The Divinity Factory of Christian Apologists – Part 1

The Divinity Factory of Christian Apologists – Part 1

Jesus (peace be upon him) works on Saturdays – he must be god!?

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction and Background

 

Sam Shamoun and David Wood were on a talk show trying to refute the arguments of Dr. Zakir Naik against the divinity of Christ (peace be upon him).

Although both David and Shamoun claim that Muslim apologists work the verses of the Bible out of context yet we would soon realize that much embarrassingly, it was the custodians of the Bible – David and Shamoun, who utterly misused the biblical verses by wrenching them out of context!

This paper is not a defense to Dr. Zakir’s arguments, however, through this paper we would show that (i) Shamoun’s defense of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity is too flimsy (ii) out of context and distorted (iii) on the contrary, the same biblical verses which Shamoun used, further prove Christ’s (peace be upon him) non divinity!

 

Shamoun’s weird Trinitarian qualifications

 

Before attempting to rebut Dr. Naik on John 5:30, Shamoun first started with the “qualifications” of doctrine of Trinity. According to his “qualifications”, Jesus (peace be upon him) never works independently from Father (or the Holy ‘Ghost’) but he works in perfect union with them:

 

We do not believe that the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit work or act independently from one another. According to the Scriptures they work in perfect union with one another. With that qualification let us see whether Jesus was denying his deity or affirm two things. Let us see from the context whether Jesus was denying his deity or affirming two things: (1.) that he does not act independently from the father which is what the doctrine of Trinity teaches and (2.) Because he is God, he can do whatever the Father does which is a claim that no creature can make. Let us see what the context demonstrates.” (Shamoun, Time 08:22 – 09:03)

 

As we would soon observe that it was very important for Shamoun that he starts his “explanations” with such “qualifications” because without any such qualification his “explanation” would be too weak!

However, in the very first place, let us state that we do not accept any such “qualifications” provided by Shamoun because:

Firstly, we have subject biblical passages with us and therefore we do not see any real need for a well pre-planned “qualification”. It would be utterly disrespectful and disparaging towards the completeness and usefulness of the allegedly “divinely inspired” verses if it needed any man made support packaged as “qualification”.

Secondly, on the foregoing, remember that the so called doctrine of Trinity is interpretation of certain sect of Christianity – the Trinitarians, and as such there are numerous other Christian sects (some labeled as heretics and annihilated) who read the same passage(s) and yet do not come to any such conclusion of “doctrine of Trinity”. Therefore, we would rather choose to let the text speak for itself rather than interpreting it through the so called “doctrine of Trinity”. We do not care what the “doctrine of Trinity” teaches when text is available.

 

Exposing the deception in the Qualification

 

In order to qualify the well devised “qualification”, Shamoun had no qualms in distorting the obvious meaning of the text he read. Let us quote Shamoun to expose the matter:

 

“Here is what he [Dr. Zakir Naik] quoted. John Chapter 5, Verse 30. “By myself I can do nothing. I judge only as I hear and my judgment is just for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me. Now for some reason Dr. Naik assumes that because Jesus affirms that he does not act independently from the Father; he doesn’t act separately from the Father – this somehow diminishes his deity. (Shamoun , Time 07:05 – 07:32)

 

From the passage it is clear that Jesus (peace be upon him) was trying to express his impotency towards him judging on his own authority. The fact is further supported by Jesus’ (peace be upon him) own words where he candidly admitted that he tries to “please”, appease Him who has sent him – God, by expressing his servitude towards His commands! Having said that, it does not even remotely sounds as if Jesus (peace be upon him) tried to say that he does not work separately from Father; for obvious embarrassing reasons Shamoun wants to read his interpretations into the text!?

Furthermore, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement of appeasing God does not explain his working in “perfect union” with God. Think about it, when Jesus (peace be upon him) is working in “perfect union” with Father, then according to Trinitarian philosophy, he is acting as a god; now, why would a god try to appease or assuage another God (Father) while working under the explanation “perfect union”?

Even more so, why would a god, while working in “perfect union”, claim not my will or my pleasure but only of Father. Jesus (peace be upon him) was at least expected to say, not my will but our (Father + Son) will!

Plus, we are still searching for one verse in the whole Bible where Father has tried to “please” Jesus (peace be upon him) in the same way and capacity.

We need to ponder on this: If somebody claims that he is incapable of doing a certain thing on his own authority and will! Will this statement be interpreted as the subject person expressing his impotency OR should it be somehow interpreted that the person is working in “perfect union” with the other person?

If I were to say that I cannot take a particular decision on my own authority but rather I need to take the decision of my C.E.O; does it mean that I and my C.E.O work in “perfect union”, sharing the same status and authority or does it mean that neither do I have the authority nor do I enjoy the status to take such a decision on my own!  

However, it is not hard to reconcile statements of Jesus (peace be upon him) if we see him as he portrays himself – like a prophet of God. A prophet, being the first and best worshipper of God, would always try to appease Him and do His will rather than his own. He would have no shame in admitting that he on his own authority is just too impotent to do anything.

On the foregoing, Shamoun was correct when he claimed, “Jesus affirms that he does not act independently from the Father” because Jesus (peace be upon him) indeed works dependently on the Father.

With that said and understood, let us see the so called context which David and Shamoun complained that Muslim apologists hide. Let us see if at all the “context” of John 5:30 help Trinitarians to establish divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) or it further exposes them that they can even distort their own “scripture” in order to support idolatry.

  

The Context of John 5:30

 

Shamoun states that in the context we have a suffering paralytic whom Jesus (peace be upon him) cures on the Sabbath day stirring the anger of Jewish religious authorities. (Shamoun, Time 00:10 – 0020)

Right after setting the “context”, Shamoun puts forth his first “proof” from the divinity factory. He stated the following:

 

“My Father is always at His work to this very day and I too am working.” Notice the assertion. Jesus is saying that my Father doesn’t rest on the Sabbath. My Father is always working and he works especially on the Sabbath. After all, if the Father took the break on the Sabbath, then who would be sustaining the Universe, in fact, how would the world run if the Father rested on the Sabbath. So Jesus’ point is Father is always working, everyday, including the Sabbath. But right after that he says, “I too am working”. Did you see the assertion? Just like the Father, my Father, who works every day, I too like the Father work every day as well. Just like my Father works on the Sabbath, I too am working on the Sabbath…Verse 18, notice how the Jews understood him. For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was even calling God his own Father making himself equal with God. Now why would they conclude that Lord Jesus Christ was making himself equal with God. Well, very simple. Father alone has the right to work on the Sabbath. His creatures because they belong to Him must obey His command to rest on the Sabbath. So notice, only God and God alone has the right to work on the Sabbath. All creatures who fear God must seize from working. But what Jesus, my Father is working, I too am working, he is saying that he has just as much the right to work on Sabbath that the Father does. Did you catch it? Jesus is saying that I have the same divine right to work on this day as my Father does. And in making that assertion, the Jews realized that he is claiming to be equal with the Father and that he has the same authority that the does to work on the Sabbath (Shamoun Time: 01:20 – 03:26)

 

Fundamentally, Shamoun’s argument is, since Jesus (peace be upon him) worked (healed) on the Sabbath day when it was ordained not to work therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) enjoys some divine authority to work on the Sabbath like the Father – since, according to Jesus (peace be upon him), Father alone was to work all days including Sabbath!

With that being the claim, let us check more closely whether Jesus’ (peace be upon him) working on the Sabbath assigns him any divine authority or is it mere playing fast and loose with the “scriptures”! Furthermore, we would exhort readers to keep a close eye how Shamoun (and David), the same people who were fussing about “context”, are caught not merely distorting the totality of the “scriptures” but also hiding a good part of it.

Multiple responses are in order:

 

The Qur’anic perspective

 

Before going in to the details and intricacies of Oral – Law, Halaka, Pharisaic Tradition, Torah and Sabbath – we would first see the authority of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the best preserved God’s word:

 

“And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): “‘I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; “‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. (Qur’an 3: 49-50)

 

According to the Qur’an, Jesus (peace be upon him), by the leave of Allah (SWT), had the authority to make lawful what was unlawful for the Jews! Therefore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) has “worked” on the Sabbath owing to the authority given to him then, as such, there is nothing in it which would elevate him to Godhood! He was just exercising the elements of his Sharia’h (divine law).

However, we know that Qur’an is not authoritative to Christians therefore, let us turn to the Bible.

  

The biblical Premise: Jesus’ (pbuh) wisdom behind working on the Sabbath

 

In the first place, let us closely see the biblical ruling and elements of Sabbath. What is actually forbidden on the day and what is not? We read in the Bible:

 

“Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. You have six days in which to do your work, but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to me. On that day no one is to work – neither you…” (Exodus 20: 9-10)

 

Notice the stress on prohibition on doing personal, mundane work on Sabbath. God exhorts to rest on Sabbath day from personal work so that, that day can be spend in remembering God, rendering services to Him and to humanity.

Similar message is again repeated by biblical prophet Isaiah:

           

“The LORD says, “If you treat the Sabbath as sacred and do not pursue your own interests on that day; if you value my holy day and honour it by not travelling, working, or talking idly on that day, then you will find the joy and comes from serving me. I will make you honoured all over the world, and you will enjoy the land I gave to your ancestor, Jacob I, the Lord, have spoken.” (Isaiah 58: 13-14)

 

Notice once again that God is prohibiting pursuing daily, mundane desires on the Sabbath. He wants that day His creation should shun themselves from travelling, working or any other mundane activity for worldly purposes. However, at the same time, He places no bar doing good deeds on Sabbath day by showing mercy, charity etc towards the needy.

On the foregoing, the rulings on Sabbath never thwarted a Sabbath observer to refrain from good deeds on Sabbath day. All it required that on Sabbath, man should give himself a break from daily mundane activity and devote himself towards the service of God which, by every stretch of theology, includes helping others, doing charity etc.

In fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) emphatically asserted that second most important of all commandment was love, kindness and service to others:

 

“The second most important commandment is like it: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself. The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22: 39-40)

 

Notice, according to Jesus (peace be upon him) observing the minutes of Sabbath was not above loving and rendering service to humanity (neighbor). In anyway, observing Sabbath did not forbade followers to stop doing good deeds to others, as we saw above.

God also gave the following important teaching through the Psalmist:

 

“Instead, they find joy in obeying the Law of the LORD, and they study it day and night. They are like trees that grow beside a stream, that bear fruit at the right time, and whose leaves do not dry up. They succeed in everything they do.” (Psalm 1:2-3)

 

Observe the importance of “bearing fruit”, in other words, manifesting positive deeds at the “right time”. For certainly it would make no sense if a speaker of good deeds falls short of materializing his words on the given demanding situation!

In all of the above cited verses, stress is put on refraining oneself from doing personal and daily works on Sabbath day. That particular day should be dedicated to worship of God including service towards mankind at the right time. On the foregoing, it is of paramount importance to notice that the condition of Sabbath nowhere puts any other restriction on its observer as far as doing good deeds is concerned.

With that said, let us take into account the argument of Jesus (peace be upon him) working on the Sabbath like the Father!

 

This man must be God; he “works” on Saturdays!!??

 

Both David Wood and Sam Shamoun were fretting that Muslim (apologists) does not pay care to the context of the biblical passages; therefore, let us check out the so called “context” of Sabbath!

Gospel of John is not the only place where Jesus’ (peace be upon him) Sabbath act is recorded. Rather, it is dispersed at various other Gospels. Therefore, to understand the statement of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the right perspective we will have to take all the narrations into account. Although, be rest assured that we would even consider the subject Johanine verses as well – inshallah.

Consider the following Matthian narration:

 

“Jesus left that place and went to a synagogue, where there was aman who had a paralysed hand. Some people were there who wanted to accuse Jesus of doing wrong, so they asked him, “Is it against our Law to heal on the Sabbath?” Jesus answered, “What is one of you has a sheep and it falls into a deep hole on the Sabbath? Will he not take hold of it and lift it out? And a man is worth much more than a sheep! So then, our Law does allow us to help someone on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man with the paralysed hand, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it became well again, just like the other one. Then the Pharisees left and made plans to kill Jesus.” (Matthew 12: 9-14)

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) as a messenger appointed to the Children of Israel was the best man to have known about the elements of Sabbath. Although, carrying burden/load was considered to be forbidden during Sabbath, yet Jesus (peace be upon him) explained that just as the burden of sheep can be lifted on a Sabbath day in order to avoid hardship on the animal, even more so, a human should be healed on the Sabbath day – it was allowed according to the Sabbath Law!

Pay special attention that Jesus (peace be upon him) claims that “our” law allows to help someone on Sabbath – implying that not merely he but even Pharisees and other Israelites should help others on Sabbath day, let alone, refrain others from doing so or complaining about equality with God – Almighty for working on the day!

Once Jesus (peace be upon him) stated that Law of the Sabbath does allow him and others to “work” (helping others) on the Sabbath, Shamoun’s argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) worked on Sabbath as God works; can be closed here, however, we have more to say on it.

Jesus (peace be upon him) reiterated his message of prioritizing service to humanity in the Gospel of Mark:

 

“Then Jesus went back to the synagogue, where there was a man who had a paralysed hand. Some people were there who wanted to accuse Jesus of doing wrong; so they watched him closely to see whether he would heal the man on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man, “Come up here to the front,” Then he asked the people, “What does our Law allow us to do on the Sabbath? To help or to harm? To save a man’s life or to destroy it?”…Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it became well again. So the Pharisees left the synagogue and met at once with some members of Herod’s party, and they made plans to kill Jesus.” (Mark 3:1-6)

 

In the rhetoric question filled with irony and sarcasm, Jesus (peace be upon him) asks whether Sabbath was ordained to further bring hardship and suffering on humanity or to bring joy and euphoria! Remember that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the best scholars of his time to have under stood the Laws of Sabbath – thus, under the explanation that God’s Law on Sabbath was revealed for happiness and prosperity, Jesus (peace be upon him) helped the paralytic man; this does not accrue anything to his divinity.

In fact those, including Trinitarians, who claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was trying to equate himself with God – Almighty as god beside Him by working on the Sabbath, misunderstand him in the same way as the Pharisees misunderstood him by labeling him as a “sinner” (John 5:24) for working on Sabbath!

It seems like biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) was much interested in working especially on Sabbath in order to break the misunderstanding of the Jews, here is another biblical narration:

 

“One Sabbath Jesus was teaching in a synagogue. A woman there had an evil spirit that had made her ill for eighteen years; she was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called out to her, “Woman, you are free from your illness!” He placed his hands on her, and at once she straightened herself up and praised God. The official of the synagogue was angry that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, so he spoke and said to the people, “There are six days in which we should work; so come during those days and be healed, but not on the Sabbath!” The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! And one of you would untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and take it out to give it water on the Sabbath. Now here is the descendent of Abraham whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen years; should she not be released on the Sabbath?” His answer made his enemies ashamed of themselves, while the people rejoiced over all the wonderful things that he did.” (Luke 13:10-17)

 

Notice the response which Jesus (peace be upon him), the best scholar of the time, gave to Jewish Priests. He literally chastised them as “hypocrites” for sticking to the words of the Law (on Sabbath) while rejecting the spirit and purpose for which Sabbath was regulated by God.

According to Jesus (peace be upon him) and his argument of “ox and ass”, Sabbath was not directed to increase burden on humanity, but on the contrary, it meant to bring men closer to God by further serving humanity since it was God who revealed that the second most important commandment was to love men around us; subsequently by helping men around us, we would follow God and in turn worship Him.

Jesus (peace be upon him) abused (so to say) the exacting Jews for merely observing the traditions of Sabbath while accepting an old women to die of her suffering!

Thus, according to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) exegesis, it was perfectly acceptable to heal on Sabbath if condition required so because the elements of Sabbath, if understood in its spirituality, did not demand its observer to make mankind suffer for its observance. Therefore, according to Jesus (peace be upon him) every man should yearn to do good in terms of helping others especially on Sabbath Day without any fear of them being deified for working on the day “with God”, like God!

Another very important observable facet is Jesus’ (peace be upon him) referring to the suffering lady as a “descendent of Abraham” (peace be upon him). By referring as “descendent of Abraham” (peace be upon him), Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to stress on the supposed and envied Jewish lineage of Israelites and subsequently every minute observation of Sabbath was even more incumbent on the old lady to be followed. However, he still goes on to argue that Jewish lady – descendent of Abraham (peace be upon him) – should be first released off her suffering than observing tenets of Sabbath!

In fact, Rabbi Jesus (peace be upon him) emphatically asserted to the hypocrite and ignorant Jews that when confronted between humanity and Sabbath, one must prioritize service to humanity above observance of mere rulings of Sabbath:

 

And Jesus concluded, “The Sabbath was made for the good of man; man was not made for the Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27-28)

 

On the foregoing, if Jesus (peace be upon him) was breaking anything then it was the strict interpretation of the Jews to harass general public by loading them with rulings and regulations too tough to bear.

Furthermore, Jesus (peace be upon him) rightly called the Jews as “hypocrites” since Bible is replete with incidents when their forefathers took all the leeway against the observance of Sabbath rulings when pushed to extreme situations:

 

“Not long afterwards Jesus was walking through some cornfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, so they began to pick ears of corn and eat the grain. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to Jesus, “Look, it is against our Law for your disciples to do this on the Sabbath!” Jesus answered, “Have you never read what David did that time when he and his men were hungry? He went into the house of God, and he and his men ate the bread offered to God, even though it was against the Law for them to eat it – only the priests were allowed to eat that bread. Or have you not read in the Law of Moses that every Sabbath the priests in the Temple actually break the Sabbath law, yet they are not guilty? I tell you that there is something here greater than the Temple. The scripture says, ‘It is kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices. If you really knew what this means, you would not condemn people who are not guilty; for the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12: 1-8)

 

The Jews of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) time continually erred with regards to the observance of the rulings of Sabbath at the cost of human life. Jesus (peace be upon him), on the other hand,  reiterated his message that God did not reveal observation of Sabbath rulings in order to make it excruciating, nevertheless, it was revealed to bring men closer to God, to make life easier. As Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted that God through Sabbath was looking for mercy not torturous sacrifices.

After all it does not make much sense that people should reach the limits of death owing to hunger, leprosy and yet strive to maintain certain plastic tenets of Sabbath! Jesus (peace be upon him) condemned the flagrant strict interpretation of Sabbath Laws and made it more flexible without compromising with the spirit of God’s revealed Laws.

Sabbath meant to give “rest” to people but it is far-fetched to assume that suffering people could be at “rest” – serving God, while suffering out of hunger and excruciating ailments!

Jesus (peace be upon him) was neither breaking any Sabbath nor deifying himself by working specially on Sabbath day; all he was doing was breaking the shackles of choking and burdensome laws interpreted and applied by Jewish tyrants:

 

“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples. “The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are the authorized interpreters of Moses’ Law. So you must obey and follow everything they tell you to do; do not, however, imitate their actions, because they don’t practice what they preach. They tie on to people’s backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry, yet they aren’t willing even to lift a finger to help them carry those loads.” (Matthew 23: 1-4)

 

Renowned Qur’an exegete Imam Ibn Katheer concurs with biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) that the Jews of his time lost the spirituality of Sabbath and merely followed its outwards rules:

 

“Jesus grew up to manhood. It was Sabbath, a day of complete rest: no fire could be lit or extinguished nor could females plait their hair. Moses (pbuh) had commanded that Saturday be dedicated to the worship of Allah. However, the wisdom behind the Sabbath and its spirit had gone, and only the letter remained in the Jews’ hearts. Also, they thought that Sabbath was kept in heaven, and that the People of Israel had been chosen by Allah only to observe the Sabbath. They made a hundred things unlawful on Saturday even self-defense or calling a doctor to save a patient who was in bad condition. This is how their life was branded by such hypocrisy. Although the Pharisees were guardians of the law, they were ready to sell it when their interests were involved so as to obtain personal gains. There was, for example, a rule which prohibited a journey of more than one thousand yards on the Sabbath day. What do we expect of the Pharisees in this case? The day before, they transferred their food and drink from their homes two thousand yards away and erected a temporary house so that from tthey could travel a further thousand yards on the Sabbath day. Jesus was on his way to the temple. Although it was the Sabbath, he reached out his hand to pick two pieces of fruit to feed a hungry child. This was considered to be a violation of the Sabbath law. He made a fire for the old women to keep themselves warm from the freezing air. Another violation. He went to the temple and looked around. There were twenty thousand Jewish priests registered there who earned their living from the temple. The rooms of the temple were full of them. (Stories of the Prophets, Ibn Kathir, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

 

Did you notice why Jesus (peace be upon him) especially chose to work on Sabbath? To expose the hypocrisy of the Jews and to teach them elements of Sabbath in true spirit while abolishing strict and impractical man made tenets around it.

There is yet another perspective and explanation of Jesus (peace be upon him) healing on the Sabbath which would further exonerate himself from any claim of divinity of working with God on Sabbath Day.Jesus (peace be upon him) is attributed to relate an incident of circumcision and Sabbath falling on the same day!

“Jesus answered, I performed one miracle, and you were all surprised. Moses ordered you to circumcise your sons (although it was not Moses but your ancestors who started it), and so you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. If a boy is circumcised on the Sabbath so that Moses’ Law is not broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Stop judging by external standards, and judge by true standards.” (John 7:21-24)

 

Commenting on the above verse, leading NT scholar John Gill argues:

 

“…are ye angry at me; and pursue me with so much wrath and bitterness, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? or “a man that was whole, sound on the sabbath day”; who was wholly, or all over disordered, every limb of whom shook with the palsy: or as some think the sense is, he was made every whit whole, both in soul and body; and then the argument is, if it was, no breach of the sabbath to make a wound, and lay a plaster on it, as in circumcision; it would be no violation of it, nor ought any to be offended with it, that Christ should heal a diseased man, who was so in every part of his body, and restore health to his soul likewise and nothing is more common with the Jews than to say, the danger of life, and פיקוח נפש, “the preservation of the soul”, or life, drive away the sabbath (b).  (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, John 7:23)

 

According to the verse and its exposition, Jesus (peace be upon him) argued with Jews that (i) if circumcision, in other words, wound can be given on Sabbath day and yet the Law is not broken then it would, in no sense, be breach of Law if he cures an ailment on the same Sabbath day. And, (ii) if the wound of circumcision can be plastered and nursed on the same Sabbath day and yet there is no breach of any Law then it provides even stronger grounds to him to heal ailments on Sabbath day – especially when, the second most important of all Laws including Sabbath and Circumcision, was to love humanity!

On the foregoing, if Shamoun culls out divinity out of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) healing acts on Sabbath day then either (i) he is ignorant of the Bible in its totality or (ii) he is simply distorting his own “scriptures” to his chagrin.

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) worked with God on Sabbath

 

Before proceeding on to refute Shamoun’s distorted claims of polytheism, we need to restate that this section is basically a continuation of the above section, therefore, do keep the arguments of above section in mind.

We need to recall that in order to pluck out an argument in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity, Shamoun claimed that nobody beside God has authority to work on Sabbath, Jesus (peace be upon him), however, worked on Sabbath, therefore, he must be god!:

 

Now why would they conclude that Lord Jesus Christ was making himself equal with God. Well, very simple. Father alone has the right to work on the Sabbath. His creatures because they belong to Him must obey His command to rest on the Sabbath. So notice, only God and God alone has the right to work on the Sabbath. All creatures who fear God must seize from working. But what Jesus, my Father is working, I too am working, he is saying that he has just as much the right to work on Sabbath that the Father does. Did you catch it? Jesus is saying that I have the same divine right to work on this day as my Father does.” (Shamoun, Time: 02:31- 03:15)

 

Much has already been said in the above section regarding this claim to divinity. We have seen how Jesus (peace be upon him) interpreted healing on Sabbath. He unequivocally asserted that helping others was allowed on Sabbath day which the exacting Torah-keepers had hitherto ignorantly denied. Thus, in a way of teaching Jews exegesis of Torah against their parochial interpretation, Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed helping others on Sabbath day; breaking the man-made understanding!

On the foregoing, when Jesus (peace be upon him) states that, “My Father is always working, and I too must work.” – he stated that like Father never stops helping the needy, not even on the Sabbath day – His providences continue to be showered even on the Sabbath day, similarly, he being the godly man should also not stop doing good to humanity on Sabbath day, especially when there is no such Sabbath law which restricts man from helping others!

On the foregoing, if we were to reconstruct Shamoun’s idolatrous statement, it would crop something like this:

 

Now why would they conclude that Jesus Christ was making himself equal with God. Well, very simple. The Father alone has the right to work on the Sabbath. His creatures because they belong to Him must obey His command to rest from all worldly mundane works on the Sabbath (not from helping the needy). So notice, only God and God alone has the right to work on the Sabbath. All creatures who fear God must seize from working towards their personal, daily works. But what Jesus says, my Father is working, I too am working, he is saying that he should just as much do good on Sabbath as his Father does. Did you catch it? Jesus is saying that I have the same responsibility of doing good on Sabbath day as any other believer should have based on the fact that Father continuously does good even on Sabbath.  

 

Thus, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) working on the Sabbath was no claim towards divinity since following God’s example everybody was allowed, in fact, invited to do good on Sabbath day – to help the suffering needy. This does not deify anybody including Jesus (peace be upon him).

There can be yet another response to the Jewish accusation, which in turn would help expose Shamoun off his distortion! Observe the reason Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because he called God his father – “My Father”.

According to their (Jewish) understanding, by healing on the Sabbath, Jesus (peace be upon him) had broken the Law of Moses (peace be upon him) and consequently he was a “sinner”. On the other hand, healing a chronic paralytic needed Father’s divine intervention as it was no mere medical treatment but a miracle to materialize!

When the Jewish “priests” could not reconcile how a “sinner” was receiving Father’s help; when they could not fathom how God was helping Jesus (peace be upon him) to “work” on Sabbath day, they concluded that Jesus (peace be upon him) must be blaspheming God by calling him “His” Father, in effect, his partner in crime – an accomplice, thereby he “had made himself equal with God”! He, for the Jews, brought God – the Father, at his level.

Jews and Shamoun did not understand the basic thing that Father is always working towards providence of mankind even on the Sabbath day. He is always willing and “working” to help Jesus (peace be upon him) perform miracles on earth including Sabbath days – therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed that he must also “work” and he does “work” even on Sabbath day!

After all, if Jesus (peace be upon him) does not “work” on Sabbath day then how will God’s miracles be materialized on earth through Jesus (peace be upon him) on Sabbath day! How would God denounce the man made rulings on Sabbath day? Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of Jews has become corner stone of idolatry for Trinitarians like Shamoun and David.

 

Jewish Reaction

 

Shamoun made a special appeal to the Jewish understanding and reaction to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement that his Father is always working and he too must work on Sabbath! In fact, the Jewish reaction to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) has become one of the strongest argument for Trinitarian Shamoun:

 

“Now follow with that because we are going to see that the Jews understood the implications of that statement; verse 18. Notice how the Jews understood him” (Shamoun, Time 02:09-02-19)   

 

Through the above comments, Shamoun wanted to establish that Jews “rightly” understood the implication of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) authority towards working on the Sabbath! They understood that he wanted to claim divinity and equality with God – the Father, by working on the Sabbath as only God was to work on Sabbath and consequently wanted to kill him.

By appealing to the Jewish reaction, Shamoun has established that (1) he can stoop as low as to reject Jesus’ (peace be upon him) explanation of working on the Sabbath day at the cost of purchasing Jewish misunderstanding of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement – merely to wrench divinity out of the passages.

And, (2) he would give an unceremonious blind eye to a faithful biblical character who also “understood” Jesus’ (peace be upon him) working on the Sabbath and worded it; but differently from the parochial Jews.

Consider the following verse in which we have a blind man being cured on the Sabbath day by Jesus (peace be upon him):

           

“He [blind man] answered, “The man called Jesus made some mud, rubbed it on my eyes, and told me to go to Siloam and wash my face. So I went, and as soon as I washed, I could see.” “Where is he?” they asked. “I don’t know,” he answered. Then they took to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. The day that Jesus made the mud and cured him of his blindness was a Sabbath. The Pharisees, then, asked the man again how he had received his sight. He told them, “He put some mud on my eyes; I washed my face, and now I can see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “The man who did this cannot be from God, for he does not obey the Sabbath law.” Other, however, said, “How could a man who is a sinner perform such miracles as these?” And there was a division among them. So the Pharisees asked the man once more, “You say he cured you of your blindness – well, what do you say about him?” “He is a prophet,” the man answered…A second time they called back the man who had been born blind, and said to him, “Promise before God that you will tell the truth! We know that this man who cured you is a sinner.” “I have already told you,” he answered, “and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Maybe you, too, would like to be his disciples?” They cursed him and said, “You are tht fellow’s disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses; as for that fellow, however, we do not even know where he comes from!” The man answered, “What a strange thing that is! You do not know where he comes from, but he cured me of my blindness! We know that God does not listen to sinners; he does listen to people who respect him and do what he wants them to do. Since the beginning of the world nobody has ever heard of anyone giving sight to a person born blind. Unless this man came from God, he would not be able to do a thing.” (John 11:11-17, 24-33)

 

Observe that the above biblical passage is from the same John’s Gospel which Shamoun was twisting; the situation is exactly the same with the only difference that in John 5, Jesus (peace be upon him) was healing a paralytic and here, in John 11, he is healing a blind man, however, the glaring difference is in the reaction which the perverted Jews had and the reaction which the sincere blind man had. 

For the blind man, unlike the Jews, healing on the Sabbath – ‘working with God on the Sabbath when God alone works and expects His creation to rest’ – did not deify Jesus (peace be upon him).

On the contrary, this true spirited blind man used the same situation and context – working on the Sabbath with Father  – as a reason to testify that he was not a sinner or a Law breaker; neither the third god in three, nor “son of god” but a prophet!

What gets utterly embarrassing for Shamoun (and David) is the fact that they had more reason and consequent appeal to the perverted Jewish reaction than the testimony of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) own disciple – the so called “apostle” of Jesus (peace be upon him)!

They have no qualms and shame to brush aside the witness of a true disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him) just because it did not serve their cause of Shirk (associating partners with Allah (SWT)).

If they had no scruples on relying on false Jewish accusation of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) blasphemy of equality with God – would they, then, consistently rely on other Jewish accusation in the same line and passage when they claimed him to be a “sinner” because he broke the Sabbath Law by healing on the day?

 

 

Conclusion

 

Shamoun (and David) wanted to prove that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the third god in the godhead since he worked on the Sabbath day. Nevertheless, we saw that this reasoning of Shamoun was extremely flimsy because:

(I)  Jews had misconception about the rulings of working on Sabbath. Jesus (peace be upon him) disabused that helping others on Sabbath day was perfectly allowed in the Laws and thus, not merely he but every Law-keeper must help on Sabbath day. (Matthew 12:9-14).

 

(II) When Jesus (peace be upon him), the messenger to Israelites and the best Rabbi of the time, spoke that helping on Sabbath was allowed there remained no fuss after it. Nevertheless, Old Testament further corroborated Jesus (peace be upon him), in that, God only forbade working towards personal, mundane and worldly objectives on Sabbath day; He did not stop helping others on Sabbath day. Refer Exodus 20: 9-10 and Isaiah 58: 13-14.

 

(III) By working especially on the Sabbath, Jesus (peace be upon him) did two things (i) he abolished hitherto false Jewish practice of adding burden on common Jews in the name of observing Laws (Matthew 23:1-4) and (ii) he established that observing Laws help and facilitate life and not destroy it (Mark 2:27-28) since Jesus’ (peace be upon him) God demanded mercy even on Sabbath day and not excruciating observance of tenets (Matthew 12:18).

 

(IV) Jesus (peace be upon him) went overboard by giving multiple analogies in order to explain that there is nothing “blasphemous” in working on Sabbath with God. He taught them that if a wound in the name of circumcision could be given on Sabbath day and yet it is not broken and if further dressing the wounds and nursing it does not break Laws of Sabbath; then, on the same lines, there is no possibility that his healing on Sabbath day should breach any of its Laws! Refer John 7:21-24.

 

(V)  Jesus (peace be upon him) further explained that just as donkeys and ox has to be helped on Sabbath day then it becomes even more incumbent that humans should also be helped. This would account to no breach of any Law or add to blasphemy. Refer Luke 13:10-17.

 

(VI) The crux of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) working on Sabbath with God was that Sabbath was made for man and if man needed to be helped on Sabbath then he should be helped; there would be no breach of Sabbath law, let alone, any sin of equating one’s self to God! (Mark 2:27-28).

 

(VII) Even though the Jews paid no heed to all of the above explanations for working on Sabbath day and went on to charge Jesus (peace be upon him) for deifying himself; his disciple on the other hand, understood his message to proclaim, unlike Jews, that Jesus (peace be upon him) was, not a god, but a prophet for working on the Sabbath day. (John 11: 11-17, 24-33).

 

In the light of the foregoing, there was no base for the Jewish imputation on Jesus (peace be upon him) trying to deify himself. And, because Trinitarians like Shamoun (and David) depend on Jews for their Christology, therefore, it also has no base.

We appeal to all Christians including Shamoun and David that it is not necessary to distort the “scripture”, mould it somehow to look like Trinitarian – “Christology”, just to worship Jesus (peace be upon him), something which does not naturally comes to one’s understanding.

Die hard Trinitarians could still see the subject verses proving deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) to them. It may happen. However, we have tried to show that there is another perspective as well which is stronger and in which there is no lingering fear of committing idolatry!

With that said, we humbly request Christians to reconsider their monotheism. We were born to worship one God; Jesus (peace be upon him) came as a teacher to teach it; restrain from worshipping the teacher rather pay heed to his message.

As can be observed, in this installment we concentrated on Sabbath related issues in Trinitarian Christology of Shamoun’s video. In the future installments of the series we would take into account other arguments of Shamoun – bi’idhnilllah.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all Qur’anic text taken from Yusuf Ali’s Translation.
  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical text taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • Emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

 

Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya in the Gospel

Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya in the Gospel

Teachings of Allah’s unity of Lordship in the Gospel of Matthew

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

 

In the latter stages of the Umayyad dynasty/caliphate, Islamic scholars felt a need to explain the elements of Islamic Monotheism – Tawhid, under some categories. One such category came to be known as Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya. Literally, it meant: Maintaining unity in Allah’s (SWT) Lordship.

Although much of Christianity digressed from the strict and straight path of absolute Tawhid, yet shades of monotheism can be found through the pages of the so called “Injeel”.

In this paper, we seek to bring to light all such Gospel teachings found in the “Gospel of Matthew” which reflect God’s perfect unity with regards to His Lordship! But before we proceed, let us briefly ponder into what Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya means and what are its conditions.

 

Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya

 

According to this category of Tawhid, Allah (SWT) is the only Creator, Sustainer and Provider. He alone created all that exists; He alone is executing its affairs and has sole authority over His dominion. Moreover, because Allah (SWT) has created everything when nothing existed, He is independent of everything else whereas every other thing depends on Him.

Since Allah (SWT) is the sole power behind everything, and nothing gets its viability without His permission. Prophet (peace be upon him) used to often praise Him in the following way:

            “La hawla wala kuwwata illa billah

Meaning, there is no movement nor power except by Allah’s will!

 

The concepts of Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya can be found in various places in the Qur’an, for instance:

 

Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs.” (Qur’an 39:62)

No kind of calamity can occur, except by the leave of Allah: and if any one believes in Allah, (Allah) guides his heart (aright): for Allah knows all things.” (Qur’an 64:11)

 

Observe the teaching of all the above verses is that Allah (SWT) is the only Creator, Disposer of all affairs. Therefore, if Allah (SWT) is the sole Power, Sustainer, Creator and Custodian of all affairs then quite logically (and theologically) all worship must be offered only to Him alone!

We ought to turn to Him (only) in all needs, prayers, requests and pleas. Similarly, we ought to thank Him only for all the gratitude.  Likewise, we need to discharge all that He wills us to do – these would be worshipping Him.

With these factual qualifications, let us see what Gospel of Matthew has to delineate about Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya.

Note:  Whenever we would be using the term “person” in regards to Father, Son and Holy ‘Ghost’ we would do it purely from a Trinitarian perspective since not all Christian denomination has any such concept of godhead or “persons”!

 

Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya Fee Gospel of Matthew

 

As we said, one of the principals of Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya is to recognize that God alone is the Creator of all that exists, Jesus (peace be upon him) is found stating the same:

 

“At that time Jesus said, “Father, Lord of heaven and earth! I thank you because you have shown to the unlearned what you have hidden from the wise and learned. Yes, Father, this was how you wanted it to happen.” (Gospel of Matthew 11:25-26)

 

It could not have gotten simpler and explicit than this. According to the above adduced verses, the person of Father, not the Holy ‘Ghost’ or the Son, is the Lord of the heaven and earth. Moreover, it is the person of Father who is in charge and controlling the affairs of the world (to let know the unlearned know what is still mysterious to the wise and learned).

Since the person of Father is the Lord of heaven and earth, rightly so Jesus (peace be upon him) taught no other so called person (including himself) knows the exact time of the end of the world:

 

No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come – neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.” (Gospel of Matthew 24:36)

 

The above ignorance of Jesus (peace be upon him) further corroborates Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya; because, Jesus (peace be upon him) was not to predict about any third person but about his very self (his second return).

If he would have planned (as Trinitarians believe) in “perfect union” with Father and Holy ‘Ghost’, he should have known the time; but yet he did not had the information, he candidly referred the esoteric information specifically to be with the “person of Father”!

There are further implications about the above ignorance of Jesus (peace be upon him):

 

  • According to traditional Trinitarian theology Jesus (peace be upon him) is both 100% man and 100% God at the same time. The eccentric and anti-Semitic as it sounds, yet the formulation does not explain the above ignorance of Jesus (peace be upon him). Because, even if we agree that in a state of absolute humanity Jesus (peace be upon him) did not had the information yet it is expected that he must have had the information being absolute God! And, could have passed the same to his disciples, in the state of humanity, without any fear of anybody imputing him of blasphemy since predicting future and foretelling was part and parcel of human prophets and Bible is replete with the attestations that Jews en masse accepted Jesus (peace be upon him) as prophet!

 

  • Furthermore, it is important to note the reaction of his immediate disciples upon hearing Jesus’ (peace be upon him) admitted ignorance about future! Had his disciples considered him either divine and/or a second person in the godhead they should have at least made a genuine query to him with regards to his ignorance. However, much aberrantly, they readily accepted Jesus’ (peace be upon him) ignorance thereby providing strong grounds that the first Christians neither believed in the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) nor the “person” in-the-godhead concept! Rather, as we have documented below, they merely believed him to be a prophet at the same level as John (peace be upon him)!

 

Thus, on the foregoing, the best possible explanation is that Jesus (peace be upon him) staunchly believed and taught that only the “person” of Father had the information which befits the nature of  God and as such the information was not possessed by any son-of-man!

 

As we told that if God alone is the Creator, Sustainer etc of this world then it is quite logical to do only His wish on earth without entertaining any other wish of divine kind. And since Jesus (peace be upon him) recognized the person of Father as the Creator of this world, he taught that only Father’s wishes are to be done:

 

Whoever does what my Father in heaven wants him to do is my brother, my sister, and my mother.” (Gospel of Matthew 12:50)

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) reiterated his message:

 

Our Father in heaven: May your holy name be honoured; may your kingdom come; may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today the food we need. Forgive us the wrongs we have done as we forgive the wrongs that others have done to us. Do not bring us to hard testing, but keep us safe from the Evil One.” (Gospel of Matthew 6:9-13)

 

What is even more interesting is that, although in the Trinitarian context, Jesus (peace be upon him) used to distinctively refer to the persons of godhead (cf. Gospel of Matthew 10:20), however, in the above passages he has specifically referred to the person of Father, not to any so called Holy ‘Ghost’ or Son of God; thereby implying that it is only and solely Father who is God – Lord in true sense. 

Even towards the end of his ministry, Jesus (peace be upon him) reiterated the elements of Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya by calling all to obey the wish of the person of Father only. Consider the following biblical account:

 

“He went a little farther on, threw himself face downwards on the ground, and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, take this cup of suffering from me! Yet not what I want, but what you want.” (Gospel of Matthew 26:39)

“Once more Jesus went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cup of suffering cannot be taken away unless I drink, your will be done.” (Gospel of Matthew 26:42)

 

Notice the emphatic assertions of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the above passages! He has repeated the statement no less than three times in the same context, emphasizing over and over again, that being the only Creator, Sustainer and Disposer of all worldly affairs – Father’s will should only be executed on earth – thus, reinforcing the concept of Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya.   

Pay assiduous attention to the important phrases in the passage, “…Yet not what I want, but what you want.” If Jesus (peace be upon him) and Father, as deities, would have planned together Jesus’ (peace be upon him) “suffering” then firstly, he would have never pleaded to the person of Father.

And, secondly, if the suffering was “pre-planned” by the members of the godhead then there was no basis for Jesus (peace be upon him) to request for the obviation of the “suffering”. This is simply not up with the basic Trinitarian assumption that there are three persons in godhead and they work in perfect mutual harmony.

The very reason that Jesus (peace be upon him) in the first place wanted the crucifixion (“suffering”) to be avoided, implies two things:

 

(1.) The Father and son – supposed persons in the godhead – have not worked in “perfect union” to plan Jesus’ (peace be upon him) crucifixion and thus Father alone was The Planner of affairs. This is further supported by the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) was appealing to the will of the person of Father alone!

 

(2.) Jesus (peace be upon him) was unwilling in the first place for the alleged crucifixion and thus, unwilling to pay the price for humanity, and thus, unwilling to redeem others through his blood and subsequently there was no basis for Christianity as Paul philosophized.

 

Thus, we can safely conclude that there is no scriptural support for the so called three persons in the godhead, let alone, them working together in “perfect union” and thus, much safely, only the “person” of Father should be worshipped!

In his brand of monotheism, not merely did Jesus (peace be upon him) recognized only the person of Father as Creator but he also rightly attributed to Him alone the control of all affairs:

 

“When they bring you to trial, do not worry about what you are going to say or how you will say it; when the time comes, you will be given what you will say. For the words you will speak will not be yours; they will come from the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” (Gospel of Matthew 10:19-20)

 

In the context of the aforementioned verses, Jesus (peace be upon him) was deputing his followers to preach the message he taught them. Jesus (peace be upon him) had premonitions that his followers would be trialed for the preaching. Thus, Jesus (peace be upon him) consoled his followers (against the general Trinitarian belief) that the person of Father would divinely intervene to empower disciples with words and speeches of defense.

Now, if Jesus (peace be upon him) would have been a claimant of divinity then it would have been the best place to at least imply to his followers that he and his power would help them to answer the charges imputed on them, however, over and over again we find Jesus (peace be upon him) pointing to Father for the governance of the world He created!

Even more interestingly, the above citation and deductions matches tailor made with an incident related with last messenger – Mohammad (peace be upon him) to demonstrate Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya. Consider the following Qur’anic verse:

 

It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).” (Qur’an 8:17)

 

 It was battle of Badr when the Prophet (peace be upon him) threw a handful of dust on the pagan battalion.  And, even though the distance between the pagan soldiers and Prophet (peace be upon him) was large, the dust reached their faces and hurt them in their eyes. And behind all of this was the power of Allah (SWT) working. Just as the spirit of Father would be working behind Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples when they would be defending themselves polemically.

Quite naturally, if Jesus (peace be upon him) identified the person of Father alone as the Creator, Sustainer and Disposer of all affairs then it was expected that he would teach his followers to pray to Father’s person alone, not to his or Holy ‘Ghost’s’:

 

Ask, and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks will receive, and anyone who seeks will find, and the door will be opened to him who knocks. Would any of you who are fathers give your son a stone when he asks for bread? Or would you give him a snake when he asks for a fish? Bad as you are, you know how to give good things to your children. How much more then, will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Gospel of Matthew 7:7-11)

 

Notice that through the above passage, Jesus (peace be upon him) is teaching his disciples to recognize who only is eligible to provide them sustenance!

Jesus (peace be upon him) specifically referred to the person of “Father” as the provider of sustenance.

Jesus (peace be upon him) restated his message on Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya that since Father is the only Creator, thus, all prayers should be directed to His person alone:

 

“As he saw the crowds, his heart was filled with pity for them, because they were worried and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. So he said to his disciples, “The harvest is large, but there are few workers to gather it in. Pray to the owner of the harvest that HE (singular) will send out workers to gather in his harvest.” (Gospel of Matthew 9:36-38)

 

To paraphrase, it was a big and a suffering crowd. The large crowd was in need of more caretakers (“shepherds” and reapers). And subsequently, Jesus (peace be upon him) teaches his disciples to pray. At this point, two very important deductions are to be made:

 

1.)    Although Jesus (peace be upon him) was present at the site hitherto performing miracles and achieving feats, yet he taught his disciples to pray, not to him, but to the person of Father alone – the owner of the harvest – to send more philanthropists thereby disowning any divinity for himself, in other words, rejecting the concept of any divine prayer directed to his self or any other “person” for that purpose!

 

2.)    The very reason that Jesus (peace be upon him) turned his disciples to the “person” of Father for divine prayer requests (and not to himself) again imply that he considered Father to be The Provider. He did not say anything like, the harvest is large but I or We (Father, Son and Holy ‘Ghost’) can take care of them!

 

What is even more stark, is that, it is Jesus (peace be upon him) who is entitled as the “shepherd” of the Israelite sheep (c.f. Hebrews 13:20) and in the subject verse he talks about shepherd and sheep and yet directs his followers to pray, not to himself, but to Father to provide more caretakers – shepherds. Thus, further corroborating that he did not considered himself to be divine, on the contrary, he believed it was the person of Father who could only divinely intervene!

 

Since Jesus (peace be upon him) did not teach that he is divine or he is the second “person” in the godhead but on the contrary vested all divinity to the person of Father alone; he had no qualms in to admitting that, unlike Father, he has no influence on the destinies of men:

 

“Then the wife of Zebedee came to Jesus with her two sons, bowed before him, and asked him a favour. “What do you want?” Jesus asked her. She answered, “Promise me that these two sons of mine will sit at you right and your left when you are King.” You don’t know what you are asking for,” Jesus answered the sons.  “Can you drink the cup of suffering that I am about to drink?” “We can,” they answered. “You will indeed drink from my cup,” Jesus told them, “but I do not have the right to choose who will sit at my right and my left. These places belong to those for whom my Father has prepared them.” (Gospel of Matthew 20:20-23)

 

It is not just that Jesus (peace be upon him) has rightly identified and upheld the concept of Tawhid – Ar  – Rububiya that the person of Father is the only one in charge of deciding destinies of humans; but that, he has candidly and much like a mere prophet, disowned even slightest shade of divinity from his personality by admitting his non-influence over deciding destinies!

Note that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not needed to explicitly utter “I am God” or “Worship me” but all that Jesus (peace be upon him) needed to say was either: (i) Ok (your sons will sit by my side) I would do that OR (ii) We (Father, Son and Ghost) have worked in “perfect union” to let your sons sit by my side OR (iii) We (Father, Son and Ghost) have decided in “perfect confluence” to not let your sons sit by my side. He said none of these but rather, honestly, deferred the matter to the person of Father alone thereby upholding Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya.

Furthermore, it is very important to note the reaction of subject lady (wife of Zebedee) and other twelve disciples. Once Jesus (peace be upon him) admitted that he has no control over deciding fate of her sons, neither she nor the twelve disciples complain as to how the ‘second divine person in the godhead’ admit such ignorance. On the contrary, she (and the other twelve disciples) readily accepted Jesus’ (peace be upon him) candid admittance thereby establishing that the best and the earliest Christians did not believed Jesus (peace be upon him) to be divine and second person of the godhead!

 

Impact of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) teachings on Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya

 

We have seen how Jesus (peace be upon him) taught Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya to his community. On the foregoing, if the “person” of Father was/is the only God then it would be equally important to know how Jesus (peace be upon him) portrayed himself since a sizeable amount of Christians take Jesus (peace be upon him) to be God violating Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya! Furthermore, we would also see how men around Jesus (peace be upon him) understood his status:

 

(1.) Jesus (peace be upon him) portraying himself:

 

(i)  God’s Chosen Servant: Let alone elevating himself to God – Almighty, Jesus (peace be upon him) portrayed himself as a humble servant of God worshipping him:

 

Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, the one I love, and with whom I am pleased.” (Gospel of Matthew 12:18)

 

What is still interesting with the above verse is that Jesus (peace be upon him) was quoting another biblical prophet Isaiah. Therefore, not merely Jesus (peace be upon him) but even Isaiah believed Jesus (peace be upon him) nothing more than a mere messenger of God!

 

(ii)  Prophet of God: In contrast to the Trinitarian belief, Jesus (peace be upon him) did not portray himself as a member any godhead but as a mere messenger of God:

 

“And so they rejected him. Jesus said to them, “A prophet is respected everywhere except in his hometown and by his own family” (Gospel of Matthew 13:57)

 

(2.) Men around Jesus (peace be upon him) portraying him

 

Once Jesus (peace be upon him) had preached Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya, it would be interesting to note how general masses around Jesus (peace be upon him) understood it.

 

(i)  Prophet of God: People around Jesus (peace be upon him), based on his teachings, did not believe him to be part of any godhead since they considered him to be a prophet of God!

 

“When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was thrown into uproar. “Who is he?” the people asked. “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee,” the crowds answered.” (Gospel of Matthew 21:10-11)

 

Moreover, the Rabbis and Law doctors where not afraid to prosecute Jesus (peace be `upon him) because he was divine or “Son of God”; rather, they feared to put him to trial since general mass believed in the veracity of Jesus (peace be upon him), not as a person in Christian godhead, but as a prophet of God:

 

“The chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables and knew that he was talking about them, so they tried to arrest him. But they were afraid of the crowds, who considered Jesus to be a prophet.” (Gospel of Matthew 21:45)

 

There is more to the above quoted passage. There cannot be a scintilla of doubt that John (peace be upon him) was considered to be a mere messenger of God with no divine qualities attributed to him. Now, Jewish Rabbis and Law Priests had similar fear with regards to the prosecution of John (peace be upon him).

They feared prosecuting Jesus (peace be upon him) very similarly as they feared putting John (peace be upon him) to trial. Because the general laity believed John (peace be upon him) to be a prophet of God therefore a word against him would resurge protest against the temple custodians – Rabbis:

 

“Jesus came back to the Temple; and as he taught, the chief priests and the elders came to him and asked, “What right have you to do these things? Who gave you this right?” Jesus answered them, “I will ask you just one question, and if you give me an answer, I will tell you what right I have to do these things.  Where did John’s  right to baptize come from: was it from God or from man?” They started to argue among themselves, “What shall we say? If we answer, ‘From God,’ he will say to us, ‘Why,  then, did you not believe John?’ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of what the people might do, because they are all convinced that John was a prophet.” So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” (Gospel of Matthew 21:23-27)

 

The important comparison to be made is, if general Jew believed Jesus (peace be upon him) to be just as much a prophet as John (peace be upon him) then it is hard to reconcile and assume that they would have believed for Jesus (peace be upon him) anything more than what befits a prophet!

 

Problems with Trinitarian theology

 

Having realized that associating anybody or anything with God in his dominion, attributes and worship is the most abject sin one could ever commit, we would now ponder into the implications which the Trinitarian belief has with it.

Fundamentally, according to the doctrine of Trinity there are three distinct persons in the godhead yet they are all co-equal to each other. The eccentric that it sounds from a purely monotheistic point of view, we would still look into the subject from the Trinitarian qualification:

If the person of Father alone is capable enough to create, sustain and execute the affairs of this world. If He is alone capable and absolute enough to accept prayer requests in a divine way and respond to it, decide destinies and accept worship; then in the single person of Father we have an absolute God and thus to include anyone in Father’s dominion, even in “person” capacity, would still be associating partners with Him which would account to polytheism.

We have Father – biblically, a complete God – then according to concepts of monotheism, it is not required to include anybody else in godhead with Father under any veneer of the so called term “person”. Even more so, when the second person, namely, Jesus (peace be upon him) is abundantly portrayed as a prophet, servant, worshipper, dependent on the “person” of Father!

Contrariwise, it was hard to find a single verse in the whole Bible where the “person” of Father is portrayed as dependent on Jesus (peace be upon him), worshipping, pleading, praying to him etc.

If the divine conjoining of Jesus (peace be upon him) or the Holy ‘Ghost’ with the person of Father – a complete and absolute God in every respect – is not polytheism then what is it?

After all, why is it at all required to have any more divine “personS” when we have a God (Father) complete and absolute enough for all worldly and heavenly needs?! So much so that even Jesus (peace be upon him) worships Him with his face in the dust!

 

 

 

Conclusion and Inference

 

We learnt that the concept of Tawhid – Ar – Rububiya states that God is the only Creator, Sustainer of everything that exist. He is the sole Power and Disposer of all affairs. As such, all creation needs Him but He is not in need of anybody else. Consequently, all worship including prayer request, praise, thanks giving etc must be directed to Him alone.

Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Gospel of Matthew identifies the person of Father as the Lord God. He directs his disciples to pray to Him alone for any want. He exhorts his followers to do the will of the person of Father besides himself observing the same.

Moreover, Jesus (peace be upon him) is found to be teaching his followers to praise Father alone without any mention of anybody else in the praise!

In order to reinforce the faith in his disciples that there is no source of power besides the person of Father, Jesus (peace be upon him) pacifies them that when trialed, they do not have to do anything since Father would divinely intervene to enable them their polemics.

Furthermore, we saw how Jesus (peace be upon him) differentiated everybody else from Father – the real Lord God when he claimed (i) that it is not up for him to decide who would sit by his side when he would become king of Israel but the authority rests with the person of Father alone and (ii) none knows the time, including himself, when he would return back to the world except the person of Father!

In contrast to the Trinitarian belief, we had dual attestation from Jesus (peace be upon him) and Isaiah with regards to the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a mere humble servant of God.

Furthermore, Jesus (peace be upon him) had no qualm in portraying himself as a prophet of God. And, general mass of people around him also considered him to be nothing more than a prophet just as John (peace be upon him)!

Therefore, if according to concepts of monotheism if the person of Father alone is the Lord God then none besides him has to be worshipped. Inclusion of anybody (including Jesus (pbuh) and so called Holy ‘Ghost’) else in Father’s dominion would amount to polytheism.

 

Think about this…

 

If according to the Gospel(s) and the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him), the person of Father alone is the Creator, Sustainer, Provider, Disposer, Listener (of prayers), Master of destinies etc then here we have a complete God which alone can be worshipped under the light of MONO-theism.

Subsequently, we don’t find any need to convolute the simple monotheistic concepts by bringing in the philosophies of multiple “persons” in the godhead – there is just no need when we have a complete and an absolute God in the person of Father! Especially when Bible itself portrays Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet and a servant!

Moreover, there is a lurking possibility that worship of Jesus (peace be upon him) can be idolatry and an act of disbelief when a monotheistic religion – Islam – has already declared so!

 

Therefore, we invite Christians to the following:

 

Say: “O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.” If then they turn back, say ye: “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah’s Will). (Qur’an 5:064)

 

 

“‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.”‘It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.’” (Qur’an 5:050-051)

 

 

They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (Qur’an 6:072)

 

Notes:

  • All biblical text taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • All Qur’anic text taken from Yusuf Ali Translation, Yusuf Ali.pdf.
  • Emphasize in the quoted text, wherever not matching with the original, is ours.

 

Did earliest Christians believe (alleged) crucifixion to be indispensible?

Did earliest Christians believe (alleged) crucifixion to be indispensible?

An account of the earliest biblical Christians who did not believe crucifixion to be imperative!

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction, Background and Premise

 

Paul had made it indispensible for his followers that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion is the corner stone of Christianity. According to Paul’s doctrines, without Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice there is nothing else in Christianity:

 

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Co 15:1-4)

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. (1 Co 15:14)

 

The reason why Paul gave utmost importance to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) is because, according to Paul (not all Christians as we would soon observe), Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice was the only way for the remission of sins:

 

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22)

 

Remember that before Paul preached his branded theology, Old Testament Laws had already provided enough doctrines and teachings on remission of sins and salvation; no wonder Paul pre-empted Laws by stating that they are dead:

 

“But before the time for faith came, the Law kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might then be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.” (Galatians 3: 23-25)

 

Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once held us prisoners. No longer do we serve in the old way of a written law, but in the new way of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6)

Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version

 

In fact Paul went as far as to claim that with Laws remission of sins and salvation cannot be achieved:

 

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16)

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.  (Gal 3:11)

 

Furthermore, Paul even asserted that Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice would be wasted if righteousness/salvation/atonement is achieved by any other means other than alleged cross:

 

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)

 

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)

 

On the foregoing, Paul claimed that if Christ (peace be upon him) is not allegedly crucified and raised then the sins of believers would remain – it would not be blotted out:

 

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Co 15:17)

 

Thus, to sum up, Paul’s theology is:

  • Without alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) Christianity is vain.
  • The only mode of atonement is through the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him)
  • OT Laws were allegedly rendered defunct with the arrival of Messiah (peace be upon him)…
  • …it is because if observation of OT Laws provided salvation then Messiah’s (peace be upon him) precious and “perfect” sacrifice is worthless.
  • Thus, conclusively, it is only the perfect (alleged) sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) which brings salvation and remission of sins.

 

So far so good, however, notice that it is only Paul who is preaching; he was not the only “apostle” preaching about Christianity – there were other stalwarts as well, like James.

 In fact when we read James’ preaching (through his epistles) then he over and over again contravened Paul on key and very basic doctrines of Christianity.

James even contradicted Paul on the indispensability of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him)! Consider the following passage, for instance:

 

“Do not deceive yourselves by just listening to his word; instead, put in into practice. Whoever listens to the word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at himself and then goes away and at once forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks closely into PERFECT LAW THAT SETS PEOPLE FREE, who keeps on paying attention to it, but puts it into practicethat person will be blessed by God in what he does. (James 1: 22-25, Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version)

 

Now please ponder with neutral mind. If indeed Paul’s assertions would have been universal representation of Christian doctrines, in other words, if Paul’s doctrines would have been the only theology in Christianity, then, James would have echoed with Paul that: emancipation comes ONLY by the alleged “blood of Christ”, man can never be justified with the works of the Laws on the contrary, he would “fall from grace”, Christ’s (peace be upon him) “perfect” sacrifice has obviated the observance of the Laws, on the foregoing, if anyone follows the Laws even after Messiah’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion then the alleged “perfect” sacrifice would be wasted so on and so forth.

 

However, contrary to all of the above, James postulates that Christian believers have to follow the Laws of the Old Testament to “set themselves free”, in other words, to emancipate themselves from their sins! He exhorts his disciples to not merely read the Laws but put them into practice for remission of their sins.

 

However, the issues are:

 

(I) Did not James know that Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged “perfect” sacrifice has been offered which is more than enough, if not the only mode of remission of sins?

 

(II) Did not James know that with Christ (peace be upon him) the Laws which “sets people free” have come to an end?

 

(III) More importantly, did not James know that if Laws would “set people free” then Paul’s “lord and savior’s” precious sacrifice would be rendered “vain”? Refer Gal 2:21, 5:4.

 

 

It would be disrespectful to the knowledge of “apostle” James that he did not know all of the above. That being the case, the only logical inference to be made is: James either, did not consider Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion the only way of emancipation or perfect enough to “set people free”! It is because even after Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion, if James who is no less than Paul if not more than him, claims that Christians need to observe Laws which “set people free” – then it means beside Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice, Laws were also potent enough to emancipate people.

Acknowledging the obvious problems and contradiction with James’ doctrines, Christians Scholars have come out with weird and desperate, if not disrespectful and belittling, commentaries imputing that James did not had apostolic authority and that his preaching were not meant for Christians (!!??).

 

The Epistle of James is not addressed to the assembly, and does not take the ground of apostolic authority over the persons to whom it is sent. It is a practical exhortation which still recognises the twelve tribes and the connection of the christian Jews with them, as John addressed the Gentiles, although the Jewish people had their place before God. Thus the Spirit of God still acknowledges here the relationship with Israel, as in the other case the relationship with Gentiles, and the rights of God which are unchangeable, whatever may be the special privileges granted to the assembly or to Israel respectively. We know that historically the christian Jews remained Jews to the end of the New Testament history, and were even zealous for the law — to us a strange thing, but which God endured for a time. (John Darby’s Synopsis, James 1:1-27)

 

Observe very assiduously the important last sentence in the commentary. Notice that Darby makes two assertions:

 

(A)  Earliest Christians remained Jews, in other words, they remained loyal to OT Laws and subsequently doctrines promulgated by James.

 

(B)   To all those who follow Paul’s preached Christianity, James’ preaching            comes as a “strange thing”.   

 

 

Both the above observations have very strong implications:

First observation, namely (A), imply that majority, if not all, earliest Christians (including James and other “apostles”) believed that even after the so called “perfect”, precious, and Law-ending sacrifice (alleged) of Messiah (peace be upon him), Old Testament Laws were viable and potent enough as an alternative mode besides the alleged sacrifice to “set people free”. Thus, majority, if not all, earliest Christians did not believe that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice was the only way of emancipation and that without it there could not be any remission of sins.

Secondly, that is observation (B) implies and further corroborates that indeed James’ doctrines were not in line with popular Christian doctrines, if not contradictory to Paul’s doctrines, otherwise it would not have engendered a “strange” reaction in John Darby – a follower of Paul’s doctrines.

Rather than exclaiming on James’ doctrines, Christians need to reconsider each position (that of James and Paul) because who knows James and all of earliest Christians would have had a similar “strange” reaction had they seen Christians of Paul’s thoughts.

 

More biblical proofs that alleged cross was not indispensible

 

James was not merely preaching but his actions proved that he and the earliest Christians did not believed the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) to be imperative and the only mode of salvation.

James and his colleagues in the Church of Jerusalem continued to practice Old Testament Laws and rituals including SIN – OFFERING! In fact what is more ironical is that they made Paul the leader of the OT rituals – the very same person who was championing that OT Laws had been rendered dead with Jesus (peace be upon him), Christ’s (peace be upon him) “perfect” sacrifice (alleged) sacrifice has obviated any need of observance of OT Laws, so on and so forth:

 

“When we arrived in Jerusalem, the believers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to see James; and all the church elders were present. Paul greeted them and gave a complete report of everything that God had done among the Gentiles through his work.After hearing him, they all praised God. Then they said, Brother Paul, you can see how many thousands of Jews have become believers, and how devoted they all are to the Law.They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.They are sure to hear that you have arrived. What should be done, then?This is what we want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a vow. Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself life in accordance with the Law of Moses.But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent them a letter telling them we decided that they must not eat any food that has been offered to idols, or any blood, or any animal that has been strangled, and that they must keep themselves from sexual immorality. So Paul took the men and the next day performed the ceremony of purification with them. Then he went into the Temple and gave notice of how many days it would be until the end of the period of purification, when a sacrifice would be offered for each one of them. (Acts 21: 17-26. Today’s English Version)

 

The above ritual is core Old Testament system found in the Book of Numbers which symbolized forgiveness and remission of sins:

 

“When a Nazirite completes his vow, he shall perform the ritual. He shall go to the entrance of the Tent and present to the LORD three animals without any defects: a one-year-old male lamb for a burnt-offering, a one-year-old ewe lamb for a sin-offering, and a ram for a fellowship-offering.” (Numbers 6: 13-14, Today’s English Version)

 

Christians Scholars also agree that OT ritual as mentioned in Book of Numbers was used to purify and help remitting sins as they included SIN – OFFERINGS:

 

“And be at charges with themShare with them the expense of the offerings required when the vow is completed. Those offerings were a ram of a year old for a burnt-offering, a sheep of the same age for sin-offering, a ram for a thank-offering, a basket of unleavened cakes, and a libation of wine.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Acts 21:24)

 

Here are multiple problems with the above account of Book of Acts:

 

(I) If James and his colleagues in the Jerusalem Church indeed believed like Paul that Christ (peace be upon him) has allegedly paid the most precious remission for their sins then why did they offered “sin-offering”?

 

(II) On the foregoing, if James and others believed that Jesus (peace be upon him) brought the Laws to an end then why did they at all care for the rituals of Book of Numbers – an OT Law.

 

(III) Why did Paul contradict his own teachings by not merely partaking but leading and even paying for the OT Laws and its rituals

 

a) Did he forget that his “lord and savior’s” has brought to end what he was executing?

 

b) Did not he had any scruple that by the  mere “useless” and “outward rule” he would gain nothing but on the contrary, Christ’s (peace be upon him) precious (alleged) sacrifice would be rendered “vain”?

 

c) On what basis did “apostle” Paul partake in the “purification ceremony”? Was not Paul inspired enough to know that sins of believers were purged with the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him)?

 

d) In fact by partaking in the ceremony, Paul jeopardized his salvation since he previously claimed (c.f. 1 Co 15:17) that if Christ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice did not provide salvation then the faith is in vain and sins remain!

 

 

The very reason that James and the majority of earliest Christians still believed in the viability of OT laws and its rituals, especially, when it included SIN – OFFERING in it, sends more than a message that although they might have respected the alleged sacrifice but they did not considered it to be the only mode of salvation or perfect enough!

 

In fact there are numerous Jamesian verses which lends support to the notion that James and his colleagues did not believed faith in alleged crucifixion complete enough for salvation because James strongly exhorted (to the point of contravening Paul) his followers to complement faith with the works of the Laws (as contrary to Paul’s faith-only doctrine):

 

“My brother, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it? Can that faith save him? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.” (James 2: 14-17)

 

“But someone will say, “One person has faith, another has actions.” My answer is, “Show me how anyone can have faith without actions. I will show you my faith by my actions.Do :You believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe – and tremble with fear. You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith without actions is useless?” (James 2: 18-20)

 

Conclusion

 

On one hand we have Paul and his doctrines which enjoins Christian believers that after Christ (peace be upon him) OT Laws were rendered ineffective and the only mode of remission of sins and salvation is through the alleged cross of Christ (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, this notion was not entirely accepted by the earliest Christians as a whole including contemporary apostles.

Even after Christ’s alleged perfect and precious sacrifice, James emphatically preached that Christians need to observe the OT Laws because it “sets people free” – once again James was preaching this after Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion.

In fact, James wrote multiple passages just to defend the notion that mere faith in Christ and the alleged cross would not suffice, it has to be complemented with the works of the Laws!

James and earliest Christians, even after the alleged crucifixion of Christ (peace be upon him), not merely observed the first ten moral commandments but even observed the OT rituals punctiliously – the same rituals which Paul imputed to be “useless” and merely “outward rules”. What is even interesting is that, these rituals even included SIN-OFFERING in the form of sacrifice of animals which specifically meant to remit sins!

It does not end here, Paul who was hitherto championing inefficacy of OT Laws and their “uselessness” and plasticity (“outward rules”) was found not merely observing OT rituals but even leading and bearing the expenses of it! Thus, either contradicting himself and his “divinely inspired inspirations” or establishing that Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion is not imperative enough!   

Even after all of James’ otherwise preaching, if more popular Christianity wants to do away with Jamesian epistles then they need to justify why they trump James to Paul. Remember, James was the one who met Jesus (peace be upon him) in person – not Paul. Therefore, if James is not greater than Paul then he is, at least, no less either and in this scenario there need to be strong enough grounds to reject James to Paul.

 

Related Articles:

 

End Notes:

  • Emphasize wherever not matching with the original, is ours.
  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical text is taken from King James Version, e-Sword Version.

 

 

 

 

 

Addendum to “High Octane Faceoff in Jerusalem”

Addendum to “High Octane Faceoff in Jerusalem

Discovering more disputes between best Christians

 

Question Mark

 

Prelude

 

We saw earlier how James contravened Paul in key theological doctrines about Law, Deeds and Faith. Where James believed that mere faith without support of deeds and observance is dead, Paul believed that one can achieve Salvation merely and only by faith. They both had their own polemics on the exactly same doctrines opposing each other.

On the foregoing, we discovered more assertions from the writings attributed to James wherein he has yet again stressed on the strict observance of Laws even though he was amongst the first to become “Christian” and follow Jesus (peace be upon him).

More dispute between Apostles

 

According to Paul’s doctrine and standard Christian exposition thereof, the Old Testament Laws are used merely and only to let man the knowledge of sins in them. Once known, it is the (only) alleged blood of Jesus (peace be upon him) which purges them off their evils, not the works of the Laws:

The great advantage that he had found by the law. 1. It was discovering: I had not known sin but by the law, Rom 7:7. As that which is straight discovers that which is crooked, as the looking-glass shows us our natural face with all its spots and deformities, so there is no way of coming to that knowledge of sin which is necessary to repentance, and consequently to peace and pardon, but by comparing our hearts and lives with the law. Particularly he came to the knowledge of the sinfulness of lust by the law of the tenth commandment…” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Romans 7:7-14)

 

Every part of Divine revelation has its use, in bringing the sinner to Christ for salvation, and in directing and encouraging him to walk at liberty, by the Spirit of adoption, according to the holy commands of God. And mark the distinctness, it is not for his deeds, that any man is blessed, but in his deed. (Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, James 1:22-25)

 

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22)

 

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Eph 1:7)

On the foregoing, we have a well defined process working in Pauline theology for remission of sins and subsequent salvation:

(i) Know sins via Old Testament (OT) Laws.

(ii) Get them purged by the only way – the alleged blood of Jesus (peace be upon him)

 

Notice that Paul has restricted the usage of OT Laws merely to let men know sins. Moreover, Paul unabashedly asserts that the God-breathed-Laws were merely revealed to “increase wrongdoing”:

law was introduced in order to increase wrongdoing; but where sin increased, God’s grace increased much more.” (Romans 5:20)

Paul even believed that (A) without Laws there would be no sin and (B) he was pure enough not to be influenced by the evil desire of lust until God’s Tenth Law “stirred” it in him:

(A) “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14-15. King James Version, e-Sword)

 

(B)  “Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would NOT have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from the law, sin is a dead thing.

“I myself was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died.  And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death.” (Romans 7: 9-10)

However, contrary to Paul’s theology and extremely low opinion of God’s sacred Laws, James proposed an entirely different doctrine for the earliest Christians!

For James it was imperative for Christians to follow and execute the Laws not merely read it in the Old Testament Books. We read that in the Epistles of James:

“Do not deceive yourselves by just listening to his word; instead, put in into practice. Whoever listens to the word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at himself and then goes away and at once forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks closely into perfect law that sets people free, who keeps on paying attention to it, but puts it into practicethat person will be blessed by God in what he does. (James 1: 22-25)

In the first place notice that James does not:

(i) Consider OT Laws to be revealed to “increase wrongdoing”.

(ii) Uphold to the concept that where there is no Laws, there is no transgression.

(iii) Believe that God’s Sacred Laws “stir” sin in humans.

In fact contrary to Paul, James exhorts his disciples to (not merely read OT Laws but) practice them as well! Here is a very important observation to be made with regards to the differing modus operandi of the Laws as understood by Paul and James.

We have already seen that Paul understood OT Laws to merely serve the purpose of scanner which elicits sins in men. However, James believed that more than just an X-Ray machine, Laws if put into practice can even “set people free”.

In fact, James goes over board to rebuke all who merely uses OT Laws as “mirror” or X-Ray machine. For him, once OT Laws reveal sin in men, sinners need to execute what Laws require to “set themselves free”. The foregoing contradicts Paul’s approach to OT Laws in two ways:

(A) With regards to the functionality of OT Laws. As already stated, James saw more functions in Laws than to merely elicit sins of men in men. They should be used to emancipate men and attain salvation.

 

(B)  The ongoing Jamesian assertions also contradict traditional Pauline doctrines that people are emancipated ONLY through the alleged blood of Jesus (peace be upon him). As observed, James being the earliest Christian (apostle!) had no scruples to explicitly state that Christian believers can be set free off their sins by putting Laws into practice.

 

Notice James did not give importance to the alleged blood of Jesus (peace be upon him) for the remission of sins, which is most important in Paul’s Christianity, – over observance of Laws.

Remember Paul claimed that there can be NO remission of sins but through the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him) (c.f. Heb 9:22), however, according to James, people can remit their sins so much so that they can be “set free” by merely observing the Laws.

Simulated Polemics between best and earliest Christians

 

In order to wind up the dispute that was there between James and Paul, if we were to simulate their polemics against each other then we might have the following:

Paul: “Christ has brought the Law to an END” (Romans 10:4)

James: But Jesus taught, “Think NOT that I am come to destroy  the law…”In fact, he also taught that anybody who teaches to “end” the Law would not enter heaven:  “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”(Mat 5:17-19)

Paul: Laws and its rituals are “useless” and merely “outward rules” (Hebrews 9: 12-14, 9-10)

James: What, Laws are “useless”??? But why did Psalmist used to “pant with open mouth and tears in eyes” to follow the “useless” rituals of Laws. (Psalms 119:129-136) (By the way, with whose authority did Paul impute OT rituals to be “useless”?)

Paul: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)

James: My brother, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it? Can that faith save him? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good isw there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – If you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: If it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.(James 2: 14-17)

“But someone will say, “One person has faith, another has actions.” My answer is, “Show me how anyone can have faith without actions. I will show you my faith by my actions. (James 2:18)

“My brothers, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith is his actions do not prove it?” (James 2:14)

Paul: “But now God’s way of putting people right with himself has been revealed. It has nothing to do with law, even though the Law of Moses and the prophets gave their witness to it.” (Romans 3: 21)

“Indeed, we are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners,” as they are called. Yet we know that a person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the law requires.” (Galatians 2:15-16)

 

James: “Do not deceive yourselves by just listening to his word; instead, put it into practice. Whoever listens to the word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at himself and then goes away and at once forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks closely into perfect law that sets people free, who keeps on paying attention to it, but puts it into practice – that person will be blessed by God in what he does. (James 1: 22-25)

(It seems that James’ God was unnecessarily “blessing” observers of Laws since according to Pauline assertions nobody is put right with God by observing the Laws!)

According to Prophet Ezekiel, contrary to Paul, God was putting right all of them who were observing the Laws:

“I may warn an evil man that he is going to die, but if he stops sinning and does what is right and good – for example, if he returns the security he took for a loan or gives back what he stole – if he stops sinning and follows the laws that give life, he will not die, but live.” (Ezekiel 33:14-15)

Prophet Nehemiah taught Laws is a complete way of life:

“But your (God’s) people rebelled and disobeyed you; they turned their backs on your Law…In your great mercy you sent them leaders who rescued them from their foes. When peace returned, they sinned again, and again you let their enemies conquer them. Yet when they repented and asked to save them, in heaven you heard, and time after time you rescued them in your great mercy. You warned them to obey your teachings, but in pride they rejected your laws, although keeping your Law is the way of life. Obstinate and stubborn, they refused to obey.” (Nehemiah 9:26-29)

Paul: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:11)

James: ”Do: You believe that there is only one God? Good! The DEMONS also believe [have faith]– and tremble with fear. You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith without actions is useless? (James 2: 19-20)

Paul: “What shall we say, then, of Abraham, the father of our race? If he was put right with God by the things he did, he would have something to boast aboutbut not in God’s sight. The scripture says, “Abraham believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.” A person who works is paid his wages, but they are not regarded as a gift; they are something that he has earned. But the person who depends on his faith, not on his deeds, and who believes in God who declares the guilty to be innocent, it is his faith that God takes in to account in order to put him right with himself. (Romans 4: 1-5)

“For we have quoted the scripture, “Abraham believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.When did this take place? Was it before or after Abraham was circumcised? It was before, not after. He was circumcised later, and his circumcision was a sign to show that because of his faith God had accepted him as righteous before he had been circumcised. (Romans 4: 9-11)

 

James: How was our ancestor Abraham put right with God? It was through his actions, when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. Can’t you see? His faith and his actions worked together; his faith was made perfect through his actions. And the scripture came true that said, “Abraham believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.” And so Abraham was called God’s friend. You see, then, that it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, not by his faith alone.” (James 2: 21-24)

“It was the same with the prostitute Rahab. She was put right with God through her actions, by welcoming the Israelite spies and helping them to escape by a different road. So then, as a body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without actions is dead.” (James 2:25-26)

 

Conclusion

 

Apart from the fact earliest Christians, not Muslims, have objected to the doctrines coined by Paul; James did all he could to thwart Paul’s preaching, however, very evidently James went silent with only a few of his epistles making to the Bible as compared to the deluge of Pauline epistles!

 What is more interesting is, even after the scarce number of Jamesian epistles, it can be verified that James and Paul – two of the earliest Christian apostles disagreed on the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, including, the functions and capacities of alleged blood of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Furthermore, it is not hard to realize that even after fewer number of James’ epistle in the Bible, he had more purpose, validity and scripturally supported reasons for his doctrines, as contrary to Paul’s theology which inundates the Bible! 

Thus, we request sincere Christians to reconsider, not Mohammad (peace be upon him), but at least James (and other biblical figures like Psalmist, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, John (peace be upon him), etc).

End Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • Emphasize wherever not matching with original, is ours.

The Super Pious “Apostle”

The Super Pious “Apostle”

Paul’s idiosyncratic excuse for his degeneration and incrimination of God’s Laws

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

 

While promulgating his doctrines, Paul has put forth so called divinely inspired “verses” wherein he has provided bizarre, if not profaning, excuses for his decadency into sins. In the mean time, he even had good enough reasons to hold God and His divine Laws responsible for his retrogression. In fact, we would be highly interested to observe how Paul considered himself to be innocent and pure to know sins!

Thus, in this paper we would bring forth strange Pauline assertions and establish that Paul’s divinely inspired “verses” are merely his personal opinions, emotions and experiences with Laws because, as contrary to Paul, Laws were quite providential.

Actually, this paper is actually a part of another paper which would be out soon. However, we felt that the subject topic needs separate attention therefore we planned to press it separately.

 

Paul holds God’s Sacred Laws Responsible for Sins

 

In his ongoing attempts to depreciate Old Testament (OT) Laws, Paul claims that the very purpose God revealed His sacred Laws were to increase “wrongdoing”:

 

law was introduced in order to increase wrongdoing; but where sin increased, God’s grace increased much more.” (Romans 5:20)

 

From the foregoing it is evident that let alone believing that God’s sacred Laws were revealed for good, Paul held that Laws were revealed by God to increase satanic activities, that is, “wrongdoing”!

In fact contravening whole of Old Testament, Paul claims that God never revealed a Law righteous enough to provide salvation:

 

“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a LAW given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the LAW. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Gal 3:21-22, King James Version, e-Sword)

 

This was not the end as Paul eventually claimed that once he was away from the sins, however, with the knowledge of Laws (as Christians explain) lust was “stirred” in him and consequently, he morally died:

 

“Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from the law, sin is a dead thing.

“I myself was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died.  And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death.” (Romans 7: 9-10)

 

Paul categorically holds God’s sacred Laws responsible for his moral decadency! In fact he has gone so far as to claim that he would not have known lust, in other words, lust would not have influenced him if God would not have revealed His Law against it. The extremely modest, pious and upright “apostle” considered himself to be lust-free until Laws were revealed!

Grotesque and absurd, if not, profaning and desecrating, Christian Scholars have come out with a standard and strange explanation for Paul’s maledictions and low opinion about the Laws. Consider the thoughts of respected Bible commentator, Matthew Henry:

 

The great advantage that he had found by the law. 1. It was discovering: I had not known sin but by the law, Rom 7:7. As that which is straight discovers that which is crooked, as the looking-glass shows us our natural face with all its spots and deformities, so there is no way of coming to that knowledge of sin which is necessary to repentance, and consequently to peace and pardon, but by comparing our hearts and lives with the law. Particularly he came to the knowledge of the sinfulness of lust by the law of the tenth commandment. By lust he means sin dwelling in us, sin in its first motions and workings, the corrupt principle. This he came to know when the law said, Thou shalt not covet. The law spoke in other language than the scribes and Pharisees made it to speak in; it spoke in the spiritual sense and meaning of it. BY THIS he knew that lust was sin and a very sinful sin, that those motions and desires of the heart towards sin which never came into act were sinful, exceedingly sinful. Paul had a very quick and piercing judgment, all the advantages and improvements of education, and yet never attained the right knowledge of indwelling sin till the Spirit by the law made it known to him. There is nothing about which the natural man is more blind than about original corruption, concerning which the understanding is altogether in the dark till the Spirit by the law reveal it, and make it known. Thus the law is a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, opens and searches the wound, and so prepares it for healing. Thus sin by the commandment does appear sin (Rom 7:13); it appears in its own colours, appears to be what it is, and you cannot call it by a worse name than its own. Thus by the commandment it becomes exceedingly sinful; that is, it appears to be so. We never see the desperate venom or malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law, and the spiritual nature of the law, and then we see it to be an evil and a bitter thing. 2. It was humbling (Rom 7:9): I was alive. He thought himself in a very good condition; he was alive in his own opinion and apprehension, very secure and confident of the goodness of his state. Thus he was once, potein times past, when he was a Pharisee; for it was the common temper of that generation of men that they had a very good conceit of themselves; and Paul was then like the rest of them, and the reason was he was then without the law. Though brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, though himself a great student in the law, a strict observer of it, and a zealous stickler for it, yet without the law. He had the letter of the law, but he had not the spiritual meaning of it – the shell, but not the kernel. He had the law in his hand and in his head, but he had it not in his heart; the notion of it, but not the power of it…” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Romans 7:7-14)

 

Without wasting any time, let us now seek the problems with Pauline verses and the standard Christian exposition thereof.

Notice how based on Paul’s teachings, Matthew Henry claims that Paul knew about his “spots and deformities” when he saw his face in the “looking-glass” of Laws. That is, Paul only knew about his sins when he knew Laws. In fact, commentators emphatically claim that there is no other way to know sins except by OT Laws. On the foregoing, Matthew Henry asserted that Paul knew about the sinfulness of lust by the tenth commandment. In other words (and as commentators explicitly claim) – Paul knew that lust is a sin only after reading, “Thou shalt not covet”. (May be before that, Paul had other opinions about lust!)

Here are some of the glaring problem with the verse and its standard exegesis:

 

(I) It is absurd to say the least, to claim that sin can be realized as evil only when one knows Laws and looks through it. As Bible claims that humans are created in the image of God so it would not be difficult to recognize sin as evil in one’s natural and innate being.

Furthermore, there are atheist communities who have no so called Law-glasses yet they have their moral standards and they easily recognize lust (and other sins) as evil. Thus, to claim that there is no other way to know sin as evil but by Law is not at all a reconciliation of Paul’s negative imputations of the Laws.

 

(II) Notice how blindly Matthew Henry – one of the most prestigious Trinitarian Commentator, supports Paul’s claim that he never knew that lust is a sin until Law informed it to him, in fact, “stirred” it in him:

 

“Particularly he came to the knowledge of the sinfulness of lust by the law of the tenth commandment… This he came to know WHEN the law said, Thou shalt not covet.

 

 The problem is, emotions and feelings like hunger, lust, envy etc are inbuilt and men do not neither need any so called Laws to make them know that lust, envy etc are sins nor to incite them in – therefore, to claim that Paul knew not that lust is sinful until Law elicited it in him or was never incited in lust, is to either consider (i) Paul was as innocent as a new babe or (ii) Paul was angelic in his demeanor or (iii) Paul was outright lying when he claimed he knew not that lust is a sin until he read: “Thou shalt not covet.”

 

Think about it – Prophet Lot (peace be upon him) knew that lust is sinful and that his community has perverted into it yet no so called “Law” stating “Thy community shalt not covet” was revealed to him to let him know that lust is a sin. Therefore to claim that men can know sinfulness of certain acts only through Laws or they can be “stirred” by lust etc only by the knowledge of Laws – is false and a misrepresentation of the purpose of Laws – as we would soon prove.

 

Finally, who informs the agnostic and the atheists: “thou shalt not covet”, no one; yet we do find moral ethos in them in which they consider lust as sinful!

 

(III) On the foregoing, Paul even goes as far to claim that if there would have been no Laws, there would have been no sins:

 

“For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14-15. King James Version, e-Sword)

 

Notice that firstly Paul claimed that he would have not known lust if Laws would not have taught: “thou shalt not covet”, and now he claims that where there is no Law there is no sin. This is perfectly in harmony with his argument that he would have not sinned if Laws would have not “stirred” him up; after all, there is no question of crossing boundaries if there are none! – Wow! (divinely revealed arguments!).

Hardly, did Paul realized, that humanity would have gone berserk into rampant sinning had God not provided restraints on their immorality. In fact, humanity started to delve into degeneration and to save them God had to reveal His Laws, not to “increase wrongdoing” as Paul unabashedly claims.

Paul’s fallacy is he assumes before Laws on lust were revealed there was no lust and without the particular tenth commandment, world would have been lust free – as he was, however, we know both are false as Lot’s (peace be upon him) community did know what lust is – in fact they were degenerated into it!

Furthermore, there is serious negative implication in Paul’s “verse”. Let us assume that God never gave His Tenth Commandment, namely, “thou shalt not covet” so “there is no Law”, however, how can Paul’s next statement be verified that “there will be no transgression”. We know people were into lust even before the tenth commandment was revealed!

Or, Paul does not want to consider Lust as sin (as we would soon observe) and therefore, expects God to get rid of His command against it!

 

(IV) In the light of the foregoing thoughts, we find Matthew Henry go overboard to claim that Paul never ever knew that lust is sinful and that he was never ever influenced by lust until the Tenth Commandment of God “stirred” him up:

 

BY THIS [i.e., the Laws] he knew that lust was sin and a very sinful sin, that those motions and desires of the heart towards sin which never came into act were sinful, exceedingly sinful.”

 

 After reading the above assertions from one of the greatest duo of Christian Commentators we think that if Paul was human then he was super pious and/or angelic!

 

(V) When noted Christian Commentators make comments like, “We NEVER see the desperate venom or malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law, and the spiritual nature of the law, and then we see it to be an evil and a bitter thing.” They conveniently assume that Lot (peace be upon him) and people righteous with him never “saw the desperate venom and malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law…bitter thing.”

 

Purpose of the Old Testament Laws

 

With regards to the purpose of the OT Laws, celebrated Christian Commentators echo with Paul that it was revealed:

 

(i) To merely act as spiritual mirrors; to show men their hidden sins:

 

This is one of the key passages which reveal the concept of the Mosaic Law functioning as a mirror to reveal personal sin (cf. 3:20; 4:65; 5:20; Gal.3:14-29, especially v. 24). (Bob Utley, The Gospel According to Paul: Romans; Study Guide Commentary Series; New Testament, Vol.5)

But when the commandment came, came in the power of it (not to his eyes only, but to his heart), sin revived, as the dust in a room rises (that is, appears) when the sun-shine is let into it. Paul THEN saw that in sin WHICH HE HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE; he then saw sin in its causes, the bitter root, the corrupt bias, the bent to backslide, – sin in its colours, deforming, defiling, breaking a righteous law, affronting an awful Majesty, profaning a sovereign crown by casting it to the ground, – sin in its consequences, sin with death at the heels of it, sin and the curse entailed upon it. “Thus sin revived, and then I died; I lost that good opinion which I had had of myself, and came to be of another mind. Sin revived, and I died; that is, the Spirit, but the commandment, convinced me that I was in a state of sin, and in a state of death because of sin.” Of this excellent use is the law; it is a lamp and a light; (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Romans 7:7-14)

 

Although Christian scholars make such comments however, traditionally and scripturally the benefits and usages of OT Laws are not just restricted to act as “mirror”.

For brevity of this paper we would quote just a few verses from Old Testament (OT) wherein Laws were considered much more than mere “mirrors” and X-Rays instruments!

 

(A) Observing Laws provide salvation:

 

“And so I led them out of Egypt into the desert. I gave them my commands and taught them my laws, which brings life to anyone who obeys them.” (Ezekiel 20:11)

 

“I may warn an evil man that he is going to die, but if he stops sinning and does what is right and good – for example, if he returns the security he took for a loan or gives back what he stole – if he stops sinning and follows the laws that give life, he will not die, but live.” (Ezekiel 33:14-15)

 

(B)  Let alone restricting OT Laws to function merely as “mirrors” and X-Rays machines, biblical prophet Nehemiah states that Laws are full fledged way of life:

 

“But your (God’s) people rebelled and disobeyed you; they turned their backs on your Law…In your great mercy you sent them leaders who rescued them from their foes. When peace returned, they sinned again, and again you let their enemies conquer them. Yet when they repented and asked to save them, in heaven you heard, and time after time you rescued them in your great mercy. You warned them to obey your teachings, but in pride they rejected your laws, although keeping your Law is the way of life. Obstinate and stubborn, they refused to obey.” (Nehemiah 9:26-29)

 

(C) Contrary to Paul’s claim that Laws were revealed to increase wrongdoing, Psalmist states that a person who follows the Laws can never do wrong:

 

Happy are those whose lives are faultless, who live according to the laws of the LORD. Happy are those who follow his commands, who obey him with all their heart. They never do wrong; they walk in the LORD’S ways. LORD, you have given us your laws and told us to obey them faithfully. How I hope that I shall be faithful in keeping your instructions! If I pay attention to all your command then I will not be put to shame. As I learn your righteous judgments, I will praise you with a pure heart. I will obey your laws; never abandon me!” (Psalms 119:1-8)

 

(D) Not merely Old Testament but even Paul’s contemporary James also echoes similar tones with Old Testament Prophets. From the following passage it would be established that James never held that Old Testament Laws were revealed to “increase wrongdoing”:

 

“Do not deceive yourselves by just listening to his word; instead, put in into practice. Whoever listens to the word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at himself and then goes away and at once forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks closely into perfect law that sets people free, who keeps on paying attention to it, but puts it into practicethat person will be blessed by God in what he does. (James 1: 22-25)

 

Observe carefully that James is using the same analogy of “mirror” that Matthew Henry used. However, James uses it with a difference. Where Matthew Henry inspired in Pauline verses, uses “mirror” analogy to state that Laws merely serve the purpose to let sin be known; on the contrary, James explains that Laws are to be used to know evils inside men, nevertheless, its work does not end there for after knowing evil inside, men are to observe the same Laws to get rid of their sins.

Another interesting observation is: the Laws never “stirred” lust in James (and the Psalmist 119:9-16) in fact James (and Psalmist) are seen advocating for the Laws to keep themselves pure and upright. This alludes that Paul’s incitement was his personal experience with the Laws and it should not be generalized and passed on as divinely inspired “verses” to all Christians, let alone be made a corner stone of Christianity.

 

(ii) They serve to “stir” or nourish lustful sins in men:

 

Consider the following standard Christian usage of Sacred OT Laws:

 

One illustration of what Paul had in mind here is the story of the temptation and Fall in Genesis 3. Whenever someone establishes a law prohibiting something, the natural tendency of people is to resist it. If you tell a small child, “Don’t do such-and-such,” you may create a desire within him or her to do it, a desire that was not there before. “Suppose a man determined to drive his automobile to the very limit of its speed. If . . . signs along the road would say, No Speed Limit, the man’s only thought would be to press his machine forward. But now suddenly he encounters a road with frequent signs limiting speed to thirty miles an hour. The man’s will rebels, and his rebellion is aroused still further by threats: Speed Limit Strictly Enforced. Now the man drives on fiercely, conscious both of his desire to ‘speed,’ and his rebellion against restraint. The speed limit signs did not create the wild desire to rush forward: that was there before. But the notices brought the man into conscious conflict with authority.” (Notes on Romans 2012 Edition, Dr. Thomas L. Constable)

 

Another Bible scholar concurs with Paul that Laws merely stir sin and rebellion:

 

Not came to life, but lived again. See Luk 15:24, Luk 15:32. The power of sin is originally and in its nature living; but before the coming of the commandment its life is not expressed. When the commandment comes, it becomes alive again. It lies dormant, like the beast at the door (Gen 4:7), until the law stirs it up. (Vincent’s Word Studies, Romans 7:9)

 

Widely read Matthew Henry also presses the same purpose of Laws i.e. Laws merely function to “stir” sins:

 

The corrupt nature would not have swelled and raged so much if it had not been for the restraints of the law; as the peccant humours in the body are raised, and more inflamed, by a purge that is not strong enough to carry them off. It is incident to corrupt nature, in vetitum niti – to lean towards what is forbidden. Ever since Adam ate forbidden fruit, we have all been fond of forbidden paths; the diseased appetite is carried out most strongly towards that which is hurtful and prohibited. Without the law sin was dead, as a snake in winter, which the sunbeams of the law quicken and irritate. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Romans 7:7-14)

 

However, the aforementioned comments inspired by Pauline verse, is not consistent with traditional knowledge, usage and providences of Old Testament Laws. Consider one such passage from Psalms:

 

How can a young man keep his life pure? By obeying your commands. With all my heart I try to serve you; keep me from disobeying your commandments. I keep your law in my heart, so that I will not sin against youI will repeat aloud all the Laws you have given. I delight in following your commands more than in having great wealth. I study your instructions; I examine your teachings. I take pleasure in your Laws; your commands I will not forget.” (Psalms 119:9-16)

 

Notice the stark and ironical differences. Both Paul and Psalmist are talking about the same sin – the sin of Lust. However, where Paul claims that (i) he knew not that lust is a sin (ii) In fact Paul held that it was because of God’s Laws that he knew lust otherwise he would not have known it. (iii)and that when he knew God’s Sacred Laws, lust was “stirred” in him so much so that he degenerated in it.

On the other hand Psalmist does not make any bombastic claims that (i) he never knew lust is a sin (ii) he never overbearingly claimed that he would have not known lust in himself unless God told him “thou shalt not covet” (iii) In fact, he honestly accepts that abiding by God’s Law(s) is the only way to keep oneself “pure” from lust. Unlike Paul, he does not impute God’s Law responsible for either “stirring” lust in him or that “Laws were revealed to increase wrongdoings” such as lust etc. 

Thus, the same Law, namely, the Tenth Commandment given to Moses (peace be upon him) – is having two different effects on two different persons. One hold Law responsible for stimulating libidinous desires in him while other states that one can live a pure life only by following the Law(s) strictly; indeed and ironically, Matthew Henry’s comments fits snugly to this situation:

 

Many a precious soul splits upon the rock of salvation; and the same word which to some is an occasion of life unto life is to others an occasion of death unto death. The same sun that makes the garden of flowers more fragrant makes the dunghill more noisome; the same heat that softens wax hardens clay; and the same child was set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel. The way to prevent this mischief is to bow our souls to the commanding authority of the word and LAW of God, not striving against, but submitting to it. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Romans 7:7-14)

 

Observe that in the concluding remarks Matthew Henry makes a very important comment. They are exhorting Christians to follow “the commanding authority of the word and law of God, not striving against, but submitting to it.” Thus, Christians should immediately desist from idiosyncratic assumptions that “Laws were revealed to increase wrongdoing” or they incite sins. In fact, it was Paul’s personal experience with God’s Sacred Laws, as he says:

 

I myself was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died.  And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death”. (Romans 7:9-10)

 

Thus, the same sun that was to make the garden of flowers more fragrant made the dunghill more noisome in Paul’s personal case; the same heat that was to soften wax hardened the clay in Paul’s personal case.

 

Thus, rather than making Paul’s personal problematic experience with the Laws a corner stone of Christianity, Christians should follow Psalmist (or at least James) who was able to keep his life “pure” from lusts but by observing the Laws with all his heart.

 

Common Christian Reply

 

It is not hard to discern from Paul’s “verses” i.e., Romans 7:7-9 that he considered himself to be innocent and pure until God’s sacred Laws disturbed him so much so he was degenerated into lust etc.

Paul has unequivocally claimed that he would not have known lust if God’s law would not have “stirred” it in him. Acknowledging the hyperbolic nature of the statement, Christian Scholars came out with a standard explanation that although Paul was dead in the trespasses and sin but until the mysterious realization of Laws in his conscience, he never knew that he was dead; in other words, he was under the delusion that he was “alive”:

 

“…the apostle is speaking of himself, and that not as in his state of infancy before he could discern between good and evil, but when grown up, and whilst a Pharisee; who, though he was born under the law, was brought up and more perfectly instructed in it than the common people were, and was a strict observer of it, yet was without the knowledge of the spirituality of it; he, as the rest of the Pharisees, thought it only regarded the outward actions, and did not reach to the spirits or souls of men, the inward thoughts and affections of the mind; the law was as it were at a distance from him, it had not as yet entered into his heart and conscience; and whilst this was his case he was “alive”, he did not know that he “was dead in trespasses and sins”, Eph 2:1, a truth he afterwards was acquainted with; nor that he was so much as disordered by sin; he thought himself healthful, sound, and whole, when he was diseased and full of wounds, bruises, and sores, from head to foot; he lived in the utmost peace and tranquillity, without the least ruffle and uneasiness, free from any terror or despondency, and in perfect security, being in sure and certain hope of eternal life; and concluded if ever any man went to heaven he certainly should, since, as he imagined, he lived a holy and righteous life, free of all blame, and even to perfection;” (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Romans 7:9)

 

Here are the problems with such an extreme reconciliation:

 

Firstly, it is too far-fetched and a wild assumption to hold that Paul did not know, until the realization of the Laws that “…he was diseased and full of wounds, bruises, and sores, from head to foot;” – Here is a religious Jew who knows that he has been made in the so called image of God and yet even in his innate self he was not able to discern his OWN moral decadency! Even atheists know and perceive well their moral degeneration, if any!

How is it fair to assume that Paul did not know his moral decadency until Laws had to open his eyes to them – after all, how difficult is it to discern the  “wounds, bruises and sore” of lust, murder and envy in one’s own self. It was even more-simple for a religious Jew like Paul! However in Christian paradigm, surprisingly, it is impossible to know that one is decaying in sin until God has to specially reveal His Laws to serve as scanner machines only to find out hidden tumors:

 

We NEVER see the desperate venom or malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law, and the spiritual nature of the law, and then we see it to be an evil and a bitter thing. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Romans 7:7-14)

 

Secondly, notice that Paul is not claiming that he did not knew that he was dead in trespasses etc; it is a desperate Christian stretch to reconcile. In fact by the construction of the Pauline “verse” it seems like he in fact never knew lust (and other evils) as evil until Laws broached and “stirred” them in him. Let us first have the “verse” then we would closely look into its construction:

 

“Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! BUT it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from the law, sin is a dead thing.” (Romans 7:7-8, Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version)

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? By no means. On the contrary, I would not have known sin, but by the law: for I would not have known about coveting unless the law had said, You shall not covet.But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For without the law sin is dead (Romans 7:7-8, Revised King James New Testament)

What will we say then? The law is sin? May it not happen! YET I did not know sin except through law. For likewise I would not have known lust, if the law did not say, Thou shall not covet. 8 But sin, having taken opportunity through the commandment, wrought in me every evil desire, for apart from law sin is dead. (Romans 7:7-8, A Conservative Version)

 

 Pay assiduous attention to key words/phrases like “…but…”, “…on the contrary…”, “…yet…” These words/phrases specifically serve to change the charge of the part of statements present before and after it. For example, if we say John is a good boy but/yet… it means that whatever is going to follow about John is certainly not good. With the foregoing, let us turn to Paul’s “verse”. Initially, he claimed that Laws are not sinful – so far so good, however, he continued on to say that Laws are not sinful but/yet implying, that whatever is going to follow about the Laws, is not-so-good! Then Paul imputed God’s Sacred Laws (!?) that it was Laws which taught him lust for the first time – first time, because he claimed he would have not known lust; implying he was good and innocent enough not to know them but it was the not-so-good nature of the Laws which made them known to his upright self.

What is further interesting is three Pauline assertions: (i) Without God’s commandments sin is dead (ii) Sin used God’s commandments to bring about sinful desires in him (iii) once he was away from God’s commandment and alive. Thus, based on these assertions, we will have to conclude that Paul actually believed himself to be sin-free and it was God’s Sacred Laws which undid Paul and his uprightness.

Thus, it is just too weak to try to reconcile that Paul was actually dead in sins while he was under delusion that he was upright. Paul never considered himself to be dead in sins.

 

Recapitulation

 

There were two major aspects of this paper. Firstly, we gave just a hint (not detailed) of Paul’s low opinion of the Old Testament Sacred Laws. We saw how Paul assumed that God never gave a Law good enough to give eternal life, God’s Law were revealed to “increase wrongdoing” so on and so forth. However, contrary to these Pauline assertions, we found Old Testament prophets testifying that Laws not only can keep men “pure” and sin-free but they can also provide eternal life because according to OT prophets, OT Laws were no less than a “way of life”. In fact Paul’s contemporary James once again contravened Paul to advocate obedience and practice of Laws!

Secondly, and more importantly, as the main theme of this paper, we saw that either Paul would have been pure and without the influences of sin (lust) (or Paul, in his innocent self, would have never known that lust is a sin!) if God would not have revealed His Laws against lust (and other sins)! No wonder Paul claimed that, “…apart from the law, sin is a dead thing.”(Romans 7:7-8) and “…where no law is, there is no transgression”.

What was even more ironical, if not incredible, that even eminent Christian Scholars like Matthew Henry (and others) have believed that Paul would have been lust-free and innocent if God would not have revealed His Tenth Commandment against lust and concupiscence! They (Matthew Henry) unwarrantedly wrote:

  • Particularly he came to the knowledge of the sinfulness of lust by the law of the tenth commandment
  • THIS [lust is evil] he came to know when the law said, Thou shalt not covet.
  • BY THIS [Laws] he knew that lust was sin and a very sinful sin, that those motions and desires of the heart towards sin which never came into act were sinful, exceedingly sinful.
  • By this [Laws] he knew that lust was sin and a very sinful sin, that those motions and desires of the heart towards sin which never came into act were sinful, exceedingly sinful.
  • Thus sin by the commandment does appear sin (Rom 7:13); [otherwise…???]

All of the above standard Christian exegesis proves that Paul never knew that lust is sinful – it is incredible to even assume it.

Christian Scholars even claimed that Paul would have NEVER known the “desperate venom or malignity” of lust until he compared it with Laws thus, wildly alluding, that Paul would never have known the wretchedness of lust as evil if God had not revealed Law(s) as gauge-meters:

  • We NEVER see the desperate venom or malignity there is in sin, till we come to compare it with the law, and the spiritual nature of the law, and then we see it to be an evil and a bitter thing.

 

On the foregoing there are two very important implications which would come objectionable to any critical student of Bible:

 

(I) Paul elevated himself to such a pious and morally pure podium from where he even sneered at God’s Sacred Laws. Because of his innocent and pure station he had no scruples in incriminating God’s very own Laws responsible for misdeeds in him.

(II) What is even more distraught – Christian Scholars have accepted Paul’s claims of innocence and purity at the cost of God’s Sacred Laws! They have incredibly accepted that he would certainly have not known lust and that concupiscence is sinful prior to Laws. 

 

Amidst sorry state of affairs, we request sincere truth seekers to give a thought to the following Qur’anic truth:

 

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him). (Qur’an 9:31, Yusuf Ali’s Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version)

 

It is not that (all) Christians worship their saints with God – Almighty however, by weighing the words of their elders above God’s, they belittle God Himself. 

If Qur’an is not good enough for Christians then they should at least ponder that Psalmist had no lustful incitements in him via tenth commandment of God; on the contrary, he was using the same to get rid of concupiscence! He was panting with open mouth and crying to follow the Laws of Old Testament (c.f. Psalms 119:129-136).

Furthermore, James had no negative experience with Laws as did Paul. Contrariwise, James was advocating that Christians have to obey and execute Laws of the Old Testament.

The truth of the matter is, in order to raise himself above sins, in order to portray himself as pure and innocent, Paul had to disparage Laws in a way of contrast or else Paul was incredibly a super pious “apostle”!

Related Topics:

 

End Notes:

  • Emphasize wherever not matching with the original, is ours.
  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.

How Paul’s personal problem became Corner Stone of Christianity!

How Paul’s personal problem became Corner Stone of Christianity!

“when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died.  And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death.”  – Paul

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

 

God revealed Laws of the Old Testament (OT) so that its followers could live a successful life in every respect! Over centuries, OT prophets and their followers held high esteem about the benefits of the Laws.

However, later, after the ascension of Jesus (peace be upon him), Paul promulgated entirely different concepts about Law. It now had little or no positive providence but a lot of negative implications.

Nevertheless, Paul by purporting so breached a lot of divinely revealed verses of the OT. The sad part does not end here – the violations (of OT Laws and verses) became corner stone of Christianity!

Thus, it is our intent to bring to light the breaches and request sincere Christians to reconsider whom and what they are following.

Pauline Theology: Laws engender Sins

 

If one visits the various “epistles” which Paul has written, he will observe that Paul had little or no consideration for the benefits of the Laws:

“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Gal 3:21-22, King James Version, e-Sword)

 

In fact Paul unabashedly claims that sins are nourished because of the God-breathed-Laws so much so that without Laws sins are a dead thing (!):

“Death gets its power to hurt from sin, and sin gets its power from the Law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” (1 Corinthians 15: 56-57)

“For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14-15. King James Version, e-Sword)

If the Law not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from law, sin is a dead thing.” (Romans 7:7-8) 

Furthermore, Paul goes out of the way to ironically and absurdly claim that the only reason why God revealed Laws so that “sins would increase” (!):

Law was introduced in order to increase wrongdoing; but where sin increased, God’s grace increased much more.” (Romans 5:20)

 

It is not hard to realize that Paul considered divine Laws to be the very cause of sins amongst humanity. In fact he attributes the functions of Satan upon God’s Laws by (i) claiming that sinful desires are incited by God’s divine Laws (ii) Humans are exposed to the knowledge and temptations of sins but because of Laws (otherwise humans would never have known sins). Consider the following Pauline verses:

 “For when we lived according to our human nature, the sinful desires stirred up by the Law were at work in our bodies, and all we did ended in death.” (Romans 7:5)

“Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire.” (Romans 7:7)

 

Psalmist: OT Laws give success and salvation!

 

However, contrary to Paul’s utter low opinion and incrimination of the OT Laws; OT prophets reasoned that humans can keep away from sins only by following the Laws:

How can a young man keep his life pure? By obeying your commands. With all my heart I try to serve you; keep me from disobeying your commandments. I keep your law in my heart, so that I will not sin against youI will repeat aloud all the Laws you have given. I delight in following your commands more than in having great wealth. I study your instructions; I examine your teachings. I take pleasure in your Laws; your commands I will not forget.” (Psalms 119:9-16)

 

Notice the rationales of the Psalmist. For him, human can keep their life sin-free only by obeying and practicing the Laws. This is in stark contradiction to the Pauline teaching wherein Paul taught that (A.) sinful desires are stirred up by Laws and (B.) humans knew sins but because of the God-Breathed-Laws!?

Furthermore, why would the Psalmist find “delight” in obeying the Laws if it were stirring up sins in him? Was he morally less or was Paul more God fearing (than the Psalmist)? Did not the Psalmist know that Laws stir up sinful desires and therefore, he should not find “delight” in obeying the Laws? Or, was Paul misunderstanding the attributes of Laws?

In fact the Psalmist wanted to save the Laws in his heart – the same place where sins were stirred in Paul:

Your teachings are wonderful; I obey them with all my heart. The explanation of your teachings gives light and brings wisdom to the ignorant. In my desire for your commands I pant with open mouth…Save me from those who oppress me, so that I may obey your commands. Bless me with your presence and teach me your laws. My tears pour down like a river, because people do not obey your law.” (Psalms 119:129-136)

 

Notice the longing which the Psalmist has for the Laws. He is panting with open mouth and crying to follow the Laws. If Laws were revealed to “increase wrongdoing” then why was this Psalmist panting and crying to follow such Laws? Moreover, why does he want to obey them with all his heart? Who is compelling him to follow that which stir up “evil desires” and where revealed only to “increase wrong doings”?

The answer to all such queries are simple, either of the one – Psalmist or Paul misunderstood the purpose and qualities of the Laws. And in such a situation it is better to bank on the Psalmist who was God’s personally chosen messenger! Moreover, his views are multiply attested by other God’s prophets like Ezekiel, Nehemiah etc. Whereas, on the other hand, we have contemporaries of Paul contravening him!

In fact a closer look at Paul’s reasoning clarify that he had personal problems with the OT Laws and not that Laws were “sin inciting” per se as he claimed:

I myself was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died.  And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death”. (Romans 7:9-10)

 

We saw the providential capacities of the Laws with OT prophets – it was life and salvation giving to them (c.f. Ezekiel 20:11, 33:14-15), however, in Paul’s personal case, “…in my case…”  Laws were working backwards.

Conclusion

 

With the foregoing factual qualification, is it justified to reject and sneer at God’s divinely revealed Laws, multiply attested by numerous OT prophets; for the personal problems of an individual mortal (Paul)?

Before discarding the Laws as a whole, sincere Christians need to rethink:

There are God’s divine Laws which were all providential to sincere and purportedly strictest monotheists and they testified towards it so much so that they wanted to follow it with panting mouth and tears in their eyes.

And all of a sudden we have a mortal (Paul) who declares that Laws worked otherwise in his personal case while his contemporaries who were no less than him, expressed their fealty for the OT Laws and even disputed with Paul over the same!

Yet millions of Christians have no qualms in rejecting what was revealed by God to be followed. Sadly, it has become a corner stone of their theology.

Notes:

  • All biblical texts, unless otherwise mentioned, are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • Emphasize wherever not matching with the original, is ours.

“Where did Jesus (pbuh) say, I am God”? – A Good Argument!

“Where did Jesus (pbuh) say, I am God”? – A Good Argument!

Responding to the Christian attempt to undermine the logic and reasonability behind the Muslim enquiry about divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him)

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

 

Christian Apologist Keith Thompson has attempted to countermine the viability of Muslim argument against the supposed deity of Jesus (peace be upon him). According to Keith, the Muslim argument to seek proof where Jesus (peace be upon him) unequivocally claimed that he is God is “very desperate and utterly fallacious” and “scripturally weak”.

Therefore, in this paper we intend to study Keith’s reasons and respond to him that the particular Muslim argument is not only good but it is logical and very reasonable! In fact as we would soon see it is Keith’s argument which is desperate and scripturally weak!

Scripturally Unsupported Christian Defense

 

Keith begins his “response” not by directly addressing the Muslim argument but by citing indirect verses which allegedly establish the deity of Christ (peace be upon him).

He brings in cliché Christian arguments like “First and the Last, Bridegroom, Savior, I AM and King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Thomas’ testimony”. He brings all of them but bring one scripture which would state that Jesus (peace be upon him) declared himself God-Almighty! At this point if any argument is scripturally weak then it is Christian argument!

Although we will deal with all of the above quoted biblical arguments in our future installment (inshallah), however, for the time being we want to observe that all the above arguments is not direct and explicit response to the Muslim query.

Those are biblical verses which have to be interpreted to indirectly allege deity of Christ (peace be upon him). Therefore, if certain biblical verses can be used to indirectly interpret Christ’s (peace be upon him) divinity then by the same token Christians should not neglect verses from the same document which militate against the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Consider the following verses:

I can do nothing on my own authority; I judge only as God tells me, so my judgment is right, because I am not trying to do what I want, but only what he who sent me wants.” (John 5:30)

We need to ponder that which Omnipotent God would claim that He can do nothing on his own but that he needs someone else to guide him; that he has to obey some other entity?

A step further, Jesus (peace be upon him) even belittled the veracity of his own testimonies:

If I testify on my own behalf, what I say is not to be accepted as real proof. But there is someone else who testifies on my behalf, and I know that what he says about me is true. (John 5:31)

A deity who was allegedly revealing verses to his prophets now claims that his testimonies are not to be trusted if it is unsupported by some higher, more authoritative source! Let alone a Deity, the above statement, does not behooves to even a mere prophet!

On the foregoing, noted Christian commentator Albert Barnes claims that Jesus (peace be upon him) would not even judge on his own behalf even on the Judgment Day!

Of mine own selfSee Joh 5:19. The Messiah, the Mediator, does nothing without the concurrence and the authority of God. Such is the nature of the union subsisting between them, that he does nothing independently of God. Whatever he does, he does according to the will of God.

 

As I hear I judgeTo “hear” expresses the condition of one who is commissioned or instructed. Thus Joh 8:26, “I speak to the world those things which I have “heard” of him;” Joh 8:28, “As the Father hath TAUGHT me, I speak those things.” Jesus here represents himself as commissioned, taught, or sent of God. When he says, “as I ‘hear,’” he refers to those things which the Father had “showed” him Joh 5:20 – that is, he came to communicate the will of God; to show to man what God wished man to know.

I judgeI determine or decide. This was true respecting the institutions and doctrines of religion, and it will be true respecting the sentence which he will pass on mankind at the day of judgment. He will decide their destiny according to what the Father wills and wishesthat is, according to justice. (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John 5:30)

Think about it, which absolute deity would not judge on His own authority and potency even on the Judgment Day!

Also note that Barnes portrays Jesus (peace be upon him) as a mere prophet, one who has been “commissioned, Taught and send by God” – these are specific traits of a mere messenger of God not befitting for an absolute Deity.

In fact Luke explicitly accounts Jesus (peace be upon him), not as a Deity, but as a mere messenger of God;

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:  (Acts 2:22, King James Version, e-Sword)

If Jesus (peace be upon him) was an absolute Deity, then why he was not performing miracles by himself? We all know that God can perform miracles! As a matter of fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) himself disowned that he can perform miracles on his own:

“No, it is rather by means of God’s power that I drive out demons and this proves that the Kingdom of God has already come to you.” (Luke 11: 21)

Similarly, Matthew also relates that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not used to exorcise unclean spirits on his own power but he used to depend on God (!):

No, it is not Beelzebul, but God’s Spirit, who gives me the power to drive out demons, which proves that the Kingdom of God has already come upon you.” (Matthew 12:28)

Furthermore, he explicitly denied any divinity bestowed upon him when a rich man mistakenly attempted to claim Jesus (peace be upon him) with divine perfection and goodness:

“And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mat 19:16-17, King James Version, e-Sword)

Coincidently the above emphatic declination of divinity is accounted in all the three synoptic Gospels, refer Mark 10:17-31 and Luke 18:18-30)

John was not much behind the other Gospel writers, he also accounted where in Jesus (peace be upon him) is portrayed as anybody but God:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (Joh 17:3, King James Version, e-Sword)

Witnessing that only the so called person of Father was divine, Jesus (peace be upon him) teaches that prayers have to be exclusively directed to Father:

“After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be THY name. THY kingdom come. THY will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For THINE is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Mat 6:9-13, King James Version, e-Sword)

We wonder if Jesus (peace be upon him) was also God then why did he ask his followers to direct their prayers exclusively to the so called “person” of Father! It was more natural that his followers directed their prayers to Jesus (peace be upon him) who was with them than Father whom they would never be able to see! [Or they could have directed their prayers to all three "persons" of the so called Trinity.]

There are more which can be quoted from the New Testament but for brevity we would limit to these few verses only.

Therefore, if Keith has a certain few verses to allegedly interpret that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God then we also have verses in the same documents which can be interpreted to disprove Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity.

This being said, we would now look Keith’s rationales why Muslim argument is not good.

Logical and Scriptural Weakness in Christian Defense

 

Keith “logically” wants to argue that the Muslim argument is false because,

“Moreover, there are other problems, logical fallacies and hidden premises with demanding that Jesus say “I am God” while discarding any other words/deeds/titles of Jesus or words from His Apostles. First, by demanding those specific words of Jesus is to invent or build up a criterion that Jesus must meet in order for Him to be God when, in all actuality, Jesus and the Apostles wanted to communicate Jesus’ deity, but just not in the way Muslims demand (i.e., with the exact words “I am God”). If it is true that Jesus and the Apostles believed Jesus was God and wanted to communicate this in other ways than the Muslims demand, and this is in fact true, yet the Muslims do not allow for any other evidence besides those exact three words, then they are, right off the bat, negating from the onset all the evidence for Jesus’ deity that Jesus and the Apostles did give. This method is highly problematic to any honest seeker of truth who wants to seriously study the whole of Scripture, its meaning and its implications.”

In a nut shell Keith’s argument is:

  1. A.    Jesus (peace be upon him) and Apostles communicated that the former is God-Almighty.
  2. B.     Muslims would not accept any “proof” other than the three words!
  3. C.     Thus, the Muslim argument is “highly problematic”.

Recall that Keith complained Muslim argument is “Scripturally weak”. In this particular response we would soon witness that it is the Christian defense which is scripturally weak, so let us begin with our response.

Firstly, we have just seen in the above sections that to claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) and Apostles wanted to pass him as an absolute Deity is a wild assumption. We saw multiple verses which militate against this assumption.

However, even if we accept for the sake of argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) and his apostles wanted to communicate that he is God yet the Muslims should demand those exact three words because scripturally, historical Judeo-Christian God has always been communicating through that exact formulation:

And God said unto him, I AM GOD ALMIGHTY: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; (Gen 35:11)

And he said, I AM GOD, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation: Gen 46:3

And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. Exo 6:7

I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God. Exo 16:12

For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Lev 11:44

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. Lev 18:2

Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Lev 18:4

Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Lev 18:30

Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. Lev 19:2

Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. Lev 19:3

Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. Lev 19:4

(King James Version, e-Sword)

 

From the foregoing, and in the light of the Scriptures, declaring Himself with the exact formulation which the Muslims demand has always been an insignia of traditional Judeo-Christian God.

Therefore, the Christian defense is “very desperate” and “scripturally weak” when they do not want Muslims to demand for the exact formulation! In fact, following their Scriptures they should back Muslims into asking for such exact formulation.

Here is Keith’s second “logical” rationale why Muslim argument is a “straw man”:

Second, to demand these exact words “I am God” from the mouth of Jesus is a straw man since Christians have never claimed that Jesus said such words or that such words must be said in order for Jesus to be God. Christians, throughout history, have always affirmed Jesus’ deity on other equally persuasive grounds from the 1st century until today. Hence, to demand such words from Jesus is a misrepresentation of the Christian position since we have never argued that he did say such things or that he must say such things in order to be God.

Is not this ironical that in the light of the Old Testament verses quoted just above, Jesus (peace be upon him) must have uttered the formulation to be God!

In fact it is Keith’s argument which is straw man when he claims that, “Christians have never claimed that Jesus said such words”. Because the reason is, why did not Jesus (peace be upon him), in the New Testament, say those words if he was truly a traditional and historical Judeo-Christian Deity. Since he had, supposedly, no hesitation in saying those exact wordings to Israelites prophets in the Old Testament! And when on the same idea Muslims question Christians, it is deemed as “misrepresentation of the Christian position”!

As a matter of fact it is “misrepresentation” of historical and traditional Judeo-Christian insignia of God- when Christians do not want to allow the Muslim argument of seeking exact formulation.

Keith also provided an “analogy” to prove that Muslim argument is not logical enough:

Here is an analogy: would it be proper for me to demand that Jesus say “I am the Messiah” in the Quran, in those exact words when he doesn’t, and say that unless I get those exact four words from Jesus’ mouth nothing is good enough? Or is it rather fair to say there are texts in the Quran that strongly prove Islam teaches the Messiahship of Jesus but just not in the way I demand? Of course, there are. Therefore, to be consistent the Muslim must apply this approach to the Bible or else they are left employing double standards. Just because Jesus doesn’t say “I am God” it doesn’t mean His deity is not communicated in equally clear ways that have persuaded Christians for 2000 years. In like manner, just because Jesus, in the Quran, doesn’t say “I am the Messiah” in those exact words it doesn’t mean His Messiahship is not communicated in equally clear ways in the Quran.

In brief, Keith wants Muslims to provide the statement “I am the Messiah” or give up their argument. Well, we have multiple responses in order:

To begin with, Christians need to understand that when we demand that Jesus (peace be upon him) should state that “He was God”, we do so for the following reasons:

 

(i)                 For Muslims Jesus (peace be upon him) is the authority.

 

In the light of the above, we have instances in the Qur’an where let alone, Jesus (peace be upon him), we have Allah (SWT) – a higher authority than Christ (peace be upon him), testifying the Jesus (peace be upon him) is Messiah:

“O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles.” (Qur’an 4:171, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version)

 

Behold! the angels said “O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. (Qur’an 3:45, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version

 

Or,

When the angels said “O Maryem! Allah gives you the good news with a Word from Him that you will be given a son: his name will be Messiah, Isa (Jesus Christ) the son of Maryem. He will be noble in this world and the Hereafter; and he will be from those who are very close to Allah. (Qur’an 3:45, Malik Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version)

 

(ii)               Jesus (peace be upon him) need to be consistent with the insignia of Old Testament Deity.

(iii)              

Our second response is a rhetorical enquiry to Keith. Show us, in Islam, which individual(s) came before Jesus (peace be upon him) proclaiming “I am Messiah!”? This is because, when Muslims enquire Christians for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement, “I am God”- they ask it consistently under the light of Old Testament Scripture wherein God was frequently proclaiming “I am God” for Himself.

On the foregoing it is illogical and “scripturally weak” for Christians to claim that Muslims need to produce the statement “I am Messiah” for Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an.

However, on the other hand, because we have had individuals before Jesus (peace be upon him) who came from Allah (SWT) claiming that they are prophets/messengers/apostles etc (c.f. Qur’an 7:104), therefore, we do have written record of Jesus (peace be upon him) claiming such title(s) for himself:

“He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;” (Qur’an 19:30, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version)

Therefore we request Keith and Christians to enquire consistent demands and, inshallah, Muslims will produce it.

Conclusion

 

In an attempt to not allow Muslims from demanding Christians Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement “I am God”, Keith used indirect biblical verses to interpret that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a deity. However, that was not what Muslims demand. Therefore, if indirect biblical verses was good enough for Keith to claim deity for Christ (peace be upon him), then we had similar verses which militated against the purported deity of Christ (peace be upon him).

Secondly, we saw that God of the Old Testament used to frequently proclaim “I am God” for Himself and therefore it is very consistent and logical when Muslims demand the same formulation from Jesus (peace be upon him) if he be the same God as of the Old Testament.

 Therefore, when Keith claims that Muslim argument is “scripturally weak”, in reality, it is his Christian defense which is scripturally weak. Scripturally he should also be searching for similar formulation in the New Testament accounts of Jesus (peace be upon him) while enquiring why did not Jesus (peace be upon him) utter the formulation which was so fond to him in the Old Testament (allegedly)!

If Christians really want Muslims not to use that argument then they should either produce such a verse or find some other argument stronger than what we just observed.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • Emphasize wherever not matching with the original is ours.

Moses: “The Most High”?

Moses: “The Most High”?

Sam Shamoun takes another cheap shot at the Qur’anic monotheism

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

 

It is human tendency to find out faults in others when they have problems in themselves so that both stand on same platform when afflicted with consequences. Just on the same idea, Shamoun goes around from pillar to post in order to find loop holes in fortified Islamic Monotheism or Tawheed.

In his attempts, he tries to deify Mohammad, Adam (peace be upon them) etc. But recently he has tried to deify Moses (peace be upon him) so that he can gloat – Islam also has as many gods as he assumes for Christianity.

Shamoun’s Desperate Argument

 

Shamoun asserts that, in the Qur’an Allah (SWT) is referred as “al-ala”:

“One of Allah’s names happens to be al-ala, or “the most high.”

Praise the name of your Lord the Most High (rabbika al-ala), S. 87:1

Except as seeking the face of his Lord Most High (rabbihi al-ala). S.  92:20”

Then he ironically goes on to explain Muslims the concepts of Tawhid Al-Asma Wa – Sifat. It basically means that the qualities, attributes and exclusive names of Allah (SWT) cannot be shared with anybody else.

By appealing to the concepts of Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat, Shamoun has further aggravated his arguments as we will see the ironical and embarrassing transpirations when we apply the same to the Bible!

After edifying Muslims about Tawheed (!?), Shamoun invents a breach in it by quoting Qur’an 20:67-68:

“Yet here is where the problem lies for the Muslims. The Quran says that Allah himself called Moses al-ala or the most high!

And Moses conceived a fear in his mind. We said: Fear not! Lo! you are the Most High (al-ala). S. 20:67-68”

Then in vain, he tries to deduce implications from it:

This means that Moses is Allah according to the Islamic scripture! Note how this works out logically:

  1. The most high is a divine title which belongs only to Allah.
  2. Moses is the most high.
  3. Therefore, Moses is Allah.

To put this in another way:

  1. Only Allah is the most high.
  2. Moses is the most high.
  3. Therefore, Moses is Allah.

Or the Muslims must accept the fact that their own god has committed shirk!

  1. Ascribing the exclusive names of Allah to a creature is to commit shirk, which is the unpardonable sin (cf. Q. 4:48, 116).
  2. Allah ascribes one of his unique names to Moses.
  3. Therefore, Allah is guilty of committing the unforgivable sin of shirk!

That being the case, we would be more than happy to expose his shoddy attempts at the Qur’an in the sub-sequent sections. And we will deal about the above “logical deductions” separately when we deal with Bible, inshAllah – it would be interesting!

Exposing Shamoun’s shallow grasp of Qur’an

 

In order to fabricate breach of Tawheed in Qur’an, Shamoun has reclined to specifically two tactics:

  1. 1.      Choice of bizarre Qur’anic translation.
  2. 2.      Tactful hiding of context.

Let us expose each one of the above to subsequently expose Shamoun.

Shamoun’s deceitful choice of Qur’anic Translation

 

Shamoun can be easily refuted by merely quoting the translations of standard Muslim translators of varying school of thoughts – Shia and Sunni alike:

Sahih International: Allah said, “Fear not. Indeed, it is you who are superior.

Pickthall: We said: Fear not! Lo! thou art the higher.

Yusuf Ali: We said: “Fear not! for thou hast indeed the upper hand:

Shakir: We said: Fear not, surely you shall be the uppermost,

Muhammad Sarwar: We told him, “Do not be afraid for you will be the winner.

Mohsin Khan: We (Allah) said: “Fear not! Surely, you will have the upper hand.

(Source)

Sher Ali: And Moses conceived a fear in his mind. WE said, ‘Fear no, for thou wilt have upper hand; (Source)

Ahmad Raza Khan: We said, “Do not fear – it is you who is dominant” (Source)

From the translations of unbiased and standard translators we find that the subject verse was not meant to elevate Moses (peace be upon him) as “High” as Allah (SWT). Rather the import of “al-ala” was that Moses (peace be upon him) would have superiority, upper hand etc over all his enemies and thus, he will be the most superior amongst all his enemies!

If Shamoun has problems with Muslim translators, then here are non-Muslim translators echoing with their Muslim counterparts:

Arberry: We said unto him, ‘Fear not; surely thou art the uppermost. (Source)Khalifa: Moses harbored some fear. We said, “Have no fear. You will prevail.” (Source)

 

In fact even biased non-Muslim translator like George Sale, do not support Shamoun in his translation:

(70) wherefore Moses conceived fear in his heart. (71)But we said unto him, Fear not; for thou shalt be superior; (George Sale)

 

From the standard translations it is evident that textually “al-ala” referred to Moses’ (peace be upon him) ultimate superiority, prevalence and upper hand over his enemies. This has got nothing to do with his equality with Allah (SWT).

[Side Remark: After searching virtually all standard English Translations of the Qur’an one is befuddled to think which translation did Shamoun use? Notice that Shamoun has wittingly not provided the source of his translation!]

Although the translations itself are enough to close the issue, nevertheless, a closer look at the verses Shamoun quoted further responds to his distortions.

Here are the verses once again which Shamoun quoted:

Praise the name of your LORD the Most High (rabbika al-ala), S. 87:1

Except as seeking the face of his LORD Most High (rabbihi al-ala). S. 92:20”

And,

And Moses conceived a fear in his mind. We said: Fear not! Lo! you are the Most High (al-ala). S. 20:67-68”

 

Notice that in the first two verses, Allah (SWT) mentions that He is “The Most High LORD”. The important word “Lord” is missing in the verse pertaining to Moses (peace be upon him).

This leads us to a very important query that according to Shamoun’s S. 20:67-68, Moses (peace be upon him) is Most High WHAT? The answer to this intriguing query is found in the context of Qur’an 20:67-68, the study of the context will also lead us to our next section (and rebuttal).

Tactful hiding of Context

 

A study of the preceding verses (to the subject verse) would elicit that when Moses (peace be upon him) went to Pharaoh to invite him to Truth he refused to comply. On the contrary he doubted the integrity and intentions of the messenger of Allah (SWT).

Rather than believing in the miraculous signs of Allah (SWT) which Moses (peace be upon him) was putting forth, Pharaoh deluded himself to assume signs to be merely trashy magic. As a result of this he invited Moses (peace be upon him) to contest with his famous and seasoned Magicians:

And We showed Pharaoh all Our Signs but he did reject and refuse. He said: “Hast thou come to drive us out of our land with thy magic O Moses? “But we can surely produce magic to match thine! So make a tryst between us and thee which we shall not fail to keep neither we nor thou in a place where both shall have even chances.”   (Qur’an 20:56-58, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM version)

 

Moses (peace be upon him) being on the Truth, accepted the challenge while commenting that whoever gains upper hand on the D-day would thrive there onwards:

Moses said: “Your tryst is the Day of the Festival and let the people be assembled when the sun is well up.” So Pharaoh withdrew: he concerted his plan and then came (back). Moses said to him: “Woe to you! forge not ye a lie against Allah lest He destroy you (at once) utterly by chastisement: the forger must suffer frustration!”So they disputed one with another over their affair but they kept their talk secret. They said: “These two are certainly (expert) magicians: their object is to drive you out from your land with their magic and to do away with your Most cherished institutions.”Therefore concert your plan. And then assemble in (serried) ranks: he wins (all along) today who gains the upper hand.”   (Qur’an 20: 59-64)

 

On the D-day, Moses (peace be upon him) got nervous when Pharaoh’s professional magician initiated their well concerted tricks:

They said: “O Moses! whether wilt thou that thou throw (first) or that we be the first to throw?” He said “Nay throw ye first!” Then behold their ropes and their rods so it seemed to him on account of their magic began to be in lively motion! So Moses conceived in his mind a (sort of) fear. (Qur’an 20: 65-67)  

 

It was THEN,  when Allah (SWT) relieved Moses (peace be upon him) off his nervousness by stating that he (Moses) need not to worry as he has the upper hand and victory will surely be his, he needs to just throw what was in his hand to achieve this victory:

We said: “Fear not! for thou hast indeed the upper hand: “Throw that which is in thy right hand: quickly will it swallow up that which they have faked. What they have faked is but a magician’s trick: and the magician thrives not (no matter) where he goes.” (Qur’an 20: 68-69)

 

And indeed, Allah’s (SWT) promise came true. Moses (peace be upon him) was proved to be the most superior or the so called “most-high amongst Pharaoh’s sorcerers:

So the magicians were thrown down to prostration: they said “We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses.” (Qur’an 20:70)

 

Therefore, when the subject verses are read in context, we find that Allah (SWT) has used the term “al-ala” to mollify Moses (peace be upon him) that he would come up the prevailing and superior above ALL sorcerers – the most superior amongst them. Or, that he would come out victorious ABOVE ALL Egyptian Sorcerers – The Most High amongst them!

This understanding is further supported by classical Muslim expositors of Qur’an:

We said, to him, ‘Do not be afraid! Indeed you shall have the upper hand, over them by triumphing.  (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Qur’an 20:68)

 

We said) to Moses: (Fear not! Lo! thou art the higher) you will be victorious over them. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, Qur’an 20:68)

Therefore, from the foregoing, when Qur’an speaks of Moses (peace be upon him) as “al-ala”, it does not deify him. As usual Shamoun has no real argument against Islam apart from such frivolities as this.

Now, because Shamoun was so fascinated about the concepts of Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat, it is now time to apply them to Bible.

Turning Tables Over

 

Recall that Shamoun has appealed to the concepts of Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat between Moses (peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) to claim that the former was allegedly deified.

If the sciences of Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat was good enough for Shamoun to evaluate Qur’anic breach of Monotheism then, by the same token, he should have no problem when we apply the same principle to Bible.

As mentioned earlier, Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat is the concept in which the exclusive names, attributes, qualities etc of a Deity is His alone. In other words they cannot be shared with others.

However, as we are soon going to witness that celebrated and exclusive titles (plural) of Jesus (peace be upon him) – the mistaken deity of Trinitarians, has been shared by other.

At multiple places in the New Testament, Jesus (peace be upon him) is referred as the “Savior of the world”:

And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. (Joh 4:42)

 

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. (1 Jn 4:14)

 

Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: (Act 13:23)

 

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Eph 5:23)

(King James Version, e-Sword)

 

However, much idolatrously, according to Classical Trinitarian Scholars of the Bible, Joseph (peace be upon him) is conferred with the same title:

Joseph gave good advice to Pharaoh. Fair warning should always be followed by good counsel. God has in his word told us of a day of trial before us, when we shall need all the grace we can have. Now, therefore, provide accordingly. Pharaoh gave Joseph an honourable testimony. He is a man in whom the spirit of God is; and such men ought to be valued. Pharaoh puts upon Joseph marks of honour. He gave him such a name as spoke the value he had for him, Zaphnath-paaneah, “a revealer of secrets.” This preferment of Joseph encourages all to trust in God. Some translate Joseph’s new name, “the Saviour of the world.” The brightest glories, even of the upper world, are put upon Christ, the highest trust lodged in his hand, and all power given him, both in heaven and earth. (Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Genesis 41:33-45)

Matthew-Henry, derive the above commentary because God-Almighty has honored Joseph (peace be upon him) to be ruler of all:

Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall ALL my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.” (Genesis 41:40, King James Version, e-Sword)

 

The commentators also claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) is AS (same degree) much a “Judge” and “Lord” as Joseph (peace be upon him) was:

“Secondly, He has committed all judgment to the Son, has constituted him Lord of all (Act_10:36; Rom_14:9), as Joseph in Egypt, Gen_41:40.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 5: 17-30)

 

Note that “Lord” is also one of the special titles of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the New Testament, yet these sincere Trinitarian scholars had no qualms in sharing it with Joseph (peace be upon him)!

If Matthew-Henry is not good enough for Shamoun, then we have Jesus (peace be upon him) himself willing to share one of the most divine quality of God, not with any Prophet, but with mere Christians:

“For he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil. Why should God reward if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that! And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that! You must be perfect – just as your Father in heaven is perfect!” (Matthew 5:45-48)

 

Notice that Jesus (peace be upon him) exhorts his followers to be JUST AS PERFECT AS THEIR FATHER IN HEAVEN.

Lest Shamoun tries to distort the plain meaning of the verse; in light of the context of the verses, Jesus (peace be upon him) wants perfection in his followers with regards to goodness in them! As “God – The Father” is divinely, perfectly good in loving his creatures so shall Jesus’ (peace be upon him) followers too!

Furthermore, as “God – The Father” in His perfection of love, Justice and lack of Envy or Favoritism showers rain and shines Sun on believer and unbeliever alike so shall Jesus’ (peace be upon him) followers also be infinitely, perfectly Just, Loving, Envy and Favoritism less!

Think about it, is it not absurd to expect perfectly divine qualities in mortals who are imperfect! Yet biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) very optimistically expects it from his followers! May be biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) did felt that mortals are perfect enough to share divine qualities of God – Almighty!

In a nut-shell, biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) is bestowing the divine attributes of “God – The Father” on mere mortal Christians! Shamoun needs to show concepts of Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat to his “lord and savior”!

Shamoun offered Logic – which backfired against him!

 

On the foregoing, if we apply Shamoun’s “logics” then this is how the above biblical texts and its exegesis turn out to be:

This means that Joseph (peace be upon him) and other Christians are Deity according to the Christian scripture! Note how this works out logically:

  1. D.    The “Savior of the World” and “Lord of all” is a divine title which belongs only to Jesus (peace be upon him) – who is (mis) taken to be a Deity.
  2. E.     Joseph (peace be upon him) is the “Savior of the World” and “Lord of All”
  3. F.     Therefore, Joseph (peace be upon him) is a Trinitarian Deity!

To put this in another way:

  1. D.    Only Jesus (peace be upon him) is the “Savior of the World” and “Lord of All”.
  2. E.     Joseph (peace be upon him) is the “Savior of the World” and “Lord of All”.
  3. F.     Therefore, Joseph is a Trinitarian Deity.

Or the Christians must accept the fact that their own god has committed shirk!

  1. D.    Ascribing exclusive perfectness of God – The Father to a creature is to commit shirk, which is a heinous sin.
  2. E.     Jesus (peace be upon him) ascribes God’s divine perfectness to his followers.
  3. F.     Therefore, biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) is guilty of committing the heinous sin of shirk!

(For a related topic, please refer to the following article: Jesus (pbuh): Nothing divine about Him)

Shamoun claims Adam (pbuh) was Worshipped?

 

If we were to believe Shamoun then, Allah (SWT) made angels to “worship” Adam (peace be upon him):

This wouldn’t be the only time where Allah committed shirk since he commanded his angels to worship Adam, thereby forcing all of them to violate tauhid al-uluhiyyah/ibaadah:

And when we said unto the angels, worship Adam; they [all] worshipped [him], except Eblis [who] refused, and was puffed up with pride, and became of the [number of] unbelievers. S. 2:34 Sale

[Remember] when we said unto the angels, worship ye Adam: And they [all] worshipped [him], except Eblis, [who] was [one] of the genii, and departed from the command of his Lord. Will ye therefore take him and his offspring for [your] patrons besides me, notwithstanding they are your enemies? Miserable [shall such] a change [be] to the ungodly! S. 18:50 Sale

 

In the process of showing his Arabic prowess, Shamoun claimed that through “worship” of Adam (peace be upon him) there is a breach of “Tawhid al-uluhiyyah/ibaadah” – implying that the Arabic for “worship” is either “uluhiyyah” or “ibaadah”.

However, he did not realize that by alluding to Arabic translation of the word “worship”, he will only help us refute him more easily!

When we checked the original Arabic text of the subject verses, neither did we find “uluhiyyah” nor the word “ibaadah”! Then how is Shamoun claiming that Allah (SWT) ordered angels to “worship” Adam (pbuh)?

Here is the translation which Shamoun judiciously neglected:

And behold We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam“; and they bowed down not so Iblis he refused and was haughty he was of those who reject Faith. (Qur’an 2:34)

 

Behold! We said to the angels “Bow down to Adam“: they bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrongdoers! (Qur’an 18:50)

 

Therefore, the term is “bowing” and not “worship”. And before Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) legislation, “bowing” was not considered to be an act of worship in Islam! Rather it was a symbol of respect and reverence. As Qur’an translator Mohammad Asad concurs:

 

To show that, by virtue of his ability to think conceptually, man is superior in this respect even to the angels. (Qur’an 2.34, Note ASD_25)

However, if Shamoun persists (in his ignorance) that “bowing” means “worship” then before attacking Qur’an he should have a look at the biblical monotheists including prophets (!):

“As soon as Araunah saw King David approaching, he left the threshing-place and bowed low, with his face touching the ground. David said to him, “Sell me your threshing-place, so that I can build an altar to the LORD, to stop the epidemic. I’ll give you the full price.” (1 Chronicles 21:21-22)

 

Notice that when Araunah bowed (prostrated), David (peace be upon him) – an important biblical monotheist, did not stop him, on the other hand, he went on with his conversation! Implying that either David (peace be upon him) idolatrously accepted Araunah’s! “worship” or the bowing was a symbol of respect! Shamoun needs to select any one and refute himself!

Next we have an incident of a Jewish women prostrating to a mortal:

“The women went to the king, bowed down to the ground in respect, and said, “Help me, Your Majesty!” (2 Samuel 14:4)

 

Absalom, the person who was raised in the house of Prophet David (peace be upon him), also bowed low:

“The king sent for Absalom, who went to him and bowed down to the ground in front of him. The king welcomed him with a kiss.” (2 Samuel 14:33)

 

If these are not good enough texts then we have so called Prophet Nathan idolatrously bowing “low” to mortal:

“She was still speaking, when Nathan arrived at the palace. The king was told that the prophet was there, and Nathan went in and bowed low before the king.” (1 Kings 1: 22-23)

 

Furthermore, biblical Prophet Samuel had no hesitation in accepting “worship” to him:

“What does it look like?” he asked. “It’s an old man coming up,” she answered. “He is wearing a cloak.” Then Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed to the ground in respect. (1 Samuel 28:14)

 

Notice that Saul bowed to Samuel out of respect. Therefore, when Shamoun sets out to attack Islam (because of angels bowing to Adam (pbuh)) then he either exposes his sheer ignorance of (Jewish) historical culture or puts biblical prophet hood and monotheism to jeopardy!

Conclusion

 

While compiling “arguments” against Islam, we saw that,

        i.            Shamoun tried to play fast and loose with the translation of the subject Qur’anic verse. And, therefore by merely citing standard Muslim and non-Muslim translations, he was utterly refuted.

      ii.            Shamoun’s argument was so flimsy that even his peculiar translation could not save it. By merely appealing to the immediate context of the subject verse elicited that Moses (peace be upon him) was the so called “Most High” AMONGST his enemies, namely, Egyptian Sorcerers, Pharaoh and his courtiers.

    iii.            The above view is also held by classical Muslim expositors like Jalalyn and Ibn Abbas (RAA).

    iv.            Ironically, Shamoun who worships three gods in One God, tried to teach Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat to Muslim, however, when we applied the same concept to Bible, we had Joseph (peace be upon him) sharing two of Christ’s (peace be upon him) assumed divine titles, namely, “Savior of the World” and “Lord of All”!

      v.            To make matters worse, biblical Jesus himself breached Tawheed Al-Asma Wa-Sifat when he exhorted his followers to be as perfect as God – Almighty! His followers ought to be infinitely Just, Loving, Envy Less etc as God – The so called Father.

    vi.             Finally, to pull out a red-herring, Shamoun objected that in Islam Adam (peace be upon him) was “worshipped” by angels. However, we found that,

a)      Qur’an has not used the word “worshipped” in its original Arabic text. It was Shamoun’s tactful choice of translation which had it!

b)      Qur’an, on the other hand, states that angels were to “bow” down to Adam (peace be upon him). And according to traditions, prior to Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) legislation, “bowing” signified respect as contrary to “worship”.

 c)      Even if Shamoun want to fuss that “bowing” implied “worship” then he needs to reconsider the deeds of Old Testament Prophets and other “monotheists” who used to stoop at mortals ad nauseum!

These all for Shamoun’s so called deification of Moses (peace be upon him)!

From the foregoing it seems that Shamoun needs to learn more of Islam and Qur’an in particular before critiquing it – as it proves he is too weak in it!

Allah – Willing we have more rebuttals for Shamoun in near future!

Notes:

  • Biblical texts, wherever not mentioned, are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • Emphasize wherever not matching with original quotations, is ours.
  • All Qur’anic Text taken from Yusuf Ali’s Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version.

High Octane Faceoff in Jerusalem

High Octane Faceoff in Jerusalem

In the beginning was the dispute and the dispute was (between) Apostles

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

 

Until Jesus (peace be upon him) was with his disciples, the so called body of Christ (peace be upon him) was united under the Laws and regulations of the Old Testament since their “lord and savior” himself was under the Law. During his ministry not a single follower opened his mouth against the Laws or any other doctrine like sin and salvation.

However, no sooner did he ascended, controversies pertaining doctrines unleashed. As if every individual got an opportunity to impress his/her own doctrine with a self-made stamp of Jesus (peace be upon him) on it – Paul was no exclusion.

Nevertheless, when Paul’s aberrations became too perspicuous, majority of earliest Church council at Jerusalem including Jesus’ (peace be upon him) brother – James, made every attempt to thwart him. It was this uprising against Pauline doctrines that we seek to address herein.

Paul: Old Testament Laws are “Useless and Dead”

 

Although a Pharisee, once Christ (peace be upon him) bid good bye to Jerusalem, Paul got all opportunity he could to firstly claim that he saw thunder and lightening to thus claim that his “verses” are authoritative as they come from Jesus (peace be upon him) himself.  

However, in his “verses”, he promulgated doctrines which were quite unlike Jesus (peace be upon him) and the beliefs of earliest Christians.

Whereas Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted that he has not come to do away with the Laws but to make them come true, Paul unhesitatingly claimed the opposite. He claimed that Jesus (peace be upon him) brought the Laws to an end:

For Christ has brought the Law to an end, so that everyone who believes is put right with God.” (Romans 10:4)

“What, then, was the purpose of the Law? It was added in order to show what wrongdoing is, and it was meant to last until the coming of Abraham’s descendant, to whom the promise was made.” (Galatians 3:19)

“But before the time for faith came, the Law kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might then be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.” (Galatians 3: 23-25)

Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once held us prisoners. No longer do we serve in the old way of a written law, but in the new way of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6)

 

According to Paul’s belief, Laws were “useless” and merely plastic rituals:

“When Christ went through the tent and entered once and for all into the Most Holy Place, he did not take the blood of goats and bulls to offer as a sacrifice; rather, he took his own blood and obtained eternal salvation for us. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a burnt calf are sprinkled on the people who are ritually unclean and this purifies them by taking away their ritual impurity. Since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will purify our consciences from useless rituals, so that we may serve the living God.” (Hebrews 9: 12-14)

“This is an illustration which points to the present time. It means that the offerings and animal sacrifices presented to God cannot make the worshippers’s heart perfect, since they have to do only with food, drink, and various purification ceremonies. These are all outward rules, which apply only until the time when God will establish the new order.” (Hebrews 9: 9-10. Today’s English Version)

 

Paul was doing away with the Old Testament Laws out of Jerusalem, in Gentile lands, and therefore James and other dignitaries of the Jerusalem Church council concerted to oppose Paul when he came to Jerusalem. They asked him to lead, execute and bear the expenses of the Old Testament ceremonies:

“When we arrived in Jerusalem, the believers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to see James; and all the church elders were present. Paul greeted them and gave a complete report of everything that God had done among the Gentiles through his work.After hearing him, they all praised God. Then they said, Brother Paul, you can see how many thousands of Jews have become believers, and how devoted they all are to the Law.They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.They are sure to hear that you have arrived. What should be done, then?This is what we want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a vow. Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself life in accordance with the Law of Moses.But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent them a letter telling them we decided that they must not eat any food that has been offered to idols, or any blood, or any animal that has been strangled, and that they must keep themselves from sexual immorality. So Paul took the men and the next day performed the ceremony of purification with them. Then he went into the Temple and gave notice of how many days it would be until the end of the period of purification, when a sacrifice would be offered for each one of them (1.). (Acts 21: 17-26. Today’s English Version)

 

Paul: Faith-Only, who cares for Deeds!

 

There is more to the controversy between James and Paul. Paul wanted to do away with the Laws of the revered Old Testament because he believed that it is Faith-Only through which man is saved, not by the deeds of the Laws:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal 3:11)

 

Paul went so far as to defiantly claim that man can never be put right with God by observing the deeds of the Laws:

“But now God’s way of putting people right with himself has been revealed. It has nothing to do with law, even though the Law of Moses and the prophets gave their witness to it.” (Romans 3: 21, Today’s English Version)

“Indeed, we are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners,” as they are called. Yet we know that a person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires.” (Galatians 2:15-16, Today’s English Version)

 

Paul’s formula was, merely believe in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged resurrection and this would not only be a certificate to do away with Laws but even ensure salvation:

If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved. For it is by our faith that we are put right with God; it is by our confession that we are saved.” (Romans 10:9-10, Today’s English Version)

 

Recognizing Paul’s gross aberrations from the original doctrines, James started to defend original Christian doctrine in his polemical epistles wherein he stressed that man is not justified through Faith-Only; true faith has to be complimented by Deeds:

My brothers, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith is his actions do not prove it?” (James 2:14)

“My brother, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it? Can that faith save him? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.” (James 2: 14-17)

“But someone will say, “One person has faith, another has actions.” My answer is, “Show me how anyone can have faith without actions. I will show you my faith by my actions.” Do :You believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe – and tremble with fear. You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith without actions is useless?” (James 2: 18-20)

 Today’s English Version

 

Thus, it is not hard to perceive that James disagreed with Paul in fundamental doctrines between Faith and Deeds.

When challenged, Paul appealed to the Abraham (peace be upon him) that it was through Faith-only that he was put right with God; without any deeds:

“What shall we say, then, of Abraham, the father of our race? If he was put right with God by the things he did, he would have something to boast about – but not in God’s sight. The scripture says, “Abraham believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.” A person who works is paid his wages, but they are not regarded as a gift; they are something that he has earned. But the person who depends on his faith, not on his deeds, and who believes in God who declares the guilty to be innocent, it is his faith that God takes in to account in order to put him right with himself. (Romans 4: 1-5)

“For we have quoted the scripture, “Abraham believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.When did this take place? Was it before or after Abraham was circumcised? It was before, not after. He was circumcised later, and his circumcision was a sign to show that because of his faith God had accepted him as righteous before he had been circumcised. (Romans 4: 9-11)

 Today’s English Version

 

However, James yet again rebutted Paul by eliciting the detail that Abraham (peace be upon him) was put right through his pure faith which was reflected when he acceded to sacrifice Isaac (peace be upon him) – an information, hitherto, put under lid by Paul:

How was our ancestor Abraham put right with God? It was through his actions, when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. Can’t you see? His faith and his actions worked together; his faith was made perfect through his actions. And the scripture came true that said, “Abraham believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.” And so Abraham was called God’s friend. You see, then, that it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone.” (James 2: 21-24, Today’s English Version)

 

To reinforce his position, James referred to Rahab. She being a prostitute had little faith and fear of God but yet she was put right with God because of her helpful deeds for the Israelites:

“It was the same with the prostitute Rahab. She was put right with God through her actions, by welcoming the Israelite spies and helping them to escape by a different road. So then, as a body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without actions is dead.” (James 2:25-26, Today’s English Version)

 

Over and over again, James wrote to scotch Paul’s personal doctrines. From a neutral perspective, we find James’ polemics scripturally (New Testament) supported.

One of the most important figures of New Testament – John, emphatically asserts that pure faith has to be reflected through pious deeds:

“When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them, “You snakes – who told you that you could escape from the punishment God is about to send? Do those things that will show that you have turned from your sins.” (Matthew 3: 7-8, Today’s English Version)

 

Notice that as far as Faith-only was concerned the Jews had hypocritically believed and thus came for baptism. However, John demanded that their faith to be reflected through deeds. As James earlier ironically questioned that how can there be true faith without deeds.

Christian Scholars of New Testament also bear witness to James’ doctrine. According to Robertson, a change of Faith in heart has to reflect through acts:

Fruit worthy of repentance (Karpon axion tēs metanoias). John demands proof from these men of the new life before he administers baptism to them. “The fruit is not the change of heart, but the acts which result from it” (McNeile). It was a bold deed for John thus to challenge as unworthy the very ones who posed as lights and leaders of the Jewish people. “Any one can do (poiēsate, vide Gen 1:11) acts externally good but only a good man can grow a crop of right acts and habits” (Bruce). (Robertson’s Word Pictures, Matthew 3:8)

 

Classical Bible Commentators Matthew Henry also supports James’ theology:

Here is a word of exhortation and direction (Mat 3:8); “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. Therefore, because you are warned to flee from the wrath to come, let the terrors of the Lord persuade you to a holy life.” Or, “Therefore, because you profess repentance, and attend upon the doctrine and baptism of repentance, evidence that you are true penitents.” Repentance is seated in the heart. There it is as a root; but in vain do we pretend to have it there, if we do not bring forth the fruits of it in a universal reformation, forsaking all sin, and cleaving to that which is good; these are fruits, axious tēs metanoiasworthy of repentance. Note, Those are not worthy the name of penitents, or their privileges, who say they are sorry for their sins, and yet persist in them. They that profess repentance, as all that are baptized do, must be and act as becomes penitents, and never do any thing unbecoming a penitent sinner. It becomes penitents to be humble and low in their own eyes, to be thankful for the least mercy, patient under the greatest affliction, to be watchful against all appearances of sin, and approaches towards it, to abound in every duty, and to be charitable in judging others. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew 3:7-12)

 

Although it is plain that Matthew Henry are exhorting Christian believers towards acts that are “good” such as charity and fair judgment. However, on a closer observation all the deeds of the Laws were “good”, as a matter of fact, charity and fair judgment were very integral part of the Old Testament Laws:

“How I love your law! I think about it all day long. Your commandment is with me all the time and makes me wiser than my enemies. I understand more than all my teachers, because I meditate on your instructions. I have greater wisdom than old men, because I obey your commands. I have avoided all evil conduct, because I want to obey your word. I have not neglected your instructions, for you yourself are my teacher. How sweet is the taste of your instructions- sweeter than honey! I gain wisdom from your laws, and so I hate all bad conduct.” (Psalms 119:97-104)

Happy are those whose lives are faultless, who live according to the law of the LORD. Happy are those who follow his commands, who obey him with all their heart. They never do wrong; they walk in the LORD’S ways. LORD, you have given us your Laws and told us to obey them faithfully. How I hope that I shall be faithful in keeping your instructions! If I pay attention to all your command then I will not be put to shame. As I learn your righteous judgments, I will praise you with a pure heart. I will obey your laws; never abandon me!” (Psalms 119:1-8)

Help me understand your Laws, and I will meditate in your wonderful teachingsKeep me from going the wrong way, and in your goodness teach me your lawI will eagerly obey your commands, because you will give me more understanding. Teach me, LORD, the meaning of your Laws, and I will obey them at all times. Explain your law to me, and I will obey it; I will keep it with all my heart. Keep me obedient to your commandments, because in them I find happiness. Give me the desire to obey your laws rather than to get rich. Keep me from paying attention to what is worthless; be good to me, as you have promised…how wonderful are your judgments! I want to obey your commands; give me new life, for you are righteous. (Psalms 119:27-40)

 Today’s English Version

 

From the foregoing Old Testament verses, it is not hard to deduce that Matthew-Henry were referring to the good deeds which is achieved by observing the Laws. Even if they were not referring to the Old Testament Laws, still, in the light of the above verses, by observing the Old Laws nothing but “good”, “charity” and “fair judgment” can be achieved!

Similarly, Jesus (peace be upon him) also recommended practicing good deeds of the Laws rather than Pauline Faith-only theory:

“Once a man came to Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what good thing must I do to receive eternal life?” “Why do you ask me concerning what is good?” answered Jesus. “There is only one who is good. Keep the commandments if you want to enter life.” “What commandments?” he asked. Jesus answered, “Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; respect you father and your mother; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.” (Matthew 19: 16-18)

 

Notice how Jesus (peace be upon him) enlisted the good deeds of the Laws the questionnaire need to do to enter “eternal life”. He did not taught that Faith-Only would achieve salvation.

In fact, after upholding and teaching about obedience to Laws, Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted that if anybody hears him and does not bring into execution the Laws then such a person “builds his house on sand”:

So then, anyone who hears these words of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain poured down, the rivers overflowed, and the wind blew hard against the house. But it did not fall, because it was built on rock. But anyone who hears these words of mine and does not obey them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain poured down, the rivers overflowed, the wind blew hard against that house, and it fell. And what a terrible fall that was!” (Matthew 7:24-26, Today’s English Version)

From the above verse, Jesus (peace be upon him) decidedly asserted that all those who do not obey and execute the deeds of the Law are in loss; very unlike Paul who over-defiantly, claimed that Laws can NEVER  achieve salvation to man:

“Indeed, we are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners,” as they are called. Yet we know that a person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires.” (Galatians 2:15-16)

“But now God’s way of putting people right with himself has been revealed. It has nothing to do with law, even though the Law of Moses and the prophets gave their witness to it.” (Romans 3: 21)

 Today’s English Version

 

Things went out of hand at this junction. As much aggravated by Paul’s distortions and worried by his increasing influence among the Gentiles, James forsook his polemical epistles to physically send his followers in Gentile lands to resist Paul:

But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile brothers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. The other Jewish brothers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly actions.” (Galatians 2: 11-13, Today’s English Version)

 

Notice that under the counseling of James’ messengers, Peter and Barnabas – two of the earliest apostles, sided with them. However, unfortunately, Paul incriminated and entitled them as “cowards”!  This incident opens up room for several queries, they are as follows:

(i)                 With what authority did Paul malign Peter AND Barnabas as “cowards”? Were they any less in knowledge or piety than Paul?

(ii)               Paul’s maledictions also imply that both Barnabas AND Peter – the one who ate and roamed with Jesus (peace be upon him) – were shaky in their faith, otherwise, why would they be “swept along cowardly”? If the earliest of, not mere Christians, but so called Apostles (plural), were trepid and timorous in their faith then what case and guaranty does Christianity has to offer!

It was expected that Peter and Barnabas would act something like Islam’s Sumaiyya (may Allah (SWT) be pleased with her) who preferred to be ripped open into two halves than “cowardly” succumbing to threats!

(iii)             On the foregoing if Peter AND Barnabas were perfect in their faith, then this implies they found good grounds in the Old Testament Laws, John’s and Christ’s (peace be upon them) teachings, to side “cowardly” with James and his employed messengers. Or, they found good reasons to reject Paul’s personal opinions on key doctrines. This further endangers Paul’s theology!

Conclusion

 

We find clash of doctrines in the very incipient stages of Christianity between people who witnessed Jesus (peace be upon him) during their life time! (of course Paul did not saw Jesus (peace be upon him) during his lifetime) Such accounts are not found in extra-biblical materials but within the so called “Book of Books”. (We are not quoting it from non-canonical or fabricated, story or biographical books.)

Whereas Paul had portrayed Christianity as a Faith-Only system, James advocated for Faith+Deeds theology.

On one hand where Paul defined Christianity without Laws, they being dead and useless; we found, James and other senior earliest Christians very loyal to the Laws for they did not reject the teachings of John and Jesus (peace be upon them).

In order to mollify the earliest Christian believers of Jerusalem, James and other senior Church members of Jerusalem organized Old Testament ceremonies and Paul was made to not only lead, but even bear expenses for it – all of this to prove that Law was still viable (even after the alleged cross) and there is no truth in Paul’s assertions who claimed that Laws were “dead and useless”.

When Paul’s influence grew, James had to employ his followers to thwart Paul. Ironically, Peter and Barnabas supported James for this step which went awfully disgusting for Paul who maligned them as “cowards”!

Even after so much inklings and proofs that Paul had coined new doctrines, Christians today are willing to reject multiple and traditional Old Testament teachings, New Testament testimonies of John, Jesus (peace be upon them), James, Peter, Barnabas and other earliest elders of the Jerusalem Church!

It may be good to love and respect Paul; however, it is equally important not to reject truths of God; there is nothing wrong in not accepting what is scripturally unsupported. We request Christians to analyze their Scriptures unbiasedly.

Footnotes:

(1.) Apart from the fact that Apostle James and the earliest Christians did not believed that Old Testament Laws had been brought to an end by Jesus (peace be upon him), the observance of purification ceremony also implies that these earliest Christians did not believe that either:

a.)    Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice is not complete enough to bear the sins.

b.)    Or, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion is not the only mode of remission of sins.

It is because in the purification ceremony, these earliest Christians of Jerusalem were to offer a SIN-OFFERING.

Kindly refer the following article on the subject: What was Paul up to in Jerusalem?

 

 Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts are taken from King James Version, e-Sword.

What was Paul up to in Jerusalem?

What was Paul up to in Jerusalem?

Enquiring Paul’s bizarre presence at the Jewish Purification Ceremony

 

Question Mark

 

Introduction

Majority of Christians, based on Pauline “verses” in the New Testament have rejected the Law of the Old Testament quite unceremoniously, especially when we know that the Laws were revealed much ceremoniously. Not merely have they rejected the Laws but following Paul they also have a new man-made doctrine for remission of their sins!

However, while they reject God’s rulings because of Paul, hardly do they consider New Testament testimonies wherein Paul took every opportunity to recline to Laws as situation demanded.

As we will soon find, based on the circumstances and not withstanding inconsistencies, Paul enjoyed a high level of flexibility between the diametrically opposite doctrines of the Old and New Testaments.

Paul at the Purification Ceremony

 

Luke relates that after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him), Paul visited Jerusalem to meet other apostles and senior believers and brief them about his ‘achievements’ in Gentile lands.

During his visit, a strange incident took place. Four Jewish men had earlier taken vows and they had to be “purified” as per the Laws of the Old Testament. Paul was given the task to lead the group for the ceremony and perform all the rituals, as we read in the so called Book of Acts:

“When we arrived in Jerusalem, the believers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to see James; and all the church elders were present. Paul greeted them and gave a complete report of everything that God had done among the Gentiles through his work.After hearing him, they all praised God. Then they said, Brother Paul, you can see how many thousands of Jews have become believers, and how devoted they all are to the Law.They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.They are sure to hear that you have arrived. What should be done, then?This is what we want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a vow. Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself life in accordance with the Law of Moses.But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent them a letter telling them we decided that they must not eat any food that has been offered to idols, or any blood, or any animal that has been strangled, and that they must keep themselves from sexual immorality. So Paul took the men and the next day performed the ceremony of purification with them. Then he went into the Temple and gave notice of how many days it would be until the end of the period of purification, when a sacrifice would be offered for each one of them. (Acts 21: 17-26. Today’s English Version)

The incident sounds very plain and simple. However, it has got some serious aberrations to the Christianity we know of!

Firstly, notice that sacrifice had to be offered for each one of the men and reportedly Paul not only approved for it but also bore the expenses for them. In this sacrificial ceremony, Jews had to sacrifice sheep and rams.

According to Christian Scholars these sacrifices were meant to purify and help in remitting sins since they included sin-offerings:

           

“And be at charges with themShare with them the expense of the offerings required when the vow is completed. Those offerings were a ram of a year old for a burnt-offering, a sheep of the same age for sin-offering, a ram for a thank-offering, a basket of unleavened cakes, and a libation of wine.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Acts 21:24)

James and other elders of the Church directed Paul to the ceremony based on the Old Testament Jewish system wherein the sacrifices of these animals symbolized forgiveness and remission of sins:

“When a Nazirite completes his vow, he shall perform the ritual. He shall go to the entrance of the Tent and present to the LORD three animals without any defects: a one-year-old male lamb for a burnt-offering, a one-year-old ewe lamb for a sin-offering, and a ram for a fellowship-offering.” (Numbers 6: 13-14, Today’s English Version)

So far so good, however, Paul asserted that there can be remission of sins only with the alleged bloodshed of Jesus (peace be upon him). In other words, there can be no remission without the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him):

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is NO remission. (Heb 9:22)

Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: (Gal 1:3-4)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:13-14)

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Col 1:20)

For there is one God, and there is one who brings God and mankind together, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself to redeem all mankind. (1Timothy: 5-6, Today’s English Version)

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:14)

Now the problem with above assertions when read in conjunction with the sacrificial ceremony of Acts is that when Jesus (peace be upon him) had already “given himself to redeem sinners” then why was the need arose to offer “SIN-OFFERINGS”. Furthermore, Paul even asserted that sacrifices of animals can never remit sins:

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”  (Heb 10:4)

To aggravate the problem, this need for a “SIN-OFFERING” was multiply attested by earliest Christian greats like James who is also called as the “brother of Jesus (peace be upon him)”, elders of the Jerusalem Church and Paul himself! This opens up doors for the following enquiries:

  1. Did not all of them knew that Jesus (peace be upon him) had already and allegedly died for the sins to be remitted?
  1. Why did these earliest Christians again reclined back to the “shadows of the things to come” when the “thing” (i.e., the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh)) had already allegedly passed by? Please refer Hebrews 10:1 and Colossians 2:17.
  1. Was the entire group of so called earliest Christians doubtful whether Jesus (peace be upon him) bore all of their sins or not – that they wanted to use animals for remaining sins? Or whether Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged death mechanism was the only mechanism or not – that they wanted to use animals as second mode?

Furthermore, and on the same corollary, why was the “purification” ceremony at all required when allegedly Christ (peace be upon him) had “purged” and “purified” sinners:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:13-14)

In fact if we believe Paul, then the sacrifice of animals once used to purify the unclean, however, after the “perfect” alleged sacrifice of Christ (peace be upon him), the rituals of purification ceremony were rendered “useless”:

“When Christ went through the tent and entered once and for all into the Most Holy Place, he did not take the blood of goats and bulls to offer as a sacrifice; rather, he took his own blood and obtained eternal salvation for us. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a burnt calf are sprinkled on the people who are ritually unclean and this purifies them by taking away their ritual impurity. Since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will purify our consciences from useless rituals, so that we may serve the living God.” (Hebrews 9: 12-14)

Therefore, our fourth and final query in this section is:

  1. If Christ (peace be upon him) through his alleged blood, had already purchased “eternal salvation” and cleansed human impurities through his alleged sacrifice then why did James, earliest Church congregation and even Paul continued to observe the “useless rituals”?

Moving to the second set of problems: Paul had nailed the Laws to the alleged Cross. For him, Jesus (peace be upon him) brought the Laws to an end:

For Christ has brought the Law to an end, so that everyone who believes is put right with God.” (Romans 10:4)

“What, then, was the purpose of the Law? It was added in order to show what wrongdoing is, and it was meant to last until the coming of Abraham’s descendant, to whom the promise was made.” (Galatians 3:19)

“But before the time for faith came, the Law kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might then be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.” (Galatians 3: 23-25)

Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once held us prisoners. No longer do we serve in the old way of a written law, but in the new way of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6)

Today’s English Version

Paul even believed that God could never give a Law good enough to put a man righteous with Himself (!):

“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Gal 3:21-22)

On the contrary, Paul claimed that Law was provided to increase sins (!):

Law was introduced in order to increase wrongdoing; but where sin increased, God’s grace increased much more.” (Romans 5:20)

If the Law not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from law, sin is a dead thing.” (Romans 7:7-8) 

“Death gets its power to hurt from sin, and sin gets its power from the Law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” (1 Corinthians 15: 56-57)

I myself was once alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died. And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death. (Romans 7:9-10)

“For when we lived according to our human nature, the sinful desires stirred up by the law were at work in our bodies, and all we did ended in death.” (Romans 7:5)

If the Law not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from law, sin is a dead thing.” (Romans 7:7-8) 

Today’s English Version

 

The issue to be enquired is, when Paul had such maledictions for Laws so much so that it empowers sins, without Laws sin is a dead thing; then why did:

  1. He observes the Laws of the Old Testament mentioned in the Book of Numbers?
  1. James and other “elders” of the Church advocated observing the Laws of the Old Testament when Jesus (peace be upon him) had allegedly brought the Laws to an end?

Furthermore, the subject verses of Acts clearly emphasize that by observing the Laws of Old Testament, Paul was to be acquitted of the claim that he taught Jews to do away with the Laws.

Subsequently, by observing the rituals Paul ascertained the “elders” of the Church including James that he was still faithful to the Law. Nevertheless, this is inconsistent with Paul, as we just saw, that according to him, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged death brought Laws to an end and thus people were no more required to follow the Laws!

In fact, speaking specifically of the purification ceremony, Paul considered them to be merely outward hypocritical show – lacking in spirit; viable only until the coming/ (alleged) death of Jesus (peace be upon him):

“This is an illustration which points to the present time. It means that the offerings and animal sacrifices presented to God cannot make the worshippers’s heart perfect, since they have to do only with food, drink, and various purification ceremonies. These are all outward rules, which apply only until the time when God will establish the new order.” (Hebrews 9: 9-10. Today’s English Version)

Therefore, on the forgoing we would like to ask our third query:

  1. As admitted by Paul, if the Laws were brought to an end by the alleged death of Christ (peace be upon him), if they were “useless outward rituals” meant only until for a certain time period (which elapsed) then why did Paul showed his fealty by observing them?

The answer to such queries is simple. Admittedly by Paul, he was just being a crafty opportunist. Not with standing inconsistencies in his own words, Paul wanted to portray himself like an advocate of the Gentiles when in Gentile lands (Antioch), however, when in Jerusalem he wanted to be as close to the Pharisees as he could. Consider the following “verses” to make our point clear:

      “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” (1 Co 9:20-21, King James Version)

Quite evidently just to “gain” Jews and Gentiles, Paul had no scruples in playing fast and loose and packing them as “inspired verses” in his personal epistles!

Inferences

 

Based on the complains from the Gentile lands (that Paul was preaching against the Laws of Old Testament) when James and other senior Jews of Jerusalem asked Paul to participate in the rituals of the Old Testament ceremonies, they indirectly upheld that:

  1. Jesus (peace be upon him) alleged sacrificial death was either not enough to bear the sins of others or it was not the only mechanism by which sins can be remitted. This is because Jewish Old Testament sacrificial sin-offering was a symbol of man’s acceptance of his sins, his repentance to God and subsequent forgiveness from God.
  1. James (and other elders of Jerusalem) did not hold that Laws of Old Testament had come to an end with the alleged death of Christ (peace be upon him) or that Laws aide sins etc. If that were true then he would have never clung to observe the rituals of Laws so meticulously! In fact, we have explicit accounts in the New Testament wherein James had expressly thwarted Paul in his attempts to belittle the Laws and corrupt Old Testament doctrines. This takes us to our next section.

High Octane Clash between brother and apostle of Christ (pbuh)

 

As a comparative study, firstly consider Pauline doctrines (later we will quote James) regarding Faith and Laws:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal 3:11)

Quite evidently, Paul’s theology was that solely believe Christ (peace be upon him) allegedly died for one’s sin and be saved. Once believed, there is no need to observe the regulations of the Laws. Here is the doctrine in nut shell:

If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved. For it is by our faith that we are put right with God; it is by our confession that we are saved.” (Romans 10:9-10. Today’s English Version)

Contrary to Paul’s faith-only doctrine, James gave equal importance to faith as well as deeds:

My brothers, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith is his actions do not prove it?” (James 2:14. Today’s English Version)

While Paul claimed that sin without Law is dead, James claimed that faith without actions is dead:

“My brother, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it? Can that faith save him? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.” (James 2: 14-17)

“But someone will say, “One person has faith, another has actions.” My answer is, “Show me how anyone can have faith without actions. I will show you my faith by my actions.” Do :You believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe – and tremble with fear. You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith without actions is useless?” (James 2: 18-20)

Today’s English Version

 

Thus, it is more than evident that James had a faceoff with Paul on key doctrines of Christianity. However, on referral to prophets of God like John and Jesus (peace be upon them) we find that James’ theory was correct. For the sake of brevity we would consider this topic separately in our future paper, inshallah!

 

Conclusion

 

Before we close this topic, we would like to recapitulate the following important points:

       I.            On one hand Paul claimed that Laws were no more viable and they are the causes of all kinds of sins, however, he goes to Jerusalem to take part in the rituals of the Laws. Not merely does he take part in it, but he leads it and even pays for the expenses of others!

    II.            We saw that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) brother James (and other elders of the Church) believed in the sacrificial sin-offering of the Old Testament even after the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him). This establishes that the so called earliest Christians of Jerusalem never believed in the vicarious atonement through Jesus (peace be upon him) or they did not viewed Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice to be the only and complete mode for remission of sins.

 III.            On the foregoing, the earliest Christians, including Jesus’ (peace be upon him) cousin, never believed that because of Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion, Laws of the Old Testament had come to an end – as asserted by Paul in his epistles.

 IV.            From the preceding points, it was the difference in some of the most fundamental doctrines (faith-only versus faith + deeds) between “apostles” (and earliest Christians) that led to James, in his epistles, openly impede Paul’s distortions. James head on disputed Paul. (And, inshallah, in our future paper we would see that based on scriptural background, James held upper hand.)

The situation gets even worse for Paul when we know (from the Acts verses) that the second reason why Paul was asked to lead and execute the Old Testament ceremonies was to confirm to the Christian multitudes of Jerusalem that Paul was still loyal and obedient to the Old Testament Laws. And Paul by obeying them confirmed his fealty and endorsed the viability of the Laws. However, the query is, if Paul considered Laws to be “dead” then why did he participate in its ceremonies. This leads us to our fifth recapitulation:

    V.            When Paul saw that his personal doctrines would be undone by majority opinion of believers at Jerusalem, he sought to the tactics of camouflaging. Admittedly Paul, when with Jews, he behaved like Jews; observed all the Laws, not in contempt, but whole heartedly.

On the other hand, when with Gentiles, he had no hesitation unabashedly “preaching” Laws beget sin (!), Laws were brought to an end by Jesus (peace be upon him) so on and so forth. Refer 1 Corinthians 9:20-21. 

Little did Paul realize that it would not be hard catching his inconsistencies?

Christians Scholars face hard time reconciling Pauline inconsistencies and as a result of it they come out with utterly desperate reconciliations. Consider one such desperate reconciliation by Classical commentators Matthew-Henry:

“The request of James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem to Paul, or their advice rather, that he would gratify the believing Jews by showing some compliance with the ceremonial law, and appearing publicly in the temple to offer sacrifice, which was not a thing in itself sinful; for the ceremonial law, though it was by no means to be imposed upon the Gentile converts (as the false teachers would have it, and thereby endeavoured to subvert the gospel), yet it was not become unlawful as yet to those that had been bred up in the observance of it, but were far from expecting justification by it. It was dead, but not buried; dead, but not yet deadly. And, being not sinful, they thought it was a piece of prudence in Paul to conform thus far. Observe the counsel they give to Paul herein, not as having authority over him, but an affection for him.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Acts 21:15-26)

All of these incidents only help Prophet Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) words come true when he said that because the Christians (and the Jews) trump God’s words to the words of their priests and other anchorites, they ultimately worship them:

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him). (Qur’an 9:31, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version)

Therefore, we request sincere Christians to go back to their scriptures. Analyze what James (and other elders of the earliest Church) had to say since it is not justified to reject multiple Old Testament prophets and their Laws and New Testament apostles who believed in the Old Laws. It is not fair to reject them all for the sake of one man’s theology – Paul.

In our future paper, inshallah, we would provide more proofs wherein even New Testament prophets like John and Jesus (peace be upon him) supported James! Until then pray for us.

End Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned all biblical texts taken from King James Version, e-Sword version.

Du’a: Through this paper I beseech Allah (SWT) to purge my sins; I am a filthy sinner but You are Pure. In deed I have wronged my soul; forgive me my shortcomings, give me a new beginning. Ease out and alleviate my father in his grave.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.