wants a personal relationship with His creation (John 1:11-14;15:9-15).In the Qur'an, as was mentioned above, Allah is considered as the author of evil. Yet, in the Bible we find just the opposite. God is infinitely righteous and holy (Psalm 77:13;99:9). His "eyes are too pure to look on evil" (Habakkuk 1:13).
If we take these three attributes of the Biblical God (a God of selfless love, in relationship with His creation, unable to create or accept evil), we will find in these three the relation- ship that He seeks with His creation as well.
God doesn't seek total blind obedience from His creation. This is not true love. True love seeks the best for the other at one's own expense. It is best exemplified in Christs' own sacrificial act on the cross. It is this love which God desires of us, both in our relationship with Him, and with others.
The Bible tells us that man was created in God's image (Genesis 2:27), a view which is in direct contrast to that of the Muslim ideal, of man as slave. Man was never created to be a slave to God, but was meant from the very beginning, to be His son, in perfect relationship with Him. This assumes, however, freedom of choice, in that man can accept to be in relationship with His creator, or reject Him.
And finally, by God's very nature, He cannot create nor tolerate evil. Thus, He has not brought about, nor can He tolerate the evilness of man. Sin is of man's own doing. But God has made a way by which sin can be forgiven, so that man can, once again, be brought back into relationship with God, as was intended from the very beginning, with Adam and Eve. Our fate, therefore, is never predestined. We can, by simply acknowledging Christ as our Lord and Saviour, be assured that we will be once more reunited with God, in heaven, for eternity.
G: Sources
A Guide to Islam, Angus Nicolson, Sterling Tract Enterprise, 1951 Islam-The Basic Truths, Ja'sfar S. Idris, Muslim Welfare House, LondonA Christian's Response to Islam, W. M. Miller, Presbyterian & Reformed Publ. Co., Philipsburg, New Jersey, 1976
Beliefs and Practices of Christians, W.M.Miller, Masihi Isha'at Khana, Lahore, Pak.
Islam, A Christian Perspective, M.Nazir-Ali, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1983
Islam and Christianity, Badru Kateregga and David Shenk, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980
The Seven Deadly Questions of Islam
1. 'Your Bible has been corrupted.'
It is fruitless to try to share the Gospel with a Muslim who thinks that the Bible has been corrupted, since even if he was persuaded to reject the Qur'an, he would never accept the implications of the Bible until he was sure that it was authentic. Bear in mind that a Muslim believes every word of the Qur'an was written by God and brought to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel; it is no wonder that they see the Bible, written by over 40 men including a prime minister (Daniel), fishermen (Peter), a doctor (Luke) and prisoners (Jeremiah, Paul) over almost 2000 years as human and fallible in comparison. To compare the Bible with the Qur'an is therefore not to compare like with like. However, as we shall see, it is logically impossible for the Bible to have corrupted. We begin with what the Qur'an says about the Bible; many verses actually confirm that it is God's Word and has not been changed. Here are only a few for example: sura 5:43 'How come they to you for judgement when they have the Torah, wherein are contained the commandments of God?'; sura 5:44 'We [God] did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and light...'; sura 5:46 'We sent Jesus...confirming that which was revealed before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and light...'; sura 5:68 '[Jews and Christians] have no guidance until you observe the Torah and the Injil [Gospel]'; sura 4:136 'Believe in God and His messenger [Muhammad], and the Scripture which He revealed to His messenger [the Qur'an] and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime [the Bible]'; sura 10:91 'If you [Muhammad] are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto you, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before you'; sura 15:9 'We reveal the Reminder, and Lo! We truly are its Guardian [ie the Bible is guarded against corruption by God]'; sura 6:34 'There is none to alter the Words of Allah'; sura 10:64 'There is no changing of the Words of Allah.'If the Bible was corrupted, was this before or after Muhammad? If before, why does God tell Muhammad to refer to a corrupted Scripture for guidance, and why does he say of the Torah and Gospel 'wherein is guidance and light' rather than 'wherein there used to be before they were corrupted'? If after, why does the Muslim not accept the Bible, since current translations are all based upon manuscripts that predate Muhammad?
If it was corrupted, was this by Jews or Christians? Since neither were on speaking terms with each other (sura 2:113 'The Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true) and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true), yet both are readers of the Scripture', also see 5:82), how could they agree to change every single Bible identically? Why was there no record of this happening, and why did nobody try to stop it or hide authentic Bibles? The New Testament books were widely distributed as soon as they were written - the 'Jesus Papyrus' of Matthew 26, found in Magdalene College and recently dated to AD 68 was found in Egypt. Presumably Matthew was still alive when it was written - so why did he not try to correct it if it had been tampered with? Why did the Christians not remove embarrassing stories like Peter's denial of Christ (Matt 26:69-75) or Paul and Barnabas' disputation (Acts 15:39)?
What is the Bible's testimony of itself? 'All Scripture is God-breathed...' (2 Tim 3:16); Peter describes Paul's writings as Scripture since some people maliciously distort his teaching 'as they do the other Scriptures' (2 Pet 3:16). 'The Law was given through Moses' (John 1:17) and Jesus said 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). His words are 'spirit and life' (John 6:63) and He has the words of eternal life (John 6:68). How could anybody dare to add or remove portions of Scripture when faced with the warning in Rev 22:18-19 'If anybody adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anybody takes words away from this book of prophecy God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city....'
Significantly the early Muslim commentators (eg. 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 the Bible had been changed, when they carefully read the stories in the Qur'an and noted that they were different from those in the Bible. The verses used to support corruption in the Bible have been totally misused by Muslims. For example sura 2:42 'Confound truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth' was said to have come to Muhammad after two Jews were brought to him for judgement, having committed adultery. The other Jews wanted to test him to see if he, as a prophet of God, knew what was in the Torah. So he asked for a Torah and got a boy to read the punishments for disobedience. When the boy reached Lev 20:10 ('if a man commits adultery with another man's wife....both must be put to death') the Jew accused of adultery slammed his hand over the verse so the boy could not read it (source: Abu Dawood 4449 (Arabic) or 4432 (English)). A far cry from corrupting the text of the Bible. Other verses say that a group of Jews used to listen to Scripture then change it - but (i) it was only a group, not all the Jewish people around the world let alone in Mecca; (ii) they must have had the original genuine copies in order to have been accused of changing it; and (iii) they did not change the written text, they simply told Muhammad that it said things which were not there, in order to mislead him.
2. 'What about the predictions of Muhammad in the Bible?'
This is a strange question for someone to ask if they believe that the Bible has been tampered with. It is said that there used to be many prophecies about the coming of Muhammad in the Bible but after he came Jews and Christians deleted as many as possible. Since our translations are based on manuscripts copies centuries before Muhammad this cannot be true but the myth persists. What about the 'prophecies' which were not deleted?- sura 61:6 says 'Jesus, son of Mary said, "I am indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me and giving good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me whose name shall be Ahmad."' Before you reply, 'But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus talk about such a person!' you will be told to look at John 14:16 'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you...' The Greek word for Counsellor is parakletos (literally, one who draws alongside, as in a defence barrister in a court of law). Muslims claim that John originally wrote periklytos which apparently is Greek for 'Praised One'. Not a single manuscript of John 14:16 or 14:26 (where parakletos is used again) has periklytos however and one wonders how such a downright lie ever came to be invented. In the context of John 14, the Parakletos is to be with the disciples for ever (v16); He is the Spirit of Truth (v17) who is neither seen nor known by the world, but who lives inside belivers; and He is the Holy Spirit who reminds the Christians of all that Jesus taught them (v26). Could any of these things relate to a physical human being, Muhammad?
- 'The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran with tens of thousands of holy ones' (Deut 33:2) and 'God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran' (Hab 3:3). Muslims claim that Moses came from Sinai, Jesus from Seir and Muhammad from Mount Paran, and the tens of thousands refers to one of his battles fought with ten thousand soldiers! Not only is the context clearly God and nobody else, but the interpretation is based upon a nineteenth-century geographer who apparently identified Paran with Mecca and Teman with Medina. That Paran is actually 1000km away from Mecca can be seen from the chronicles of the Israelites' wanderings, eg in Deut 1:1, also see Num 13 - how could the twelve spies leave Paran (v3), go staight into Canaan and explore the whole country (v21-22), cut some grapes (v23) and bring them back to Paran fresh (v27) in a mere 40 days if they were travelling a total of 2000km?
- '[The Jews] asked [John], 'Are you the Prophet?' He answered, 'No.'' Although Muslims reject the testimony of John 1 that Jesus was divine (v1, 2, 14, 18, 34, 49) they hold that the Prophet referred to is Muhammad. The origins of this Prophet go back to Deut 18:15 ('The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among your brethen') who is clearly identified to be Jesus in Acts 3:22. Of the differences between Moses andMuhammad, not the least is that Muhammad was not Jewish and yet the Prophet will be from their own brethren (this excludes descent through Ishmael, Isaac's half-brother, Gen 16:12 versus 17:19). Moses is far more comparable to Jesus than to Muhammad: both were born in poverty and there were plots to kill them in infancy (Ex 1:15-16, 22 v. Matt 2:13); yet both were rescued (Ex 2:2-10 v. Matt 2:13). Both were prepared for a period of forty units of time (forty being a biblical unit for preparation): Ex 7:7 v. Matt 4:1); both liberated their people from slavery (Exodus v. John8:32-36); water was subject to them both (Red Sea Ex 14:21 v. Sea of Galilee Matt 8:26); both spoke to God face to face (Ex 33:11 v. Matt 17:3), both their faces shone (Ex 34:29 v. Matt 17:2); both died because of sin (Num 20:12 v. Is 53, John 1:29, 10:15).
3. 'Christians worship three gods' - and 'God has no son.'
The Trinity is almost invariably the Muslim's greatest stumbling-block to the Gospel and diverts numerous conversations away from more productive issues. At the start it must be said that there is only being who can fully comprehend the nature of God, and that is Himself. However there are many clues in the Bible to His triune character. The Qur'an is mistaken in its portrayal of the Trinity as Mary and Jesus being two separate gods besides Allah: 'O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah?'(sura 5:116); 'How can He [God] have a child, when there is for Him no wife?' (sura 6:101); 'They indeed have disbelieved who say: Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary' (sura 5:17); 'Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son' (sura 4:171). This portryal of Christians as believing that God took Mary as His wife and she and their baby Jesus became two separate gods is as offensive to Christians as it is to Muslims, although there is evidence that heretical sects banished to Arabia were teaching this at the time of Muhammad (known as the Maryamia or Choloridians).Unfortunately when we say 'Jesus is the Son of God', although we mean 'He is the eternal uncreated Word of God, equal in every respect and fully divined', the Muslim hears in his mind 'God had sex with Mary and she gave birth to Jesus'. It is vital not to say that Jesus is the Son of God to a Muslim - this is not compromising the Gospel, since there are many ways of affirming His divinity without using the convenient but totally misunderstood phrase 'Son of God', as we shall see below.
Helpful pointers include sura 2:177 in which the Arabic ibni-sabili literally means 'son of the road' but is translated 'wayfarer' - just as Jesus is not literally a physical son of God, so a wayfarer is not literally fathered by a road. sura 85:22 is held by the majority of Muslims (Sunnis) to mean that the Qur'an is uncreated, existing with God since the very beginning. If God's word the Qur'an is eternal and uncreated, why is it a problem that Jesus, God's Word should be eternal and uncreated? Indeed there cannot be a time when God's Word has never existed since it is intrinsically a part of God. Interestingly sura 4:171 says Jesus is a Word from God and His Spirit, yet elsewhere the Spirit (Arabic ruuhim minh) is identified as being the very essence of God Himself (sura 2:253 'We supported [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit', 12:87, 58:22 ).
In the Qur'an Jesus has attributes that no other human being has: He was born of a virgin (sura 21:91 - who was Jesus' father according to the Qur'an?) and was sinless (sura 19:19). As a child He made birds out of clay and breathed life into them yet the gift of life is something that only God can give (sura 3:49 - this story first appeared in the heretical Gospel of Thomas in the second century AD). He heals men who were born blind, cures the leper and raises the dead; He has knowledge of what is hidden in men's houses (sura 3:49). He has the power to intercede (sura 3:45 - 'one of those brought near to Allah') yet only God can interceed (sura 39:44); He can forgive sins (sura 61:12), and He alone knows the hour of Judgement (sura 43:61)!
A Muslim will point out that in the Bible Jesus never explicitly says that He is God - and He does not. However, evidence is presented and He allows people to make up their own minds. The Bible categorically denies that there is more than one God (Deut 6:4 'The LORD your God is One' - this verse is quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29; see also Jam 2:19). Yet the Hebrew word echad for one implies a plurality, eg it is used in Gen 2:24 ('the two shall become one flesh'). God speaks in the plural eg 'Let Us make man in Our image' (Gen 1:26) yet there is no 'royal we' in Hebrew. In Gen 1:2-3 we see all three Persons of the Trinity in action, God, Word and Spirit, and in Matt 28:19 Jesus names these three Persons.
Jesus has the power not only to heal but to forgive sins, and since we sin against God alone, who has the authority to forgive sins except God (Mark 2:7)? Who other than God can demand that our love for Him must be so exclusive that all our other relationships seem like hate in comparison (Luke 14:26)? Since God instigated the Sabbath, only God can be the Lord of the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this title for himself (Mark 2:28). Jesus passes judgement on our eternal destiny (Matt 25:32, John 5:22) and is with us forever (Matt 28:20). He said that He was the good shepherd (John 10:11) yet God is our shepherd (Ps 23:1). He is the light of the world (John 8:12) yet God is our light and our salvation (Ps 27:1) Heapplied the holy name 'I AM' of God (Ex 3:14) to Himself (John 8:58) - and was stoned for blasphemy. At His trial, when asked by the High Priest if He was the Son of God (a Messianic title,but not automatically one that claimed divinity, as Jesus pointed out in John 10:34-36), Jesus replied, 'I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the MightyOne and coming on the clouds of heaven.' (Mark 14:62). This was a direct reference to Dan 7:13-14, in which the Son of Man is given all authority and all peoples worshipped Him. It was this unambiguous claim to divinity that was deemed sufficient grounds for sentencing Jesus to death. Although Muslims have a problem accepting that Jesus really did die (see Deadly Question 5) there can be no denying that Jesus was at the very least sentenced to die.
When a Muslim says that there can be no Trinity he is limiting God, since God is able to do all things (sura 5:17, 19). In fact in sura 27:8 we read that God appeared to Moses in a burning bush (cf. Ex 3:2). If God can lower Himself to the extent of appearing as a fire, surely He can humble Himself to appear as a man (Phil 2:7) - after all, a human is muchgreater than a fire. The question then becomes not, How could God become a man, but Why did He?
4. 'Why the atonement? - God forgives me if I confess my mistakes.'
In Islam sins are mistakes which you do, and by saying sorry to God He will forgive you. In addition our good deeds take away our bad deeds (sura 11:114) - but if a man rapes a woman then builds a mosque in penitence, how can this restore honour to the woman? It is little incentive to do good. If I am convicted of driving over the speed limit, I cannot escape punishment simply because I have never had a parking ticket. Sin dishonours the King of Kings and since we are God's slaves (sura 19:30) we must respect Him and accept punishment for dishonouring Him. It does not matter whether we have committed many or few sins - a small stone is just as likely to sink in the sea as a big one because they both share a stoney nature. In the operating theatre it does not matter whether the scalpel has been contaminated by one germ or millions, it is no longer sterile. The penalty for sin is death (Ezk 18:4, Rom 6:23) and God cannot lie (Num 23:19, Rom 3:4). Everything on earth must perish, and flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor 15:50); only God lasts for ever (sura 55:26-27). Atonement is therefore necessary because we are not good enough to earn a place in Heaven by our own merits.God has decreed that the life of an animal is in its blood (Lev 17:10) and the institution of animal sacrifices is a visual aid to understand atonement - without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22). The question remains, how can the blood of a perishable lamb redeem a human, who is also perishable (Heb 9:9, 10:1,10:3) - perishable cannot inherit the imperishable. The only blood which truly has power to take away sins is imperishable blood, and if God appeared in human flesh He would have imperishable blood, which alone is sufficient to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).
There are two important clues in the Qur'an to this. In sura 5:27 we learn that Abel's sacrifice (of blood, Gen 4:4) was accepted by God whereas Cain's sacrifice (vegetables, Gen 4:3) was not sufficient. Secondly in 37:107 we read that Abraham's son was 'ransomed by a momentous sacrifice', referring to the substitution by God of a ram instead of the boy in Gen 22:13-14. Why was it necessary for God to provide a substitute to save the boy's life? More importantly, why was the ram described as momentous (Arabic al-Azzim - this is one of the ninety-nine Names of God in the Qur'an). How could a ram be greater than a human being, unless it was a representation of an altogether greater sacrifice to come, that of Jesus Christ? (Note: the Qur'an maintains that it was Ishmael, not Isaac who was to be sacrificed. When discussing this story with a Muslim do not get sidetracked onto the issue of which of Abraham's sons was involved since this is a red herring. It is far more important to ask why the sacrifice was needed, and why a ram is described by a word that is a title of God Himself.)
5. 'Jesus was never crucified.'
In denying the Crucifixion Islam denies the very reason that Christ came to earth! This belief depends entirely on one infamous verse, sura 4:157: [The Jews said] ''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 save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain'. However, it begs several crucial questions, not least is how Muhammad could claim that a historical event did not happen six centuries after it was recorded by many eyewitnesses. That Jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead is beyond question from the Gospels ('When they had crucified Him' (Matt 27:35); 'With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last' (Mark 15:37); 'When they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs' (John 19:33); 'The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you were looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here....He has risen from the dead' (Matt 28:5- 7)) The last passage is especially important for Muslims, who pay particular attention to things that angels say to humans.Extra-biblical evidence for the reality of the Crucifixion includes the pagan writers Tacitus ('Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius') and Lucian the Greek ('Christians worship the crucified sage'), the Christian apologist Justin Martyr referred to the 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' (now lost, but must have chronicled the death of Jesus to have been referred to) and Jewish writers Josephus ('Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die....') and Babylonian Talmud ('He was crucified on the eve of the Passover'). Early Christians used the Lord's Supper and the Cross as symbols of their Master's sacrifice (I Cor 11:23) and were never in doubt about the reality of the Crucifixion.
Conventionally Muslims have maintained that a substitute man was crucified but this opens a can of worms. Usually it was said to be Judas Iscariot (impossible since he committed suicide, Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18) or Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21, impossible since he came from Libya and would have looked very different from Jesus). Why was it even necessary to involve an innocent substitute? Why did the crucified man not cry out that a mistake had been made? Why did Mary recognise him as her Son (John 19:26)? Why would God deceive the disciples, who, the Qur'an tells us were inspired by God and believed in Jesus (sura 5:111), into thinking that Jesus had died and risen again, since this made them realise that Jesus truly was divine ('declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 1:4-5)). If Jesus was not God, this deception would have caused the disciples to worship another god, which is the greatest sin (shirk) known to Islam. How could God deceive godly men into committing the most ghastly sin imaginable - He is not a deceiver! A further problem is that if the man only appeared like Jesus, perhaps the Qur'an was not even given to Muhammad but to a man who looked like him. Finally, if the substitution theory was correct, if I committed adultery I could escape judgement by claiming that I was actually sleeping with my wife, but she merely looked like another man's wife, and appeal to the Qur'an for a divine precedent.
The important thing about these criticisms and others is that they have been made by Muslims - particularly the medieval scholar Al-Razi, who wrote the 'definitive' commentarty to the Qur'an and is perhaps to Islam what Luther or Aquinas are to Christianity. Since even senior Muslims have problems with sura 4:157, what can we say? The Qur'an talks about Jesus' death in other places as a historical event, e.g. sura 3:55 'Allah said, 'O Jesus! I am taking thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me' and sura 5:117 'I [Jesus] was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast watcher over me'. The Arabic word for 'take' (ta-waffa) in these verses means 'death' in every other place in the Qur'an where it occurs, e.g. referring to the death of Muhammad in sura 10:46 ('...or whether We cause thee to die...'). In sura 19:15 God says to John the Baptist 'Peace on him the day he was born and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive' and in sura 19:33 Jesus says, 'Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised to life'. Since we know that John the Baptist has died (Mk 6:14-29), surely Jesus must have done so to speak in this way.
Sura 3:169 says 'Think not of those who are slain in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are living', meaning that the intended effect of those who killed people in God's way was not achieved, as martyrs were remembered more as a result of their death than for their life. Sura 8:17 says that 'it was not you Muslims who slew them, but Allah did it' referring to a battle the Muslims fought and reminding them that God was sovereignly in control of the victory. Finally even the Qur'an admits that it is not impossible for Christ to have have died - 'Who can do anything against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary?' (sura 5:17). The most consistent explanation of sura 4:157 in the light of all these other verses is that the Jews were unable to boast that they had killed Jesus because God was supremely in control in allowing His Son to die on a cross!
6. 'The Qur'an contains scientific statements which prove that it was inspired by God.'
It is maintained that there are certain scientific processes described in the Qur'an which were not known at the time of Muhammad and their presence proves that the Qur'an was divinely inspired. Verses have been taken out of context and the translations twisted to try to prove these points. In addition standard textbooks written by Western scientists have been republished in Saudia Arabia with passages from the Qur'an inserted into the text at certain points to give the impression that the Qur'an is accurately describing something which was not discovered until fairly recently. The result is that most people take these claims at face value, since they do not know enough either about the true meaning of the Arabic or about possible sources of the scientific 'facts' in Muhammad's day. Examples of these claims include verses which talk about rain falling, and others which say that there is water underground - conclusion - the Qur'an is describing the water cycle. A comparison of verses in the Bible shows that the same ideas were around long before Muhammad. Another is a verse which claims that mountains are like tent-pegs and prevent the earth from moving. Geologists are quoted as saying that mountains have 'roots' below the ground that hold the earth in place, when in reality far from preventing earthquakes, mountains are actually built up as a result of seismic activity.Perhaps the greatest amount written by Muslims in this field concerns the development of the human embryo. Many verses describe how we originate from a drop of semen which gushes forth (sura 53:46) from 'between the backbone and the ribs' (sura 86:7). Muslims claim that the totally false idea that sperm is produced somewhere in the region of the backbone refers to the site of embryological development of the testes which is close to the kidneys - although there is no possibility of this interpretation in the context. In fact the Greek physician Hippocrates taught 1000 years before Muhammad that semen passes through the region of the kidneys and spine. Other verses say that we develop in four stages - a drop of semen, a blood-clot, a piece of chewed flesh and a stage in which bones are clothed with flesh (sura 22:5, sura 23:13). In trying to identify precise points in human development that these stages relate to, Muslim scientists have totally overlooked the fact that Galen, writing at Pergamun in Turkey (Rev 2:12) in AD 150 claimed that humans go through these four stages of development. Other examples could be given from the Qur'an and the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) which have been twisted to try to show them saying things which have only recently been discovered. In every single case it has been conclusively demonstrated that not only were these things originally taught by the ancient Greeks, but that they were actually well known to the people in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. Far from proving that the Qur'an is divinely inspired, they provide further evidence that it had human origins.
7. 'Look at all the depravity in Christian society - Islam is pure.'
In fact the depravity is largely due to large numbers of people rejecting Christ, but many Muslims think that all Westerners are Christians, just as we are tempted to say that all Arabs are Muslims when there are many who are only culturally Muslim. But why stop at Western society? One could argue (sensitively) that there are as many problems in Islamic societies as there are in Christian societies, except that these are often overlooked or hidden. For example of the countries at war or undergoing civil unrest almost all of them are Muslim. Corruption in Islamic countries is rife. The position of women is far more restricted than in Britain. Under Islamic law if a woman is raped she must bring four witnesses to testify to the crime in order to bring a case. If she claims she was raped but cannot produce four eyewitnesses not only is the case thrown out, but she could be flogged or even stoned to death for having effectively admitted in public to committing adultery. When statistics of violent crimes in the West are compared with those in Muslim countries and found to be much higher, is it because they do not occur in Muslim countries or that they do but people cannot produce the necessary witnesses? One could argue that polygamy was never part of God's sovereign plan and it is impossible to fully take care of more than one wife (Gen 1:27; 2:24; Deut 17:17; I Cor 7:2; I Tim 3:2). Yet the Qur'an allows up to four wives (sura 4:3) and not only did Muhammad have at least nine wives, he used to sleep with all of them in one night (Bukhari vol 7, Hadith 142). Christians are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for her (Eph 5:25,33) whereas the Qur'an commands men to beat their wives if they do not submit to them (sura 4:34 - Arabic word literally means scourge or beat hard). One of Muhammad's wives, Aisha was only seven when he married her, and another, Zainab was originally the wife of his adopted son but was forced to marry Muhammad when he fell in love with her.Many examples that could be given but these can have the effect of building barriers rather than bridges. It is more productive to show the teaching of Jesus, to live it out in front of your Muslim friend and to ask him what would happen to society if everybody followed His priorities. When answering any of these questions try to avoid being distracted on issues of minor importance and keep looking towards the Cross, upon which oursalvation depends. A genuine Muslim enquirer will have many questions but most of these are red herrings and prevent him from hearing about the good news of salvation through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.
The author is a practising medical doctor in the United Kingdom and would be pleased to hear your responses at lactantius@hotmail.com.
Sam Shamoun
Throughout the course of this study, the object will be to give a rational and loving
defense of the Gospel (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Acts 9:22, 29; 17:2-3, 19;
18:24-28; Philippians 1:7, 16; Titus 1:6-9).
Apologetics is often a neglected aspect of
Muslim evangelism, and yet it is perhaps one of the most important.
The general Muslim opinion about Christianity is that it is both irrational and
indefensible. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin, and
Jesus' vicarious death are viewed as illogical and absurd. The idea that God would
actually become a man to die for sinners who are under condemnation due mainly to
Adam's sin, a sin which they had no part in, is logically inconceivable for Muslims.
This makes it binding on the Christian to first know what he believes and why he believes
it, as well as being able to present the biblical evidence to support such beliefs.
We will break down the study in four parts and cover the arguments used by Muslims in
relation to each of the four sections. From there we will give a concise reply to the major
arguments used against Christianity. This must be done in prayer and sincere Christian
love in order that God might grant repentance to those Muslims who are sincerely
seeking for the truth.
The four sections include:
· The nature of God · The plan of Salvation
· The person of Jesus · The authority of the Bible
1. THE NATURE OF GOD
Muslim Argument:
Christians believe that God is a Trinity. Yet, nowhere do we find the Trinity taught in the
Bible. The clear biblical witness is that God is absolutely one, having no plurality (Cf.
Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 46:9).
2
Christian Response:
In fact, both Jesus and Paul taught that God is absolutely one (Cf. Mark 12:29-30; John
17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6a; 1 Timothy 2:5).
The Trinity entails the belief in only one God. Christians do not worship three Gods.
Therefore biblical references indicating that there is only one God affirms, rather than
denying, the Trinitarian belief.
The Bible teaches that although there is only one God, there are three Persons addressed
as God: The Father (1 Peter 1:2), the Son (Matthew 1:23; John 20:28; Colossians 2:9;
Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).
(Note: Jesus in John 17:3 refers to the Father as the only true God. This point needs
further clarification since it seems to imply that Jesus is denying that he is truly God as
well. It must be remembered that Christ at the Incarnation became a real human being
without ceasing to be divine. As the God-man, the Father became his God. Therefore, we
would expect Jesus to refer to his Father as the true God, since the Father cannot possibly
be a false God.)
Muslim Argument:
The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament, since in the Old no mention is made
of a plurality of Persons who are God.
Christian Response:
The Old Testament does in fact affirm the plurality of the Godhead in several places:
1. It addresses God with plural pronouns. (Cf. Gen.1:26-27, 3:22, 11:7; Isa. 6:8) This
cannot simply be a plural of majesty, a majestic form of address, since biblical
Hebrew did not have this linguistic feature.
2. It clearly refers to more than one Person in the Godhead (Cf. Gen. 19:24;
Proverbs 30:4; Isa. 48:12-16; Zechariah 2:7-11, 3:1-2).
3. It refers to the Angel of Jehovah as being both distinct from God and fully God at
the same time. (Cf. Gen. 31:10-13-cf.- 28:10-19; Exodus 3:1-4, 13-14; 23:20-22;
Judges 2:1-5).
(Note- The Bible denies the worship of angels and angels never refer to
themselves as God [Cf. Col. 2:18; Revelation 19:9-10, 22:8-9]. This strongly
supports the fact that this specific Angel was not just simply God's representative,
but OT appearances of the preincarnate Christ)
4. It attributes the work of creation to the Spirit of God (Cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13,
33:4; Psalm 104:30)
5. When referring to the unity of God in Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses used the Hebrew
echad: Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Elohenu Yahweh Echad- Hear O Israel, the LORD
our God the LORD is One.
The term, echad, is used to show a plurality within unity as in Gen. 1:3, 2:24 and
Jeremiah 32:38-39. Had Moses wanted to imply the absolute singularity of the
Godhead he could have easily used the Hebrew yachid as in Gen. 22:2. There,
Isaac is called Abraham's only Son.
Muslim Argument:
If the Old Testament does teach the plurality of God, then how is it that the Jews who
have studied it for all these centuries never came to the conclusion that God is a Trinity?
Christian Response:
Whether the Jews have come to realize that the Old Testament teaches the fact of the
Trinity is irrelevant. What is relevant is if whether the OT supports the Trinity, which we
have proven that it does.
Furthermore, it is not entirely true that Jews have not embraced the teaching of the
Trinity. Throughout the ages, thousands of Jews have embraced the reality that God is a
tri-Personal Being, as opposed to being uni-Personal.
In fact, there are thousands of messianic Jews today, Jews who both believe that Jesus is
the Messiah and that God is a Triune Being.
2. THE NATURE OF CHRIST
Muslim Argument:
There is no clear biblical reference from the lips of Jesus claiming to be God. In fact,
nowhere in the Bible does Jesus teach anyone to worship him. Instead he commands that
one should worship God (Cf. Mat. 4:10).
Christian Response:
There is a very good reason why Jesus did not just come out right away and proclaim that
he was God. Noted New Testament Scholar and Catholic Theologian, Raymond E.
Brown states it best:
"The question concerns Jesus a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first century, for whom `God'
would have a meaning specified by his background and the theological language of the time. By
way of simplification (and perhaps oversimplification) let me say that I think by a Jew of that
period `God' would have been thought of as One dwelling in the heavens- among many
attributes. Therefore, a question posed to Jesus on earth, `Do you think you are God? would
mean did he think he was the One dwelling in heaven. And you can see that would have been an
inappropriate question, since Jesus was visibly on earth. As a matter of fact the question was
never asked of him; at most he was asked about his relationship to God."
Therefore, for Jesus to say that he was God without qualification would have meant that
Jesus was claiming to be the same person commonly referred to by both Jews and
Christians as the Father. Yet, Jesus was not the same person as the Father, but was
distinct from him, sharing the same essence and nature equally. Brown notes:
"... I would say that by that time (i.e. the last decade of the first century), under the impact of their
quest to understand Jesus, Christians had in a certain sense expanded the meaning of the word
`God.' It no longer for them simply covered the Father in heaven; it covered the Son on earth.
They had come to realize that Jesus was so intimately related to God, so filled with God's
presence, that the term God was applicable to him as it was to the Father in heaven. May I
emphasis that this does not involve a change in Jesus; it involves a change and growth in the
Christian perception of who he was." (Op. Cit.)
That Brown does not mean to say that it was Jesus' followers, and not Jesus himself, who
came to realize that he was God, is clear from his following statement:
"Did Jesus have an identity which his followers later came to understand in terms of his being
God? If he was God (and most Christians do agree on that), did he know who he was? I think the
simplest answer to that question is yes." (Ibid., p. 99)
Hence, once Jesus had clearly affirmed the distinction between the Father and himself the
term "God" came to be understood as a reference not just to a specific person, but to all
the Persons of the Godhead. Once this qualification had been made clear, Jesus went on
to make divine claims. Some claims include the following:
1. Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, which to the Jews would have been a
claim of being Yahweh God. (Cf. Mat. 12:8; Leviticus 23:3)
2. Jesus clearly refers to himself as God to the Gadarene demoniac (Cf. Luke 8:38-
39)
3. Jesus claims to be Almighty in Revelation 1:7-8.
4. Jesus applies titles of God to himself, such as
a. First and the Last. (Cf. Isa. 48:12; Rev. 1:17-18, 22:12-13, 20)
b. I AM. (Cf. Isa. 48:12; John 8:58, 18:4-6)
5. Jesus forgives sins and heals, something which Yahweh does. (Cf. Mark 2:1-12;
Psalm 103:3)
6. Jesus is the Source of Life and the Resurrection. (Cf. John 5:25, 28-29; 10:27;
11:25-26)
7. Jesus is to receive the same exact honor that the Father receives, which includes
praying to him. In fact, to praise Jesus is to praise Yahweh. (Cf. Mat. 21:14-18-
cf.- Ps. 8:2; John 5:22-23, 14:13-14)
8. Jesus is Omnipresent. (Cf. Mat. 18:20, 28:20; John 1:44-49; 14:21, 23; Ephesians
1:23, 4:10)
9. Jesus is Omniscient. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John 16:30, 21:17; Rev. 2:23b- Jer. 17:10)
10. Jesus will judge all nations. (Cf. Mat. 25:31-33- Ezekiel 34:17; Rev.22:12- Isa.
40:10)
This list conclusively proves that Jesus both knew and claimed that he was God.
(Note: Muslims will often point to the fact that there is no place in the New Testament
where Jesus says "I am God," or "worship me." When this point is brought out, indicate
to the Muslim that by the same token nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus ever say
"I am not God," or "do not worship me". Nor was Jesus ever commanded to say, much
like Muhammad in the Quran, that he was only a human messenger [cf. S. 3:144; 17:93;
18:110]. Furthermore, neither does the Father in the New Testament ever say, "I am
God," and/or "worship me." Using this logic we would be forced to conclude that the
Father is not God as well. Point out to the Muslim that s/he is simply arguing from
silence which is nothing more than a logical fallacy since absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence, i.e. just because the NT doesn't record Jesus saying that he is God in
those exact words doesn't mean that he never did say it.)
Muslim Argument:
According to the Bible, Jesus cannot be the Messiah since Matthew's genealogy lists him
as a descendant of cursed Jehoaichin.(Mat. 1:11-16) In Jeremiah 22:24-30, God says of
Jehoiachin:
"'As surely as I live,' declares the LORD, `even if you, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim king of
Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. I will hand you over to those
who seek your life, those you fear- to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. I
will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was
born, and there you both will die. You will never come back to the land you long to return to,'
"Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his
children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the
LORD! This is what the LORD says: `Record this man as childless, a man who will not prosper in
his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule
anymore in Judah.'"
If Matthew's genealogy is correct, then Jesus cannot be a legitimate King of Israel nor the
Messiah of God.
Christian Response:
It must be stated that the scriptures clearly teach that God's decree of judgement is not
always final since God often allows time for repentance to occur since his desire is for
none to perish:
"Say to them, `As surely as I live declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of
the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why
will you die, O house of Israel?'" Ezekiel 33:11
In relation to God reversing a decision he has made due to man's actions we read in
Jeremiah 18:7-10:
"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,
and if that nation I warn repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had
planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation and kingdom is to be built up and
planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had
intended to for it." N.I.V.
An example of God reversing his decision due to a nation or individual's action after
hearing the prophetic warning is Ninevah. According to Jonah 3:4 God had declared that
the city would be destroyed forty days after the prophet's warning. But according to
Jonah 3:10 we are told that after "God saw what they (the Assyrians) did and how they
turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the
destruction he had threatened."
Evidently, we find this to be the case with Jehoiachin who obviously had repented since
we find certain aspects of the curse reversed. For instance, one stipulation of the curse
was that neither he nor his offspring would prosper and yet we find him prospering at the
hands of Evil-Merodach king of Babylon:
"In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach
became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison on the twenty-fifth day
of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of
the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for
the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular
allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death." Jeremiah 52:31-34
Furthermore, we find his descendant Zerubbabel prospering in the hands of God, being
commissioned by the Lord to rebuild his house:
"'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, `I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of
Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, `and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,'
declares the LORD Almighty.'" Haggai 2:23 N.I.V.
These factors strongly support the fact that Jehoiachin had repented which moved God
reversed the curse upon him. This is not simply a Christian view but one endorsed by
orthodox rabbinic Judaism as well. Sanhedrin 37b-38a states:
"R. Johanen said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, `Thus saith the Lord, write ye this
man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper
sitting upon the throne of David and ruling, anymore in Judah.' Whereas after he[the king] was
exiled, it is written, `And the sons of Jeconiah,'- `the same is Asir, Shealtiel his son etc.' (1) [He
was called] Asir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not
plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive
in a standing position, [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because
God ordained [of the heavenly court] absolution from his oath.(2)"
The Soncino Talmud's footnotes state:
(1) I Chr. III, 17 notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless, and not prosper, after
being exiled he was forgiven.
(2) Which he had made (ed.-the oath), to punish Jeconiah with childlessness.
According to Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, God states "I accepted the repentance of
Jeconiah: Shall I not accept your repentance?..."
Finally, the Jewish Encyclopedia records:
"Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, as he repented of the sins which he
had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none
of his descendants should ever become king... he even became the ancestor of the Messiah
(Tan, Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, I. 140] emphasis ours)
Muslim Argument:
Jesus cannot be God since he made false predictions. In Matthew 10:23 Jesus says to his
disciples, "I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before
the Son of Man comes." The disciples went through the cities of Israel and Jesus still has
not returned.
The second false prediction is found in Matthew 16:28 where Jesus states, "I tell you the
truth some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man
coming in his kingdom." The disciples have all died and Jesus has not come into his
kingdom.
Finally, Jesus states in Matthew 24:34 his generation would not pass away until the
fulfillment of all the prophecies leading to his second coming had occurred.
Christian Response:
There are no false predictions, but a misunderstanding of Jesus' words. Firstly, Jesus'
saying "before the Son of Man comes" is not a reference to his second coming, but to his
being reunited with his disciples after their evangelistic outreach. This becomes evident
from Matthew 11:1 where it states that "after Jesus had finished instructing his twelve
disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee."
Hence, Jesus had departed into Galilee while the disciples were traveling throughout the
towns of Israel. Afterwards, Jesus met up with the disciples where "they reported to him
all they had done and taught." (Mark 6:30)
In regards to Matthew 16:28, Jesus was referring to the visible manifestation of his
kingdom, where he would appear in glory and power. Jesus was promising his disciples
that some of them would get a foretaste of how Jesus would appear at his return, where
his second coming is to be accompanied by the proclamation of the two witnesses which
scripture indicates must come before Christ. (Cf. Malachi 4:5; Rev. 11:1-12) This
understanding becomes evident from Mark's account:
"And he said to them, `I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before
they see the kingdom of God come with power.' " Mark 9:1
The fulfillment of this promise took place shortly afterwards:
"After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John the brother of James, and led them
up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like
the sun, and his clothes became as white light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and
Elijah talking with Jesus." Matthew 17:1-3
Hence, Jesus did appear in kingly power and glory alongside the two witnesses, fulfilling
his promise to the disciples.
In relation to Matthew 24:34, there are two possible responses. First, the term
"generation" is the Greek geneous, a synonym of genes which means race. Hence, the
race of Jews whom Jesus was addressing would not pass away until the culmination of
the age. Secondly, Jesus may not have been referring to his generation per se, but the
generation that would witness the signs that Christ predicted would occur before his
second coming. (Cf. Mat. 24:15-33)
Muslim Argument:
According to Mark Jesus cursed a fig tree for not having figs on it, even though "it was
not the season for figs" (Mark 11:12-14). If Jesus is God, did he not know that it wasn't
season for figs, and if so why would he curse it?
Christian Response:
There are three responses. Firstly, Jesus in his divine consciousness knows all things (Cf.
John 21:17), and because of this fact he would have known beforehand whether the tree
would bare figs or not. Secondly, before fig season something called taqsh sprouts on the
tree as an indication of whether it would bear figs or not. Most likely, Jesus saw that there
were no taqsh on the tree which would have indicated to him that it was barren.
Finally, Jesus might have been trying to teach a spiritual lesson. Figs are used in the Old
Testament as a symbol for Israel:
"I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstfruits on the fig tree in
its first season." Hosea 9:10 N.K.J.V.
Therefore, Christ could have been indicating to his disciples that Israel would suffer
judgment before the culmination of the age. The following parable solidifies this point.
"Then he told this parable: `A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for
fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, "See here! For three years I have come
looking for fruit on this fig and I still find none, Cut it down! Why should it be wasting soil?" He
replied, "Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears
fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down." ` " Luke 13:6-9 N.R.S.V.
For over three years Jesus ministered to Israel in order that they might come into
repentance, but they were unwilling. Hence, God brought judgement upon the nation for
their rejection of the Messiah. This judgement was manifested in the destruction of the
Temple in Jerusalem. (Cf. Mat. 23:37; Luke 19:41-44)
Muslim Argument:
Jesus uses what seems to be derogatory language. In Matthew 7:6 Jesus calls unbelievers
dogs and swine, and in Matthew 15:26 Jesus likens both the Canaanite woman and
Gentiles to dogs.
Christian Response:
Jesus was using common Jewish metaphors to illustrate an unbeliever's or pagan's total
depravity. (Cf. Proverbs 26:1; 2 Peter 2:22; Rev. 22:14) The crowds would have
understood that Jesus was obviously using metaphorical language, and was not literally
calling someone a dog or swine.
In regards to Jesus' statement in Matthew 15:26, Christ was trying to illustrate a key point
to his disciples. According to first century Jewish thought both Gentiles and women were
held in low esteem. Jews regarded themselves as the children of God, whereas Gentiles
were nothing more than house pets.
(Note: The Greek word used in this verse for dogs is kynarion, which properly translated
means house pet or puppy [Strong's 2952]. Jesus' use of this term implies that just as a
house pet has a place in the home of his master, so too do the Gentiles have a place
prepared for them in God's kingdom)
Christ was trying to move his Jewish disciples, who had tried earlier to get rid of the
Canaanite woman, to envy by the woman's persistence and display of great faith; a faith
exemplified by someone who to them was nothing more than a house pet. In similar
fashion, Jesus had used a Roman Centurion's faith in contrast to the Israelites' lack of
faith:
"Now when Jesus heard this, he marveled, and said to those who were following, `Truly I say to
you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. And I say to you, that many shall
come from East and West, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the
kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the Kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that
place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' " Cf. Matthew 8:5-12
The Jews considered Romans as enemies which God would destroy when Messiah would
appear. And yet here was Israel's Messiah commending the faith of such a one. Hence,
Jesus was using Gentiles as examples for Israel to emulate, not look down upon.
(Note: The Quran also uses the phrases "dog", "apes", "swine", and "donkey" to refer to
unbelievers. [Cf. 5:60; 7:175-177; 62:5])
Muslim Argument:
God is all-knowing. But according to the Bible, Jesus did not even know the day or hour
of his second coming. (Cf. Mark 13:32)
Christian Response:
According to the Bible, Jesus was both God and Man at the same time. The one divine
Person of Christ took on a real human nature without ceasing to be God. In Christ, both
the nature of God and the nature of man were perfectly united in one Person. (Cf. Mat.
1:22-23; John 1:1, 14; Philip. 2:5b-7; Col. 2:9)
Hence, Jesus had both a divine and human consciousness. In his human consciousness,
Jesus' knowledge was finite and limited. This is precisely why he had to grow in wisdom
and knowledge. (Cf. Luke 2:40, 52)
Yet, Jesus in his divine consciousness was omniscient, having the same incomprehensible
knowledge and wisdom that the Father has. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John 21:17; Rev. 2:23b- cf.-
Jer. 17:10)
Muslim Argument:
God is able to do all that he pleases. But according to John 5:19 Jesus could do nothing of
himself.
Christian Response:
The biblical teaching on the Trinity is not that there are three independent gods each
having his own will. Rather, the Bible teaches that there are three distinct, yet inseparable
Persons of the Godhead who have one perfect will and who work in perfect harmony.
They never work independently. When we read the verse in its entire context, we
discover that this is precisely what Jesus was telling the Jews in John 5:19:
"Jesus gave them this answer: `I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do
only what he sees his Father doing, because WHATEVER the Father does THE SON ALSO
DOES.'" NIV
In order for Christ to be able to do everything that his Father does implies that Jesus is
God. Only God can do all that the Father does, since the Father does the things that God
alone can do. This passage affirms the perfect unity and equality of the Father and Son,
along with the Holy Spirit. (Cf. John 16:13)
(Note- It must be pointed out that at the Incarnation Christ took on both a real human
nature and a human will. Therefore the one Person of Jesus had both a divine will
alongside a human one while still remaining uni-Personal. [Cf. Matthew 26:42])
Muslim Argument:
God cannot die. But according to Christians, Jesus died on the cross. If this is so, how can
God die and who was running the universe when Jesus was dead?
Christian Response:
This question commits several fallacies. First, the questioner assumes that when
Christians say that Christ died this is intended to mean that Jesus ceased to exist for the
three days he was in the tomb. This assumes "soul-sleep," i.e. that after death there is no
more conscious existence until the body is resurrected. This is not what the Bible teaches.
Biblical death means separation, not annihilation. In fact, Scripture indicates that there
are two types of separation. The first is the soul separating from the body at death, with
the other referring to eternal separation from God in hell. (Cf. Luke 16:19-31; Philippians
1:23; Revelation 6:9-11, 20:14-15)
Jesus did not cease to exist when he died but rather his divine nature along with his
human soul departed from his body at the point of death. (Cf. Luke 23:46) The fact that
Jesus was still consciously existing at the same time his body lay in the tomb becomes
evident in that Christ claimed that he would personally resurrect himself from the grave
on the third day:
"Jesus answered them, `Destroy this temple AND I WILL RAISE IT AGAIN IN THREE DAYS.'
The Jews replied, `It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in
three days?' But the temple he had spoken of WAS HIS BODY. After He was raised from the
dead, his disciples recalled what he had said." John 2:19-22 NIV
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. NO ONE
TAKES IT FROM ME, BUT I LAY IT DOWN OF MY OWN ACCORD. I have authority to lay it
down AND AUTHORITY TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN. This command I received from my Father."
John 10:17-18 NIV
These passages affirm that Jesus is God since only God can raise the dead, and that Jesus
was consciously existing since had he been asleep he could not have raised himself from
the tomb.
The second fallacy relates to the questioner asking who was running the universe during
the time that Jesus had died. This assumes the belief in modalism, i.e. that there are not
three distinct Persons who are God, but one Person who assumes three different roles.
Christians do not believe that Jesus is the only Person within the Godhead, since both the
Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God as well. Hence, even if death meant that Jesus
ceased to exist for the three days his body lay in the tomb, the Father and the Holy Spirit
were still active at this point since it was the Son alone who became man and died.
Muslim Argument:
If Jesus is God, who was praying to in the Garden and while on the cross (Cf. Mat. 26:39,
27:45-46)? Was he praying to himself? Besides, how can God pray?
Christian Response:
This question once again assumes modalism, the belief that Jesus is the only person
within the Godhead. Yet, the fact is, Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the only
Person within the Being of God, but that the Father and Holy Spirit are God as well.
Therefore, Jesus was not praying to himself but to the Father.
Furthermore, prayer is intimate communion and fellowship with God. Hence, the three
Persons of the Godhead have always had intimate communion among themselves. This is
precisely why God does not need anyone outside of his own Being in order to have
fellowship.
Since God is tri-Personal, all three Persons become the object of interpersonal
communion and love.
Additionally, Jesus is Man as God intended man to be. Therefore, Jesus came to show us
by example how we should live in accordance to the will of God, he being the perfect
role model:
"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should
follow in his steps." 1 Pet. 2:21 NIV
Hence, Jesus not only prayed in order to be in constant communion with the Father, but
also to teach us how we should pray.
Finally, Jesus as the God-Man both prayed to the Father and commanded believers to
pray directly to himself:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do greater
things than these, because I am going to the Father. AND I WILL DO WHATEVER YOU ASK IN
MY NAME, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. YOU MAY ASK ME FOR ANYTHING
IN MY NAME, AND I WILL DO IT." John 14:12-14 NIV
In order for Jesus to be able to both hear and answer prayer he must be omnipotent
(Almighty) since only an all-powerful Being can grant the requests of all who pray to
him. He must also be both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipresent (present
everywhere) in order to know and hear the needs of all who call upon him. These
qualities affirm that Jesus is God, since only God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omniscient as well as the Hearer of prayer.
Therefore, the fact that Jesus both prays and hears prayer affirms that he is one Divine
Person who is both God and Man at the same time.
(Note: According to Quran 33:56 Allah prays for Muhammad:
"Lo! Allah and his angels pray [Arabic - yasalluuna] for the Prophet. O ye that believe! Pray for
him [salluu alayhi], and salute him with all respect [sallimuu tasliimaa]."
Most translations of the Quran mistranslate the words yasalluuna and salluu as blessings,
when in fact it literally means prayers. In fact, a devout Muslim will always recite the
following prayer when mentioning Muhammad's name, sallullahu alahyi wa salaam-
"the prayers of Allah be for him and his peace." Another time where the Quran indicates
that Allah prays is found in S. 33:43:
"He it is Who send prayers upon you [yusalliii `alaykum], as do His angels..."
A Trinitarian can understand and accept the fact that because there are three Persons
within the unity of God, it becomes natural for them to have communion among
themselves in prayer. But for a singular Deity, having no plurality, to pray for
Muhammad is inconceivable since who would Allah be praying to when praying for
Muhammad?)
Muslim Argument:
According to Matthew 28:18, all authority was given to Jesus. If authority had to be
given to Christ, that means that there is One greater than him who is doing the giving.
Furthermore, this means that Jesus cannot be God since he did not always have authority.
Christian Reponse:
According to the Holy Bible Jesus relinquished his authority in order to become man:
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being (Gr.- huperchon) in very
nature (morphe) God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made
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." Phillippians 2:5-8 NIV
This passage is instructive since it affirms that Jesus willingly made himself nothing. This
was not something forced upon him, but something that both he and the Father decided
together.
When Jesus became a slave of both God and man, Christ subjected all his authority to the
Father without ceasing to be God. The fact that Jesus still remained fully divine is seen
by Paul's usage of the Greek huperchon (being) which is in the present participle tense.
This Greek tense implies a continuous state of being or existence, implying that Jesus
continued to exist in God's form even while becoming man on earth.
Therefore, Jesus did not cease to be God but ceased from exercising his authority as God.
At his resurrection, Christ received back the authority he had before the Incarnation. He
regained an authority which had always been his in the first place; he did not receive an
authority which he did not have to begin with.
Muslim Argument:
In Mark 10:35-40, James, John and their mother requested that Jesus would grant the two
disciples to sit on his right and left. Yet, Jesus replied that he could not grant such a
request, since it had already been determined. How could Jesus be God if he was unable
to even grant a request by his disciples?
Christian Reponse:
As we have already noted, Jesus refused to exercise his divine authority since he allowed
himself to be a slave. And because he was God's servant, he became completely subject
to the Father's will in every aspect of his existence on earth. And as the Father's slave, he
could make no decisions until he fulfilled the will of the One who had sent him. (See
above)
Muslim Argument:
God cannot be tempted. (Cf. James 1:13) Yet, Jesus was tempted by the devil. (Cf. Mat.
4:1) Jesus, therefore, cannot be God.
Christian Reponse:
It must be remembered that although Jesus was tempted he was still without sin. (Cf.
Heb. 4:15)
Furthermore, James' meaning is not that no one can try to tempt God since many have
tried (Cf. Deut. 6:16; Mal. 3:15; Mt. 4:7; Acts 15:10), but that there is nothing within
God that would lead him to act upon the temptations. Similarly, although Jesus was
tempted there was nothing within Christ that would cause him to act upon it, since he was
perfect God and perfect Man.
Muslim Argument:
According to the Bible when a young man came to Jesus calling him good, Jesus
responded, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
How can Jesus be God if he is not even as good as God?
Christian Reponse:
Jesus did not say that he was not good, but asked the rich man why does he call Jesus
good. Jesus was trying to lead the man into questioning whether he really believed Jesus
was absolutely good in the same sense that God is. If the rich man really believed Jesus
was good, he should then give up everything for Christ. Being God, Jesus deserved
unconditional love and self-sacrifice. This is precisely what Jesus demands the rich man
to do:
"Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, `You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give
the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." Mark 10:21
NRSV
The rich man must give up everything for Jesus if he wants to be perfect before God.
Only God can demand this kind of devotion, a devotion which Jesus arrogates to himself.
This point is brought out more clearly in Matthew 10:37-39:
"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or
daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow
me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my
sake will find it." NRSV
Again in Luke 14:26-27, 33:
"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, yes, even life
itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my
disciple... So therefore, none of you can be my disciple if you do not give up all your
possessions." NRSV
No Israelite prophet ever pointed others to himself, but pointed men to God. For Jesus to
demand this kind of devotion affirms that he is God; otherwise this would be
blasphemous for Jesus to say if he were only a prophet.
To solidify the point that Jesus was not denying that he was absolutely good in the same
sense that God is, we quote the following passages:
"I am the GOOD Shepherd. The good shepherd lays his life down for the sheep... I am the GOOD
Shepherd. I know my own and my own know me." John 10:11, 14 NRSV
Not only is Jesus affirming his absolute goodness, but also applies a title of Yahweh God
to himself:
· "Yahweh is my Shepherd, I shall not want." Psalm 23:1
· "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock!" Psalm 80:1 NRSV
Jesus also claims to be absolutely sinless, having no unrighteousness within him
whatsoever:
"Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who
sent him is true, and there is nothing false in him." John 7:18 NRSV
"And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to
him." John 8:29 NRSV
"Which of you convicts me of sin?..." John 8:46 NRSV
No one was able to point to even one sin which Jesus committed. For Jesus to be
absolutely good strongly argues the case that he is God. Note the following syllogism:
A. Only God is absolutely good
B. Jesus is absolutely good
C. Therefore, Jesus is God.
Muslim Argument:
Christians often use Jesus' I AM statements in John, most notably John 8:58, as proof that
Jesus identified himself as the I AM of Exodus 3:14. There, Yahweh tells Moses to tell
Israel that his name is "`I AM WHO I AM'. He said further, `Thus you shall say to the
Israelites, "I AM has sent me to you"'." NRSV
According to most biblical scholars the Hebrew phrase, ehyeh asher ehyeh, is more
accurately translated as "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." This is due to the verb from
which the phrase stems, hayah, which means "to be."
Therefore, Jesus' words have no connection with this passage.
Furthermore, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) renders
Exodus 3:14 as Ego Eimi Ho On- "I Am The Being." Jesus in the Johanine gospel uses the
term Ego Eimi, "I AM." He is never called HO ON.
Christian Reponse:
In response to Christ never being addressed as HO ON, this is simply not true. We find
this phrase used of Christ in Revelation 1:7-8:
"Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on
his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen.
"` I am the Alpha and Omega', says the Lord God, `The Being (Greek- HO ON) who is and who
was and who is to come, the ALMIGHTY (pantokrator)'."
Jesus Christ, the coming pierced One, identifies himself as both The Being (HO ON) and
as the Almighty. The phrase "who is and who was" refers to the eternal nature of God:
"And the angels of the waters say, `You are just, O Holy One, who are and who were, for you
have judged these things; because they shed the blood of saints and prophets, you have given
them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!' And I heard the altar respond, `Yes, O Lord, the
ALMIGHTY (pantokrator), your judgements are true and just!'" Rev. 16:5-7 NRSV
Hence, Jesus in Revelation 1:8 is claiming to be the eternal God.
Secondly, Jesus' I AM passages tie in with the Hebrew ANI HU references of Isaiah:
"Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called: I AM HE (Ani Hu); I am the First, and I am the
Last." Isa. 48:12 NRSV
That the phrase I AM implies Deity is clearly seen in the following verses:
"Now then, listen, you wanton creature (i.e. Babylon), lounging in your security and saying to
yourself, `I am (LXX- Ego Eimi), and there is none besides me..." Isa. 47:8 NIV (Cf. Isa. 47:10)
God rebukes Babylon for claiming to be the I AM, believing herself to be a God like
Yahweh. Hence, I AM is used to denote absolute Deity and sovereignty, being used as a
synonym for Yahweh.
Compare Yahweh's words with Jesus:
"Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, `Whom are
you looking for?' They answered, `Jesus of Nazareth.' Jesus replied, `I AM HE'... When Jesus
said to them, `I am he,' they stepped back and fell to ground." John 18:4-6 NRSV
The fact that the soldiers fell back when Jesus uttered the words "I AM" affirms that the
phrase served to identify Christ as Yahweh. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the
soldiers' falling down to the ground.
"When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying,
`Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I WAS DEAD, and see I am alive
forever and ever, and I have the keys of Death and Hades'." Rev. 1:17-18 NRSV
No matter from what perspective we look at it, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus
does identify himself as Yahweh God.
Muslim Argument:
Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit." (Cf. Mat. 28:19) Yet, the disciples baptized in Jesus' name instead.
(Cf. Acts 2:38)
Christian Reponse:
There is a confusion between the method of baptism, with the authority given to baptize.
Jesus is prescribing the method by which believers are to baptized, whereas the disciples
were pointing to the authority they received from Jesus to perform this method of
baptism:
"And he said to them, `Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on
the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all
nations..." Luke 24:46-47 NRSV
"And a man lame from birth was being carried in... But Peter said, `I have no silver or gold, but
what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk.' And he took
him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong...
`The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has
glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though
he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have
a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this
we are witnesses. And by faith in his name, his name itself has made this man strong, whom you
see and know; and the faith that is through Jesus has given him this perfect health in the
presence of all of you'." Acts 3:2, 6-7, 13-16 NRSV
Muslim Argument:
According to Christians, Jesus is the Father's Son. Yet, according to both Matthew 1:20
and Luke 1:35 Jesus was conceived supernaturally to the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
This makes the Holy Spirit Jesus' father.
Christian Reponse:
This question assumes that Christians believe that Jesus became God's Son at the virgin
conception. This is not what Christians believe. Jesus is the eternal Son of God:
"... I am the bread that came down from heaven." John 6:41 NIV
"I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the
Father." John 16:28 NIV
"So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the
world existed... Father I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I
am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of
the world." John 17:5, 24 NRSV
Therefore, the Holy Spirit conceived the human nature of Christ; he did not conceive the
eternal Person of Christ.
3. THE PLAN OF SALVATION
Muslim Argument:
Jesus' death is a violation of the clear OT commands prohibiting human sacrifices. Since
Jesus was also under the Law (Cf. Gal. 4:4), his death would be an express violation of
the commands of God which did not allow for humans to be put to death, only animals.
Christian Reponse:
Actually, there is no express command forbidding adult human sacrifices. What is
forbidden is the sacrifice of children as a means of appeasing the pagan gods. (Cf. Lev.
18:21, 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31, 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3, 17:31, 21:6, 23:10; Jer. 7:31, 32:35;
Ezek. 20:31) This is not to imply that the Bible allows for adult sacrifices, but rather to
point out what is actually stated within inspired Scripture itself.
Secondly, the reason why these pagan rituals were abhorrent to God is because it not only
entailed idol worship which was an abomination all by itself, but also included the death
of innocent lives:
"They did not destroy the peoples as the Lord had commanded them, but they mingled with the
nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them.
They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of
their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was
desecrated by their blood." Psalm 106:34-38
"... for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with
their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, as food for them." Ezek.
23:37
Again, the "blood on their hands" is linked with Israel sacrificing their children to idols.
"For they have forsaken me and made this place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it
to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled
this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their
sons in the fire as offerings to Baal- something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my
mind." Jer. 19:4-5
Israel is accused of filling the land with innocent blood, i.e. the murder of innocent lives
who had committed no transgressions. Hence, child sacrifices were not only wrong
because they were done to appease the pagan deities, but because it was murder and this
is expressly forbidden in the Bible (Cf. Ex. 23:7: do not put an innocent or honest person
to death)
However, the Mosaic Law did allow for the guilty to be put to death if they intentionally
broke an express command which carried with it the death sentence. (Cf. Ex. 31:14-17;
Deut.19:11-13)
Since Jesus "became sin for us" (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24) and since "the LORD laid
upon him the iniquity of us all" (cf. Isa. 53:6) his death, judicially speaking, fell under the
bounds of the Law since he was guilty after that point. Therefore, Jesus' death from a
legal standpoint was morally acceptable since his purpose in coming to this world was to
take upon himself the punishment we deserved because of our sins.
To summarize, the Holy Bible prohibits the death of innocent children who committed no
wrong. Since Jesus was neither a child nor innocent after taking our sins, his death did
not violate an express command.
Thirdly, Jesus willingly died in order that others might live. (Cf. Mark 10:45; John 10:17-
18) We often consider individuals who sacrifice their lives for others as heroes, i.e. a
person who takes a bullet in order to save his friend or soldiers who die to protect their
country etc. In the same manner, Jesus' willingness to die on the cross was the greatest
display of his unconditional love for others, sparing them from the eternal wrath of God
in hell.
Finally, God willed for Jesus to be the final and perfect atoning sacrifice, being "the
Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (Cf. John 1:29) God is sovereign and
can make such decisions without anyone holding him accountable for it. Man answers to
God, God answers to no one.
Muslim Argument:
Why was it necessary for God to send his eternal Son to die for sinners. Couldn't God
have simply forgiven sinners instead of having his Son murdered?
Christian Reponse:
We must first point out that God did not murder his Son. It was the will of The Father,
Son, and the Holy Spirit that the Son should lay his life down for sinners. This was to
demonstrate both God's holiness and infinite love for man:
"For even the Son did not come to be served, but to serve, and lay his life down as a RANSOM
for many." Mark 10:45 NIV
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live
forever. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD."
John 6:51 NIV
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me
and I know the Father- AND I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP... The reason my Father
loves me is that I LAY DOWN MY LIFE- ONLY TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN. NO ONE TAKES IT
FROM ME, BUT I LAY IT DOWN OF MY OWN ACCORD..." John 10:14-15, 17-18a NIV
"God presented him (Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to
demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left sins unpunished- he did it to
demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who
have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:25-26 NIV
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Rom.5:8 NIV
Christ willingly laid down his life in order that others might live. We often look up to and
admire men who willingly give up their lives to defend either their families or country.
Their deaths are considered heroic and a demonstration of unconditional love, not murder
or suicide. Hence, Jesus' willingness to die for unworthy sinners is the greatest display of
God's infinite and unconditional love for fallen humanity.
As Scripture indicates, Christ's death was necessary in order to satisfy God's infinite
holiness and justice. For sin to be forgiven, a sacrifice needed to be made in order for
God to maintain his holiness. Otherwise, God's justice and holiness would be severely
compromised. The Bible indicates that God cannot dwell in the presence of sin without
incurring his wrath:
"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil will not sojourn with you. The boastful will
not stand before your eyes; you hate evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD
abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful." Psalm 5:4-6 NRSV
"Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing..." Habakkuk 1:13
NRSV
This is precisely why God cannot let sin go unpunished, since his holiness will not allow
it to continue. He will not acquit the sinner without there being a payment for the crimes
committed:
"Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not
acquit the guilty." Exodus 23:7 NRSV
God also does not take pleasure in the death of any soul, but that the wicked turn from
their ways and live. (Cf. Ezek. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9)
Therefore, in order for God to pardon repentant sinners while remaining holy and just,
someone had to take the consequences of sin which entailed physical and spiritual death.
By death is meant the soul separating from the body in the physical sense, with the body
returning to the dust. And in the spiritual sense it refers to broken communion with God:
"And to the man he said, `Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of
the tree about which I commanded you, "You shall not eat of it," cursed it is the ground because
of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for
you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat the bread
until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall
return'." Genesis 3:17-19 NRSV
"Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden
his face from you so that he does not hear." Isa. 59:2 NRSV
The sacrifice had to be made by one who had infinite value since man's value is finite and
cannot atone for all of mankind's sin:
"Truly no ransom avails for one's life, there is no price one can give to God for it. For the ransom
of life is costly, and can never suffice that one should live on forever and never see the grave."
Psalm 49:7-9 NRSV
This is precisely why God had to come down and ransom man, since only God is infinite
in value:
"But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol for he will receive me." Psalm 49:15 NRSV
But in order for God to pay the price of sin fully and satisfy his infinite holiness he had to
take on a human nature. As was noted, part of the consequence of sin is that the soul of
man separates from his body as the flesh returns to the dust. God is Spirit (John 4:24),
and must therefore take on a human nature in order to experience physical death.
This nature also had to be free from the stain of original sin, since all who are descended
from the first man inherit a corrupt human nature. (Cf. Rom. 5:12-14; Gen. 8:21; Psalm
51:5, 58:3)
Therefore, the Savior had to be born of a virgin whose womb would be made holy in
order for him to be without sin:
"And Mary said to the angel, `How can this be since I have no husband?' And the angel said to
her, `The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the most high will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.' " Luke 1:34-35 RSV
Had he not been born supernaturally by God's Holy Spirit, he would have then needed a
savior to free him from sin.
The cross becomes necessary for God to demonstrate both his love and holiness. If God
were to simply forgive without demanding payment for sin, his holiness would have been
less than his love. On the other hand, if God were to just punish without allowing the
possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness than his love would have been severely
compromised. Either way, God would be less than perfect since he would be greater in
one of his qualities, and less than perfect in the other.
Hence, Jesus' death on the cross clearly demonstrates both God's perfect holiness and his
infinite love for man. No other religion is able to claim this perfect balance for their
deities.
Muslim Argument:
The Bible indicates that Christ was not the only sinless person. Oftentimes, scripture uses
the term "righteous" to indicate one who is blameless:
"And they (Zachariah and Elizabeth) were righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Luke 1:6
"My little children, these things I write to you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1
"I say unto you, that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth,
more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance." Luke 15:7
"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners into repentance." Luke 5:32
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is
righteous." 1 John 3:7
All these verses affirm that there were many who were sinless like Christ, and did not
need Christ to die for them.
Christian Reponse:
We provide a verse by verse refutation of this erroneous understanding of Scripture. First,
it should be pointed out that the word for "righteous" is the Greek term dikaioo. The
word, dikaioo and its various forms, is a legal term used judicially to declare one just, not
guilty. It does not mean one who is sinless.
There are two ways one can be declared just before God. The first is to be completely
perfect in every aspect of one's life, something which no one can ever attain. The only
person to be absolutely perfect is Jesus Christ. The second manner is to be declared
righteous solely by God's grace. This entails a blood sacrifice for the covering over of
sins:
"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for
yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Leviticus 17:11 NIV
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding
of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Hebrews. 9:22 NIV
The only problem with animal sacrifices is that in the eyes of God animals are not equal
in value to man. Therefore, animal sacrifices could only cover sin temporarily. This is
why the Israelites had to continuously offer sacrifices.
God sent Christ as the sacrificial Lamb who by his death on the cross, offered himself as
a sacrifice of infinite value covering over the sins of the whole world. His blood not only
covers sin, but it completely eradicates it; something which animal sacrifices could not
do:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes
away the sin of the world!' " John 1:29 NIV
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the
blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:7
"For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered
heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself
again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is
not his own. Then Christ would have to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now
he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of
himself." Heb. 9:24-26 NIV
Keeping in mind that it is the blood that justifies one before God, we proceed to the
verses in question.
In regards to Zachariah and Elizabeth being blameless, it must remembered that
Zachariah was a Levitical priest of the division of Adonijah (cf. Luke 1:5), and one of his
main functions as a priest would have been to offer sacrifices. In fact, the high priest was
commanded to enter the Most Holy Place once a year and offer sacrifices for atonement,
first for his own sins and then for the people (cf. Lev.16:1-34). Thus, Zachariah was
blameless before God only because of his observance of the commands which included
animal sacrifices for his sins. In other words, his righteousness was not based on his
actually being sinless, but on the basis of atonement which covered over his sins.
As far as 1 John 3:7 is concerned John is not implying that believers are sinless, since he
also states:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us... If we claim we
have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in us." 1 John 1:8, 10
NIV
John's point is that we have been made righteous in Christ, since "the blood of Jesus
Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin." (Cf. 1 John 1:7)
The part about the ninety-nine righteous who do not need to repent in Luke 15:7 was not
due to the fact that they were sinless. Jesus was mentioning a parable about a Shepherd
who would leave ninety-nine of his sheep in order to chase after that one who is lost. (Cf.
Luke 15:1-6)
Christ was addressing the self-righteous Pharisees who were murmuring against him for
sitting and eating with sinners. Jesus' point was not that there were sinless individuals,
but rather that God rejoices over those persons who acknowledge their sins, humbling
themselves before their Creator. This was the purpose for Christ coming into the world,
to search after lost sinners and bring them back to the flock of God. Furthermore, God
does not take pleasure in self-righteous hypocrisy, individuals who think they are more
righteous and better than others. This is precisely what the Pharisees thought of
themselves, Jews who were far more righteous than the sinners and tax collectors whom
Jesus was dining.
Finally, Jesus elsewhere likens himself to a Shepherd:
"I am the good Shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me
and I know the Father- and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this
sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock
and one shepherd." John 10:14-16 NIV
It is Jesus, as the Shepherd, who searches after the lost sheep, leaving behind the ninetynine.
This indicates that the ninety-nine were not righteous because they were sinless, but
because they belonged to Jesus. Therefore, the point of the parable is to show that it is
Jesus who both brings the sheep into the flock and who also justifies them; it has
absolutely nothing to do with one being sinless.
(Note: For the answer to Luke 5:32, see the above point on Luke 15:6.)
Muslim Argument:
According to Jesus in Matthew 18:6, children are sinless:
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him
to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Jesus is basically indicating that children are without sin since someone must cause them
to sin.
Christian Reponse:
Again, Jesus is not saying that children in and of themselves are sinless. Rather, Jesus is
affirming that those children WHO BELIEVE IN HIM are declared righteous, since they
have been justified through Christ. This is reiterated in the verse before it:
"And whoever welcomes a little child like this IN MY NAME welcomes me." Mat. 18:5
Again, in Matthew 19:13-14 we are told:
"Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them.
But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, `Let the little children COME TO
ME, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' "
Hence, a person must come and wholeheartedly embrace Christ like the children did.
This is the kind of devotion Christ demands, total dependency upon him in all aspects of
one's life.
This again affirms that justification comes solely through Christ.
Muslim Argument:
Salvation according to Jesus comes from observing the commandments:
"And behold, one came up to him, saying, `Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal
life?' And he said unto him, `Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If
you would enter life, keep the commandments.' " Mat. 19:16-17
"And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, `Teacher, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life?' Jesus said, `What is written in the Law? How do you read?' And he answered, `You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength,
and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, `You have answered
right; DO THIS, and you will live.'" Luke 10:25-28
"For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20 NASB
Christian Reponse:
Jesus is actually teaching the exact opposite. His point is to show the impossibility of
achieving salvation by works of the Law. This point is clearly brought out by Christ
throughout his sermon in Matthew:
"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at
a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Mat 5:27-28 NIV
"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love
your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in
heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and
the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax
collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?
Do not even pagans do that? Be PERFECT, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mat.
5:43-48 NIV
These are just some examples of the righteousness which Jesus demands that surpasses
the righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes. This righteousness is impossible to attain
by human efforts since it must perfectly duplicate God's righteousness. This demand for
perfection is reiterated by Christ to the rich man:
"Jesus answered, `If you want to be PERFECT, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' " Mat. 19:21 NIV
The perfection that God demands comes from surrendering one's life to Christ. It is Jesus
who justifies believers by the righteousness he attained through his perfect obedience to
the Law.
When someone surrenders his life to Jesus, God imputes Christ's righteousness to his
account. From there, God empowers the individual by the Holy Spirit to fulfill God's
righteous requirements. This righteousness is not to achieve salvation, but is a sign that
one has been saved:
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law
and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all
who believe." Rom. 3:21-22 NIV
As the apostle Paul states, the righteousness that comes through faith in the Messiah had
been foretold beforehand in the Old Testament:
"After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my
righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." Isa. 53:11 NIV
"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a
King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be
saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD OUR
RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jer. 23:5-6 NIV
"Seventy `sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an
end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS, to seal up
vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy... after the sixty `sevens,' the Anointed One
(Messiah) will be cut off and have nothing." Daniel 9:24, 26
According to these passages, Messiah's death would usher in the righteousness of God
and would also atone for sin.
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Because through
Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the
law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his Son
in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order
that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to
the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." Rom. 8:1-4 NIV
"God made him sin who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the
righteousness of God." 2 Cor. 5:21 NIV
"For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; it is not of yourselves. It is the gift of
God, and not of works lest anyone should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus to do good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Ephesians 2:8-10
Hence, it is the unanimous testimony of Scripture that man is justified by the imputed
righteousness of Christ, since one can never achieve the perfect righteousness of God
apart from him.
As far as Jesus' statement to the lawyer in Luke 10:25-28 is concerned, again Christ's
point is that if the lawyer is able to do all that is required in the Law he will obtain
salvation. But the problem is that no one can attain the perfection which God demands,
"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Cf. Rom. 3:23)
Because "there is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins,"
since "all have turned aside," and "have become corrupt; there is no one who does good,
not even one," each individual needs Christ's imputed righteousness. Otherwise, no one
can stand justified before God. (Cf. Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalms 14:3)
Muslim Argument:
Jesus taught, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." John
6:54-55 NIV
According to Matthew 26:27-28, Jesus gave the disciples the cup of wine and said,
"Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many
for the forgiveness of sins." NIV
If this is meant to be taken literally, why do we not find anyone preserving the blood of
Jesus as it flowed from his body while on the cross? Furthermore, this would be teaching
cannibalism, something forbidden in scripture.
Christian Reponse:
Jesus' point is not that we are to partake of his flesh in a literal sense, but in a spiritual
manner. This partaking of Christ comes from embracing his words in our lives:
"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and
they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." John 6:63-64 NIV
Jesus was indicating that he was going to lay his life down that the world might live
through him:
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live
forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51 NIV
Blood symbolizes the life of the creature as it is written, "For the life of the creature is in
the blood..." (Cf. Lev. 17:11) Therefore, the cup was symbolic of Jesus' life being laid
down for sinners:
"Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom
for many." Mat. 20:28 NIV
It does not mean that one literally drinks Jesus' blood. Furthermore, as was indicated,
Jesus' blood being shed was necessary to appease God's holiness so that sinners could
stand justified before him. There is no hint of cannibalism whatsoever.
Muslim Argument:
According to Christians, Adam's sin brought condemnation on all flesh. This necessitated
a divine Redeemer to come down from heaven to save man. But according to Ezekiel
18:1-24 a person will not be held accountable for someone else's sins.
Christian Reponse:
This is a gross misunderstanding of what Ezekiel meant. The prophet wasn’t denying that
a person’s sins could severely affect others since he himself went into exile as a result of
the people’s wickedness:
“In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the
Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. On the fifth of the month—it
was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin- the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the
priest, the son of Buzi, by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians. There the hand of the
LORD was upon him.” Ezekiel 1:1-3
Moreover, the Lord himself said that his judgment would fall on both the righteous and
the wicked:
“The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Son of man, set your face toward Jerusalem and preach
against the sanctuaries. Prophesy against the land of Israel and say to the land of Israel, Thus
says the LORD: Behold, I am against you and will draw my sword from its sheath and will cut off
from you both righteous and wicked. Because I will cut off from you both righteous and
wicked, therefore my sword shall be drawn from its sheath against all flesh from south to north.
And all flesh shall know that I am the LORD. I have drawn my sword from its sheath; it shall not
be sheathed again.’” Ezekiel 21:1-5
Ezekiel was correcting the assertion of some of the Israelites that the reason why they
went into exile is because of the sins of their fathers, as if they were sinless and didn’t
deserve the punishment that God had brought upon them.
Thus, the prophet was explaining to the people the importance of taking responsibility for
their own actions and acknowledging that their own faults brought this disaster upon
them. The Israelites had to come to grips with this fact and stop blaming others for the
trials that the nation was experiencing.
As such, Ezekiel is not even addressing, let alone refuting, the clear Biblical teaching that
as our federal head, the first man brought condemnation upon all his descendants due to
his rebellion against God.
In fact, this perfectly ties in with the doctrine of Original Sin. According to the Holy
Scriptures every individual inherits a corrupt sinful nature as a result of Adam’s
transgression, and it is therefore inevitable that all shall sin and come under God’s
condemnation. (Cf. Psalm 51:5, 53:8; Rom. 7:15-24; Ephesians 2:3)
And it is only through the Lord Jesus that a person can be set free from the bondage of
sin and death:
"Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no
permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will
be free indeed.’" John 8:34-36 NIV
Muslim Argument:
According to Hosea 6:6, God does not desire sacrifices. He rather desires one to be
merciful and obedient to him. This point is reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 9:13.
Christian Reponse:
It is not either/or, but rather God desires both. The point in Hosea is that sacrifices in and
of themselves are insufficient. Sacrifices must follow sincere repentance and obedience to
God's commandments, something Israel did not do:
"Like Adam, they have broken the covenant- they were unfaithful to me there. Gilead is a city of
wicked men, stained with footprints of blood. As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands
of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes. I have seen a
horrible thing in the house of Israel. There Ephraim is given to prostitution and Israel is defiled."
Hos. 6:7-10 NIV
Hence, Israel's sacrifices were abominable to God since they were being offered by
unrepentant sinners. God does not except such acts.
Sacrifices must be offered with a sincere, repentant heart. David brings out this point
clearly in the Psalms:
"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you did not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The sacrifices of God are broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
In your good pleasure make Zion prosper; build up the walls of Jerusalem. Then there will be
righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar."
Psalm 51:16-19
It is precisely the same with Christ's sacrifice. Jesus died for the sins of the world, yet not
all shall be saved. The reason being is that not all shall repent and embrace Christ as their
Savior. Therefore, it is necessary for a person to come into sincere repentance before
offering up his sacrifice, since without repentance the sacrifice becomes void.
Muslim Argument:
In order to refute the idea that Jesus died for sinners, Muslims often point to verses where
Jesus is pictured as committing sins.
Christian Reponse:
If it can be shown that Christ did sin, then he is disqualified from being a perfect
sacrifice. We will present the verses in question and offer our responses.
1. According to Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus taught that getting angry was a sin. Yet,
Jesus often got angry with others as documented in the Bible. (Cf. Mat. 11:22-24,
12:22-31, 21:12-15, 19; Mark 3:5, 20-30; 11:12-19; Luke 10:13-15, 19:45-47;
John 2:13-17)
Response:
Jesus did not say anger in and of itself was wrong, but that unjustified anger
especially towards a fellow believer, i.e. a "brother," was wrong. Jesus tells us
who his brethren are:
"He replied to him, `Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his
disciples, he said, `Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my
Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.' " Mat. 12:48-50 NIV
And what is the will of God according to Jesus?
"Jesus answered, `The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent' ... `For my
Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal
life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' " John 6:29, 40 NIV
Therefore, all who reject God's Messiah are not Jesus' brethren. In all the passages
cited above, Jesus' anger is directed towards those who have rejected both God `s
commands and him. (Cf. Mark 7:6-8) Hence, his anger was not sinful but a
demonstration of God's holy and just indignation against persistent sinners and
unbelievers.
2. According to the Gospels, believers are commanded to be honest. (Cf. Mat. 15:19;
Mark 7:22; John 8:44) Yet, according to John 7:2-10 Jesus lied to his brothers
about not going up to Jerusalem, when he actually did in fact go.
Response:
Jesus was not denying that he would go to Jerusalem, but rather that he would not
go as a public participant of the Feast as his brothers were suggesting. That is why
the text says, "that he stayed in Galilee," and that "after his brothers left for the
Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret." (Cf. John 7:9-10)
Accordingly, John states that "not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up
to the courts and begin to teach." (Cf. John 7:14) Hence, there was no sin on
Jesus' part but a misunderstanding of the text on the part of the questioner.
3. During the trial before the high priest, Jesus stated: "I have spoken openly to the
world; I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews
come together; I never spoke secretly." John 18:20
But according to Mark 4:11-12, Jesus taught his disciples "the secret of the
kingdom of God," whereas "to those on the outside everything is in parables; so
that they may indeed see but not perceive, and indeed hear but not understand;
lest they should turn about and be forgiven." Furthermore, Christ also taught on
the mount (Mat. 5:1-7, 28), by the sea (Mat. 13:1), on the plain (Luke 6:17-49),
and in other places.
Response:
Jesus' usage of "always" does not mean that he did not teach elsewhere, rather it
has to do with the claims that Christ made about himself. Jesus was indicating that
there was nothing in relation to himself which he had not proclaimed before
eyewitnesses in synagogues and the Temple. The argument centered on who Jesus
claimed to be, something which Jesus had stated both privately to his disciples,
and publicly to others. Hence, if the high priest wanted to know what Jesus'
personal claims were, he would have no difficulty finding eyewitnesses who
could testify. This is precisely what Jesus goes on to say:
"Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." John 18:21
NIV
That the trial centered around Jesus' identity is clarified in the following passages:
"At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of
the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. `If you are the Christ,' they said,
`tell us.' Jesus answered, `If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you
would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the
mighty God.' They asked, `Are you then the Son of God?' He replied, `You are right in
saying I am.' Then they said, `Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it
from his own lips.' " Luke 22:66-71 NIV
"Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him,
saying, `We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to
Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.' " Luke 23:1-2 NIV
"Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, `Are you the
king of the Jews?' `Is this your own idea,' Jesus asked, `or did others talk to you about
me?' `Am I a Jew?' Pilate replied. `It was your people and your chief priests who handed
you over to me. What is it you have done?' " John 19:33-35 NIV
"The Jews insisted, `We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he
claimed to be the Son of God.' " John 19:35 NIV
Hence, Jesus had committed no sin since the trial centered on what Christ claimed
about himself, not on what he had taught. Jesus claimed that he was the Christ, the
Son of the living God, a fact which he affirmed both privately and publicly. (Cf.
Mat. 16:16-17; John 10:36-38)
4. John's baptism was for repentance of sins. (Cf. Acts 19:4) Jesus was baptized. (Cf.
Mark 1:4)
Response:
Jesus came to fulfil the Law and to serve as God's priest. (Cf. Mat. 3:13-15, 5:17;
Heb. 4:14-15) Priests were required to be at least 30 years old, and had to be
washed in water and anointed with oil. (Cf. Exod. 29:4, 7; Num. 4:3, 43) The
anointing with oil symbolizes being anointed with God's Spirit. (Cf. 1 John 2:27-
John 14:26)
Therefore, in order for Christ to serve as priest he had to be at least 30 years of
age, washed in water and anointed. This is precisely what we find, that Jesus
began his ministry at the age of 30, was washed in water, and was anointed by the
Spirit. (Cf. Luke 3:21-23)
Furthermore, the baptism was necessary in order for John to know and identify
who the Messiah was. God had promised John that when he saw the Spirit
descend on the One this would be the Messiah. (Cf. John 1:29-34)
Jesus' baptism had nothing to do with him being a sinner, but everything to do
with fulfilling God's set purpose.
5. In John 7:53-8:11, we are told that an adulteress was caught in the act of sin. The
Jews brought her before Jesus and wanted to stone her. Jesus replied, "He who is
without sin cast the first stone." No one could stone her, since all had sinned. Yet,
Jesus himself did not cast a stone upon her, proving that he also was a sinner. Had
Jesus been sinless, he would have been the first to cast a stone.
Response:
Jesus did not stone her because he wanted to save her from sin:
"Jesus straightened up and asked her, `Woman, where are they? Has no one
condemned you?' `No one sir,' she said. `Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus
declared. `Go now and leave your life of sin.' " John 8:10-11 NIV
The point in Jesus coming to this world was "to save his people from their sin."
(Cf. Mat. 1:21) Christ had "not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance." (Cf. Luke 5:32)
Hence, Jesus did not stone her because he wanted her to be saved, not because he
was a sinner.
Muslim Argument:
Christians believe that Isaiah 53 is an eighth century B.C. prophecy foretelling the death,
burial and resurrection of Christ. In attempt to refute the prophetic significance of the
passage, Muslim apologists present the following arguments:
1. The prophecy actually begins at Isaiah 52:13 and ends at 53:12. It begins with
God addressing his "servant" and promises that his "servant" will prosper and be
highly exalted. The term "servant" is consistently used to refer to the nation of
Israel. (Cf. Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20) This proves that Isaiah 53 is speaking
about national Israel, not the Messiah.
Response:
This erroneously assumes that every single usage of the term "servant" must be
referring to Israel, when in fact the term is used for others as well. For instance, in
Isaiah 42:1 God states that his Spirit will rest upon his servant. In Isaiah 11:1-2
the one whom the Spirit shall come to rest upon is identified as the one who
comes out of the stem of Jesse. The fact that Jesse is also king David's father (Cf.
Ruth 4:22) affirms that the servant is the messianic descendant of David.
This is solidified by the fact that Isaiah 11:1 also identifies the stump of Jesse as
the Branch. Elsewhere, Branch is used as a title for the Davidic King Messiah:
"The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous
BRANCH, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and
righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.
And this is the name by which he will be called: `The LORD is our righteousness.' " Jer.
23:5-6 NRSV
In Isaiah 61:1-2 we read: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the
LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to
bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the
prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor..."
In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus claims that this prophecy finds its fulfillment in him:
"When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue
on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet
Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
`The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to
the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the
blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'
"And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all
in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, `Today this scripture
has been fulfilled in your hearing.' " NRSV
Finally, there are places where the servant is identified as being distinct from
national Israel. In Isaiah 49:1-7, the servant is identified as one who restores
national Israel to God:
"And he said to me, `You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said, `I
have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my
cause is with the LORD and my reward with my God.' And now the LORD says, who
formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel
might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God has
become my strength - he says, `It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to
raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light
to the nations, that my salvation may reach the end of the earth.' " (Cf. 49:3-6)
This passage indicates that God's servant is a specific individual whose name
happens to be Israel, and yet is distinct from the nation of Israel whom he will
eventually restore. God will also use this servant to bring his salvation to the ends
of the earth.
These factors affirm that certain servant passages, specifically 42:1-9 and 49:1-7,
do not refer to national Israel. Rather, they must be referring to the Messiah.
There are three lines of evidence to support that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Christ.
First, both Jesus and the apostles affirm that portions of Isaiah 53 are messianic in
nature. In Luke 22:37, Jesus states: "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled
in me, `And he was counted among the transgressors'; and indeed what is written
about me is being fulfilled." Christ is quoting Isaiah 53:11 and affirms that it is
prophecy about him.
In Acts 8:26-35, the apostle Philip discovers an Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah
53:7-8. The eunuch then asks, " `About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet
say this, about himself or about someone else?' Then Philip began to speak, and
starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus."
The apostle Peter writes:
"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that
you should follow in his steps.
`He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.'
"When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no
threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins
in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his
wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have
returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Pet. 2:21-25 NIV
Peter alludes to Isaiah 53:4-7, 9 and 11 and indicates that they were literally
fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion and justification of believers.
Secondly, according to Isaiah 53:9 the servant "had done no violence, and there
was no deceit in his mouth." It also states that the servant is to be a guilt offering,
an asham. (Cf. Isa. 53:10) According to Leviticus 5:15 a guilt offering had to be
perfect. Yet, according to Isaiah, Israel was anything but perfect:
"And I said: `Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a
people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!' " Isa. 6:5
NRSV
"See, the Lord's hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Rather, your
iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his
face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your
fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness... For
our transgressions before you are many, and our sins testify against us. Our
transgressions indeed are with us, and we know our iniquities." Isa. 59:1-3, 12 NRSV
Thirdly, Isaiah declares that the servant is stricken "for the transgression of my
people." (Cf. 53:8) The phrase "my people" is used elsewhere by Isaiah to identify
the nation of Israel. (Cf. 22:4; 26:20; 32:13) It makes absolutely no sense to say
that Israel was dying for Isaiah's people, who happened to be Israel! It only makes
sense if the servant is a specific individual who is distinct from corporate Israel.
2. In Isaiah 53:5 the Hebrew term min is more correctly translated as "from."
Therefore, Isaiah was not saying that the servant was wounded for transgressions,
but from transgressions.
Response:
This assumes that the preposition min has only one meaning, which it does not.
The word must be translated in accordance with the way it is being used in a
given context. One way the word is used is in a causal sense such as we find in
the following citations:
"Because of the multitude of your iniquities... you have profaned your shrines." Ezek.
28:18
"It was not (because of) the king's will..." 2 Sam. 3:37
"All flesh shall not again be cut off by the flood waters." Gen. 9:11
This is the way Isaiah uses the term, that because of or for the sins of his people
the servant was being wounded and crushed. This is how even non-Christian
scholars understand it:
"He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities..."
(Rabbi Nosson Scherman / Rabbi Meir Ziotowitz, The Stone Edition Tanach- ArtScroll
Series, Published by Mesorah Publications, ltd., 1998)
(Note: For a more thorough study on the different usages of min consult Bruce K. Waltke & M. O. Connor, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Eisenbrauns; Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990], pp. 212-214)
3. In 53:8b Isaiah states, `for the transgression of my people he was stricken." The
phrase Isaiah uses is lamoh and is plural, i.e. "they were stricken." This identifies
the servant as national Israel since the term cannot be used in the singular.
Response:
The Muslim contention that "lamoh" cannot be used in the singular case is
erroneous. Dr P.J. Williams, affiliated lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic Faculty of
Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge, responds to one Muslim writer's
contention that the Hebrew term always refers to the plural:
"... The author claims that 'anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew' will recognize his point
that 'lamoh' is always plural. In fact one of the latest Hebrew grammars, and a great
number of older ones disagree at precisely this point. P. Jouon, ed. by T. Muraoka, A
Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Rome, 1991, section 103 f, records that 'lamoh' may be
used as a pausal form of 'lo' "to him". This phenomenon is illustrated well in Genesis
9:26 and 27, and Isaiah 44:15. The suffix -mo is indisputably singular in Psalm 11:7.
The phrase may satisfactorily be translated 'from the transgression of my people the
blow was his', i.e. he was wounded for the transgression of my people, where 'my
people' is distinct from the one who suffers." (bold emphasis ours)
4. The term for death in Isaiah 53:9 is plural in Hebrew and should be "deaths." This
indicates that Isaiah had national Israel in mind.
Response:
The term is understood to refer to the intensity of the servant's sufferings, not to a
plural number of actual deaths. This becomes evident when reading the term in its
intended context:
"They made his grave with the wicked and his death with the rich, although he had done
no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."
The term grave, qeber, is singular and is used synonymously with death. John N.
Oswalt notes, "The last members of each colon in Hebrew, his grave and his
death, are synonymous." (The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament - The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66 [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans's
Publishing Company, 1998], p.397)
According to Edward J. Young, "The two words grave and death are to be taken
together; in his death and burial the servant was with the rich and with the
wicked." (The Book of Isaiah, A Commentary, vol. 3 Chapters 40-66 [Eerdmans's,
rpt. 1996], p. 353)
This argues the fact that the plural "deaths" refers to the servant's intense
suffering. In fact, The Stone Edition Tanach identifies the plural usage as referring
to the servant's executions:
"He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his
executions."
In fact, certain rabbis understood the plural to refer to the intensity of the
Messiah's death:
"The sense of the whole is, And he made in His deaths His grave with the wicked, and
the rich: the plural `deaths' is used because piercing Him as cruel men do, through and
through, they would, so to speak, be putting Him to death again and again."
5. Isaiah 53:10 speaks of the servant seeing "his seed." The term "seed" is always
used to refer to physical offspring. (Cf. Gen. 12:7, 15:13, 46:6; Ex. 28:43) But
Jesus had no children since he was never married.
Response:
The term "seed," zera, does not always refer to physical offspring. The word is
also used metaphorically:
"And the LORD God said to the serpent... `And I will put enmity Between you and the
woman, And between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, And you
shall bruise him on the heel.' " Gen.3:14, 15 NASV
Seed cannot possibly mean that the serpent, who is actually the Devil (Cf. Rev.
12:9), will have literal, biological offspring who will fight with the woman's seed.
Rather, it is referring to individuals who carry out the Devil's will. (Cf. John 8:44)
Zera can also mean race or generation:
"For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so
that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands..." Ezra 9:2 NASV
"And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines."
Zech. 9:6 NASV
Therefore, seed does not necessarily imply that the servant shall have biological
offspring. It can be referring to the children God has given the Messiah to justify
and redeem:
" And again, `BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.' "
Hebrews 2:13 NASV
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but
raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the
Son and believes in Him, may have eternal; and I Myself will raise him up on the last
day." John 6:39-40 NASV
Finally, the text does not say that the servant shall see his seed, but rather that he
shall see seed. The seed he shall se can be referring to the posterity that will come
to serve God through the servant as stated in Psalm 22:30-31:
"Posterity (zera) will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will
proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn - for he has done it."
In conclusion, the evidence supports the messianic understanding of Isaiah 53. The
evidence presented against it does not stand under careful analysis and exegesis.
Muslim Argument:
According to the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law is something good and holy. Believers
are commanded to delight in the Law and meditate upon it. (Cf. Deut. 5:29; 2 Kings
17:37; Psalm 1:2; 119)
But according to the apostle Paul, the Law is a curse since Jesus came to redeem man
from "the Curse of the Law." (Cf. Gal. 3:13)
Christian Reponse:
Paul was not calling the Law a curse, but was speaking about the curse the Law puts on
all who fail to follow it wholeheartedly:
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: `Cursed is everyone who
does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.' " Galatians 3:10 NIV (quoting
from Deut. 27:26)
Jesus did not save us from the Law, but from the judgement which falls upon all since
none is able to perfectly fulfill all that the Law demands.
Elsewhere, Paul calls the Law holy and good:
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin
was except through the law... So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous
and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin
might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me, through what was good, so that through the
commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am
unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not
do, but what I hate to do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." Rom.
7:7, 12-16 NIV
Those who have been freed from sin through faith in Christ are now empowered to fulfill
the moral aspect of the law. The ceremonial aspect such as sacrifices and holy days are
fulfilled in Jesus, making only the moral aspects binding on Christians:
"Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Rom. 3:31 (Cf.
Rom. 8:1-4)
Muslim Argument:
According to Paul the resurrection body is spiritual. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44) Yet, in
Luke 24:39 Jesus did not have a spiritual body, but a body of "flesh and bones."
Furthermore, Paul indicates that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
(Cf. 1 Cor. 15:50) This proves that Jesus did not die and rise from the dead since he did
not have a spiritual body.
Christian Reponse:
First, Jesus did not say that his body was "flesh and blood" but rather "flesh and bones."
Jesus was emphasizing the material aspect of his glorified body, that it was not merely
immaterial. Paul's use of the tem "flesh and blood" refers to the corrupt, perishable body
we inherit from Adam. (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:49) This body cannot inherit God's kingdom since
it is prone to sin and disobedience, and sin cannot dwell in God's presence. (Cf. Psalm
5:4)
Secondly, Paul does not say that at the resurrection believers will no longer have material
bodies, since he specifically calls it a spiritual body. Paul is contrasting the body
conceived in corruption with the body conceived by the Spirit of God:
"What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in
glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a
spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual BODY." 1 Cor. 15:42b-44 NRSV
Hence, it is a body that is no longer subject to sin and destruction, but one that is
empowered by God's Spirit. That Paul's use of the term spiritual refers to one empowered
by the Holy Spirit is evident from the following verses:
"The spiritual man makes judgement about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's
judgement." 1 Cor. 2:15 NIV
"Brothers I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly-mere infants in Christ." 1 Cor. 3:1
NIV
"Brothers, if someone is caught in sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." Galatians
6:1 NIV
Therefore, the spiritual body is a body made alive by the Spirit of God:
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from
the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." Romans
8:11 NIV
Finally, Jesus was not denying his resurrection in Luke 24:39, but denying that he was
just a spirit as the disciples thought. In fact, continuing further into the text Jesus affirms
his death and resurrection:
"Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, `Thus it is
written, that the Messiah is to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24:45-46
NRSV
4. THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
Most Muslim attacks on the Bible center around the issue of contradictions. Muslims
assert that the Bible is full of contradictions, and therefore cannot be trusted. Because of
the magnitude of the writings in circulation in support of alleged Bible contradictions, we
will not be able to thoroughly address them in this study.
What we will do is give list of books and web sites that specifically deal with the issue of
Bible contradictions. We seriously suggest that the reader invest both the time and money
into getting a hold of these resources since they will prove to be invaluable in effectively
witnessing to Muslims. Some suggested material include the following:
BOOKS
When Critics Ask - A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties
Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe
Victor Books, 1992 by SP Publications, Inc.
ISBN: 0-89693-698-8
Hard Sayings Of The Bible
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. & Peter H. Davids & F.F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, ILL.
ISBN: 0-8308-1423-X
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Dr. Gleason L. Archer
Zondervan Corporation, 1982, Grand Rapids
True Guidance - 5 Part Series
Light of Life - P.O. BOX 13
A-9503 Villach, Austria
(Note - These series of books were written to refute two Islamic writings against the Bible. One is titled
Izhar ul-haqq [The Revelation of the Truth], a book that was written to refute C. C. Pfander's Mizan ul-
Haqq. And the other being titled al-Sayf al-Hamidi al-Saqil [The Furbished Hamidi Sword]. Highly
recommended.)
contradictions and you will find some great answers and links to alleged biblical
contradictions.
Debate Site - 101 Cleared Up Contradictions
(http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)
A paper responding to Muslim Apologist Shabir Ally's 101 Clear Contradictions of the
Bible. Excellent and scholarly.
A Christian Think Tank
(http://christian-thinktank.com)
A site respected even by atheists. Perhaps the most comprehensive answers ever
compiled on Bible difficulties. The answers are based primarily on a superb exegetical
understanding of scripture, as well as an amazing knowledge of archaeology. Fantastic.
These are just some of the many resources available for Christians, thoroughly
equipping them for the task at hand.
In this section, we will briefly address some of the more common allegations made
against the Bible by Muslims.
Muslim Argument:
There are 66 books within the canon of the Protestant Bible. Yet the Catholic Bible
contains 73. Either one has added or omitted 7 books from the Bible.
Christian Reponse:
The 7 books which are included in the Catholic Bible are called the Jewish Apocrypha,
literature compiled after the last O.T. book Malachi. These books are not inspired nor are
they part of the Hebrew Bible. The Protestants reject these books for the following
reasons:
1. They were never recognized by the Jews as being part of the canon of scripture
since they were not written by inspired men of God. The Talmud states:
Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,
the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)
This clearly demonstrates that the Jews viewed all the literature written after
Malachi as being uninspired. It also affirms that the New Testament picks up
where the Old leaves off, since the authors affirmed inspiration for their writings.
(Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:18- Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16; Rev. 1:1-3)
In fact, certain books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration. (Cf. 1
Maccabees 9:27) This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired
status of these writings.
2. At the Council of Jamnia, A.D. 90, Rabbis headed by Yohannan ben Zakkai
acknowledged the 39 books which comprise the present Hebrew and Protestant
OT canon as the official Word of God. Everything else was discarded. It should
be pointed that this Council did not make the books canonical, but arrived at the
conclusion that only these particular books were received throughout the
generations as being that which God inspired.
3. The Lord Jesus personally affirms the Protestant OT canon. During the time of
Christ, the Old Testament was classified into three sections: "The Law,"
containing the five books of Moses. "The Prophets" which included two
subdivisions. The first called "the Former Prophets" and included the books of
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings. The second is called "the Latter
Prophets" which included the books beginning with Isaiah to Ezekiel with the
exception of Lamentations; and from Hosea to Malachi. These books were also
subsumed into smaller lists such as combining the books from Hosea to Malachi
together into one scroll called "the minor Prophets."
The third is "the Writings" or "Psalms." This section consisted first of Psalms,
Proverbs and Job; then the "Scrolls" of Song of Songs, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This
gives us a total of 39 OT books, the precise canon of books alluded to by Christ:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with
you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44 KJV
Jesus affirms the OT division of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms/Writings
as being those books which prophesied his coming. No mention of the Apocrypha
at all.
4. The 7 books were not officially declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until
the Council of Trent, A.D. 1546. This was primarily in response to the Protestant
Reformers such as Martin Luther and their attacks on doctrines such as
indulgences. In one of these books, 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Douay), praying for the
dead that they may be loosed from sins is commended. Hence, it is not hard to
imagine why Catholics would want to include such a book since it supports their
doctrine of praying for souls caught in purgatory, something rejected by the
Reformers.
Yet, amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon, despite the
fact that it also formed part of the Apocrypha literature, is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by
Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers for the dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The
acceptance of 2 Maccabees and the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total
arbitrariness of the decision behind the choosing of books which supported
Catholic doctrine, while rejecting those that did not.
5. The Quran acknowledges the canon of the Bible which existed at the time of
Muhammad as being the Word of God. (Cf. S. 2:113; 3:79; 10:94) The canon
which was in existence at that time were the 39 books of the OT and the 27 N.T.
books. These are the books that form the present day canon of the Protestant
Bible.
As was indicated, the canon of the OT had been finalized in the latter half of the
first century. Whereas the New Testament canon was officially decided upon in
the fourth century at the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage
(A.D. 397).
Hence, any books which were added to the Bible after these Councils cannot be
accepted as the Word of God. God has given the Church the 66 books of the
Protestant Bible to form his infallible rule of Christian faith. This is a fact which
the Quran affirms.
Muslim Argument:
There is no reference in the Bible itself where it indicates that the book canonized by the
Jews and Christians would be called the Bible. The word "Bible" never appears in the
Judeo-Christian Scriptures. This is a man-made title.
Christian Reponse:
The term Bible is derived through Latin from the Greek term biblia (books). The earliest
extra-biblical usage of the term is found in 2 Clement 14:2 (A.D. 150): "the books (ta
biblia) and the apostles declare that the church ... has existed from the beginning."
Biblia is the plural form of the Greek biblion, which is itself a diminutive of biblos. These
terms are used in Scripture as designations for inspired writings:
"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in
this book (en to biblio touto)." John 20:30 NKJV
"For it is written in the Book (biblo) of Psalms..." Acts 1:20 NKJV
"Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of
the Prophets (en biblo ton propheton)..." Acts 7:42 NKJV
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse; for it is written, `Cursed is everyone
who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law (en to biblio tou
nomou), to do them" Gal. 3:10 NKJV
"When you come, bring the cloak I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books (kai ta biblia),
especially the parchments (malista tas membranas)." 2 Tim. 4:13
Paul identifies the inspired writings as the biblia, the books, which at that time included
both the Old Testament scrolls as well as the Gospel of Luke. (Cf. 1 Tim. 5:18-Luke 10:7
see below)
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying,
"What you see, write in a book (graphon eis biblion) and send it to the seven churches which are
in Asia..." Rev. 1:10-11
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (tes propheteias tou
bibliou): If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this
book (en tou biblio); and if anyone takes away words of the book of this prophecy (tou bibliou tes
propheteias), God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book (en to biblio touto)." Rev. 22:18-19
These verses indicate that the term from which the word "Bible" is derived is indeed
found within sacred scripture itself. Hence, the word used for the Judeo-Christian
Scripture is not something which was arbitrarily decided upon, but something derived
from the inspired writings.
(Note - This same phenomena is also true of the Quran. Although the word "Quran"
appears in the Islamic scripture, nowhere will one find a verse indicating how many
chapters make up the Quran or whether the book itself should be thus named.
In fact, some Muslims such as Ubayy b. Kabb, called the Master of the Quranic reciters,
had 116 chapters in his text of the Quran; while others such as Abdallah Ibn Masud
included only 111 out of the present 114 chapters of the Islamic text.
Furthermore, early Islamic sources indicate that there was even disagreement among the
companions of Muhammad as to what name should be given to the codified recitation:
"Once the Quran had been compiled, people wondered what to call it. Some suggested calling it
Sifir (`the Book'), but Ali refused, because that is a Hebrew word. Later, Ali said: `I saw one like it
in Abyssinia called Al-Mushaf'; so this is what it was called." [True Guidance, pt. 4, p. 51; citing
Muhammad Izzat Darwaza's al-Quran al-Majid, p. 53])
Muslim Argument:
Ezekiel 23:20-21 uses what seems to be pornographic language. God speaks of Judah and
Samaria lusting for Egypt whose genitals is likened to donkeys, and whose emission is
like horses. How can the Bible attribute such words to God?
Christian Reponse:
God is likening Judah's and Samaria's devotion to foreign gods to sexual perversion. God
addresses the two as sisters who commit adultery by pursuing foreign nations,
abandoning their Husband. Hence, idolatry is viewed as committing spiritual adultery in
the eyes of God. This is obviously metaphorical language, and is not meant to be taken
literally.
(Note - The Quran uses similar language in describing the pleasures of Paradise. For
instance, Muslims will be given virgin maidens with "swelling breasts" [Arabic - kawaaiba]
to enjoy for all eternity. [S. 78:33 Rodwell and Arberry translation])
Muslim Argument:
The Bible degrades women, blaming Eve for the fall. Furthermore, it commands women
to remain silent in the churches and not to usurp authority over the man.
Women are also to have their hair covered as a sign of submission to their husbands. (Cf.
1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:5-10, 13; 14:34)
Christian Response:
Although the Bible does blame Eve, it also blames Adam. In fact, God blames both
Adam and Eve and curses them accordingly. (Cf. Gen. 3:16-20)
Secondly, just as Eve is singled out for the fall, elsewhere in the Bible Adam is held
personally accountable. (Cf. Hos. 6:7; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49)
Thirdly, Paul's command that women should have their heads covered was not a sign of
humiliation, but of respect. A woman who either had her head shaved or uncovered was
considered to be immoral and rebellious, especially if she had a husband. In order to
protect both the reputation of the believing women and the Church, Paul commanded
head coverings. In this way, no unbeliever could ever bring an accusation that believing
women were immoral and rebellious.
Fourthly, although women are told not to usurp authority over men in the church, they
still were allowed to prophecy as noted in 1 Cor. 11:5. Paul's point in women remaining
silent must be understood to mean that they are not to speak authoritatively over men,
since this was culturally unacceptable.
Fifthly, the Bible states that both women and men are created in God `s image. (Cf. Gen.
1:26-27, 5:1) Woman is called "the mother of all the living." (Cf. Gen. 3:20) In fact,
"there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)
Sixthly, men are commanded to view their wives as their own bodies, caring for them as
Christ cared enough for the Church to die for her. Husbands must be also willing to do
likewise. (Cf. Eph. 5:25-33) In fact, Paul demands that husbands view their bodies as not
belonging to themselves but to their wives and vice-versa, and must not deny the others'
needs. (Cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5)
Furthermore, the Bible mentions women who were used by God as prophets and leaders
such as Miriam (Exodus 15:20; Micah 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4-5), Anna (Luke 2:36), the
four daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:9), and a number of others. (Cf. Judges
4:4; Isaiah 8:3)
All these factors demonstrate that whereas there is a positional subjection on the part of
women in the structure of the Church, this in no way assumes that they are inferior. In
fact, they are given an honor lacking in any other religion.
(Note - The Quran states that women are inferior to men, since God made man superior.
[Cf. 2:28; 4:34] In fact, the Quran encourages men to deny disobedient wives sex as a
form of punishment, and beat them if they persist in disobedience. [Cf. 4:34])
Muslim Argument:
Christians presume inspiration of all the books of the Bible. Yet, there are places where
inspiration is seemingly denied. For instance, Luke affirms in Luke 1:1-4 that it "seemed
good also to me to write an orderly account that you may know the certainty of the things
you have been taught." No mention of inspiration!
In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul writes, "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)..." Again in 1
Corinthians 7:25 Paul states, "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord..."
Paul denies inspiration.
Another place where Paul denies inspiration is at Romans 3:7 where he affirms that he is
speaking falsehood.
Christian Response:
In regards to Luke 1:1-4, nowhere does Luke deny inspiration, and hence this is an
argument from silence. Inspiration does not preclude careful investigation of historical
material. Rather, inspiration entails the Holy Spirit guiding the authors to record God's
words without error. Therefore, Luke was guided to carefully investigate and include
material that was without error and which the Holy Spirit wanted to be written.
Furthermore, Paul writes that "All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)." (Cf. 2 Tim.
3:16.) Paul includes Luke's writings as part of those Scriptures which are God-breathed:
"For the Scripture says, `Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain', and `The worker
deserves his wages.'" 1 Tim. 5:18 NIV
Paul's first citation is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is from Luke 10:7:
"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his
wages. Do not move around from house to house." NIV
Not only is Luke's writing inspired Scripture, but it is also placed on the same level of
authority as Moses' writings.
Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25 are not a denial of inspiration. Rather, they
constitute an acknowledgment that the Lord, while on earth, has given no commands to
the disciples in regards to these particular issues. Therefore, Paul gave "judgment as one
who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." 1 Cor. 7:25
Being guided by the Holy Spirit, Paul could speak authoritatively and infallibly on
matters not addressed by Christ while on earth. This is precisely what Paul goes on to say
at the conclusion of his discussion:
"In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is - and I think that I too have the Spirit of
God." 1 Cor. 7:40 NIV
Hence, Paul knows that what he says is true since it is the Spirit who is speaking through
him.
The apostle Peter says of Paul:
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our 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." 2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV
Peter affirms that Paul wrote with the wisdom which God gave him, placing his writings
on the same level of authority as other inspired writings.
Paul himself affirms that it is by the wisdom given to him by God's Holy Spirit which
enables him to both proclaim and write infallibly:
"This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit,
expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." 1 Cor. 2:13 NIV
In Romans 3:7, Paul is not claiming to be speaking falsely. That is a gross misquotation
of what Paul was actually saying. Paul was speaking of God's justice and how man's
unrighteousness affirms that God's judgment upon sinners is righteous. Hence, Paul is
speaking hypothetically of one who might ask if by a person's falsehood God is proven
righteous, why then does God condemn the person? This becomes crystal clear from the
text itself:
"But if our righteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That
God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that
were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, `If my falsehood enhances
God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not
say - as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say - `Let us do
evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." Romans 3:5-8
Muslim Argument:
According to 2 Samuel 24:1. God moved David to number the fighting men of Israel,
whereas according to 1 Chronicles 21:1 it was Satan who moved David to do so.
Christian Response:
There is no difficulty at all with these passages, since God allowed Satan to incite David
to number Israel, something which displeased the Lord.
The reason why this angered the Lord is that rather than trusting God, David was
evidently placing his trust in the number of his people. Even David's commander-inchief,
Joab, was not totally pleased with the king's decision:
"But Joab said to the king, `May the LORD your God increase the number of the people a
hundred fold, while the eyes of my lord king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to
do this? But the king's word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army..." 2 Sam.
24:3-4a NRSV
Evidently, David had purposed within his heart to number Israel, something which the
Lord was aware of. Realizing this, the Lord in his anger moved David through the agency
of the Devil to act upon his heart's desire.
Hence, although Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the
Devil can only do that which God allows him to do.
(Note - This is a teaching which the Quran wholeheartedly agrees with, that the devils
can only do what Allah allows them to do:
"Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy - Satans among men and Jinns, inspiring
each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so willed they would not
have done it: so leave them and what they forge." S. 6:112 A.Y. Ali
"Seest thou not that We have set Satans on against the unbelievers, to incite them to fury?" S.
19:83 A.Y. Ali
Muslim commentator al-Zamakhshari's note on S. 2:7 is noteworthy:
"It is now in reality Satan or the unbeliever who has sealed the heart. However, since it is God
who has granted him the ability and possibility to do it, the sealing is ascribed to him in the same
sense as an act which he has caused. [John Gilchrist, The Textual History of the Qur`an and the
Bible, p.37, Light of Life, P.O. Box 13 A - 9503 VILLACH, AUATRIA])
This finishes our defense of the Gospel. We pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will bless
everyone who studies and applies the information to win others to glory.
AMEN
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.
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'.
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.
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
- Khan, MM. The Noble Qur'an. Riyadh. Darussalam, 1996 (15th edition)
- 'Ata'ur-Rahim M, Thomson A. Jesus, Prophet of Islam. London. Ta-Ha, 1996 (revised edition). p47.
- Cross FL. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford. OUP, 1997. pp168, 169.
- Blunt JH. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought. London. Longmans Green & Co, 1891. pp67-69.
- Ibid
- Op Cit. pp104-106.
- George L. The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. London. Robson Books, 1995. p71.
- Ibid. p66.
- Blunt JH. Op cit. pp102,103.
- Khan MM. Op cit.
- Gospel of Barnabas. Trans. Ragg L & L. No publisher or date given. Chapters 216, 217.
- E.g. Campbell WF. The Gospel of Barnabas - its True Value. Rawalpindi. Christian Study Centre, 1989.
- Material taken from McDowell J. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino. Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972. pp84-88.
