Introduction
The year was 2001, and it was
mid-September. The research laboratories
of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota are busy. Researchers and students sit in front of
computers and at laboratory benches.
Assistants carry cultures, files, and flasks from room to room. Small groups huddle over darkened machinery,
observing glowing DNA samples. Latex
gloves and lab coats are everywhere.
Professors, hands on keyboards, struggle to share ideas with distant
colleagues on the internet and via word processing software.
It's like almost any other week
in an American research laboratory.
Except for one thing. It has been
just 12 days since terrorists destroyed New York's World Trade Center Towers
with two hijacked passenger jets, and crashed others into Washington, D.C. and
rural Pennsylvania. Even scientific
hallway conversations are changed.
Ahmed Chadli, Ph.D., a Muslim
postdoctoral fellow from Morocco strolls between offices, sharing a printed
page of comments from an Islamic teacher, condemning the September 11 violence,
and assuring non-Muslims of the pacifist core of Islam.
The printed sheet starts a
conversation between Chadli, (35), and Jim Maher, Ph.D., (41) a professor and
leader of the next lab down the hall.
Maher, a Christian, is interested to read the page supplied by Chadli,
and promises to give it some thought.
Over the next few months, this
interaction creates the opportunity for these two scientists to respectfully
share their views of Christianity and Islam.
Though they work in neighboring labs, they use e-mail to record their
thoughts and questions. Elements of
their correspondence are recorded below.
September 11, 2001 was in almost
every way a tragic day. There is one
exception. The day motivated dialogs
that likely never would otherwise have taken place. The conversation recorded below is but one
example. The subject of this
conversation is perhaps the most important subject that can ever be discussed–the
issues of eternal destiny and what we can know about a relationship with the
creator of the universe. We share this
conversation to honor the tiny glimmer of good that was born in the darkness of
September 11. We share this correspondence
in the hope that it will illuminate the contrasts between Islam and Christianity,
as practiced and believed by two scientists in mid-America at the dawn of the
21st century. We share it,
praying that the one true God will reveal himself to those who, reading the
following discussion with open minds, decide to seek him afresh.
9/24/01 From Jim:
Ahmed-
Thanks for
your discussion this past week.
First a general comment on Islam
and Christianity. Although it is
tempting to seek the similarities between Christianity and Islam at times like
this, there are crucial differences.
The lyrics to the song "The
Path" I wrote for our recent compact disc [an original gospel music
charity benefit project in which Maher was involved] were to respond to a
friend who saw all world religions as different paths to the single true God. In her view, since all the paths lead to the
same place, it doesn't matter on which path one chooses to walk, as long as one
makes progress.
Jesus himself taught that this
isn't true, and that many paths are false.
He taught that only one path is true–but which one?
John Steer's comments about
terrorism in perspective [a transcript of a recent lecture on Islam presented
by Maher's pastor in Rochester, Minnesota had been shared by Maher with Chadli]
refer to the core message of Christianity and perhaps contrast it with other
religions. Unlike Islam, which spells
out a code of conduct that will identify Muslims and please God, Christianity
teaches that there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor or please him–we
are all too imperfect and wicked due to our own selfish choices. Christians have no hope of ever doing
anything to build a relationship to God.
Instead, we believe that our only
hope is that God sacrificed himself for us–the one perfect person, God having
taken on human flesh as Jesus, innocently and deliberately dying in the place
of all the people who have ever lived, including you and I. In Christianity, Jesus is not seen as a
prophet but as God himself committing suicide to pay an eternal debt that we
could not pay.
We believe the only path that
rebuilds the lost relationship between humans and God is the path that crosses
the one bridge that God built for us that day–the sacrifice of himself for us
in Christ.
When I face God someday in
heaven, and I am to give account of why I believe I should share a relationship
with him forever, I will not say it is because I followed rules, or tried to
live a good life, or did my best to adhere to the 10 commandments. That is hopeless because I've failed in all
of them. Everyone has.
My response will be–"I
accepted the forgiveness you offered me when you died for me long ago in
Palestine–I chose to accept your perfect death in my place, and my only right
to live with you is that you have forgiven me through what Jesus did".
I made that choice for my life in
1978, and believe that is when my life changed forever. Not because of something I did, or could ever
do, but because of my acceptance of something He had long ago done for me
through Jesus...
Jim
10/10/01 From Ahmed:
Jim:
Thank
you very much for sharing your thoughts with me and I apologize for this late
message.
You
wrote:
"Although it is
tempting to seek the similarities between Christianity and Islam at times like
this, there are crucial differences."
Although
I agree with you that there differences between Islam and Christianity , I do
not think that they are more crucial than those between Christianity and
Judaism. I am truly convinced that our ignorance of our profound similarities
makes us give more importance to differences rather than to focus on our common
beliefs. The Qur’an teaches us that
between Christianity, Judaism and Islam there is a common word:
"Say; O people of the scripture! Come to
an agreement (common word) between us and you: that we shall worship none but
God, and that we ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take
others for lords beside God" 3.64.
Our God
is one and our father (Adam) is one.
Muslims should stress our common points. In the Muslim tradition,
Christians hold a special place. The Qur’an
teaches us that Christians are the most close to Muslims, and the prophet
Mohammed used to reserve special treatment for them. His tradition is full of
examples for this purpose.
"And the most affectionate among people
toward Muslims are those who say: they are Christians. That is because among
these are people devoted to learning and who have renounced the world and they
are not arrogant" 5.82
I
believe, at least from the Muslim side, that there are strong basic elements to
build a solid bridge between Christians and Muslims. Indeed, Muslims believe in Jesus (peace be
upon him) and all the other prophets of the Bible and we do not make a
distinction between any of them.
We do
believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) as a great and very special prophet. He
holds an exalted place in Islam. Here are some of the titles mentioned in the Qur’an
for Jesus: Spirit of God, word of God, the righteous, Messiah, prophet,
Messenger of God, Jesus, son of Mary):
"When the angels said, 'Mary, God gives
thee good tidings of a word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary;
high honored shall he be in this word and the next near stationed to God".
The Qur’an
confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus through the Virgin Mary (peace be upon
him). Interestingly the Qur’an speaks
about Jesus' birth, along with Adam's birth, as an example of God's power and
as signs for all human kind.
"Truly, the
likeness of Jesus, in God's Sight, is as Adam's likeness." 3.52.
If
Allah could create Adam without both parents, it is easy for him to create
Jesus with one parent. Moreover, the Qur’an
acknowledges most of the miracles performed by Jesus. Those are only some
example of a common ground between Muslims and Christians. I am truly convinced that we have a lot more in
common than we were told we have.
You
wrote:
"The lyrics to
the song 'The Path' …on our CD…I wrote to respond to a friend who saw all world
religions as different paths to the single true God. In her view, since all the paths lead to the
same place, it doesn't matter on which path one chooses to walk, as long as one
makes progress. Jesus himself taught
that this isn't true, and that many paths are false. He taught that only one path is true– but
which one?"
I am
actually tempted to agree, at least partially, with your friend. My reason for
this is the statement in the Qur’an saying:
"Those who believe (in the Qur’an) and
those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians
any who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have
their reward" 2.62
The
bottom line is to believe in one God and do good deeds. After that Allah is the only judge of people
because he is the one knowing what they hide in their hearts.
The Qur’an
tells us that all prophets (peace be upon them all) from Adam to Mohamed came
with the same message, which is Islam.
Therefore Muslims believe that Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohamed
(peace be upon them all) were Muslims and were sent to teach people how to
worship one God and to work among each other to establish the meanings of
mercy, justice, to forbid acts of injustice and transgression, and to seek
idealism among mankind. These are
basically the purposes of anyone of a monotheistic religion. Therefore, Islam did not come with
Mohamed. Rather, Mohamed was the
sealing prophet to complete the message of God.
In conclusion, from an Islamic perspective, the path shown by Allah
through Mohamed for true worship and success in this life and the hereafter is
the same one that Jesus taught to his followers.
Nevertheless,
if people did not got a chance, for whatever reason, to know the message, Allah
is just. He will reward them for their
deeds and their efforts to find the way of worshipping him. It is clearly stated in the Qur’an that Allah
will never punish people without sending them a messenger.
You
wrote:
"John Steer's comments about terrorism in perspective
refer to the Core message of Christianity and perhaps contrast it with other
religions. Unlike Islam, which spells out
a code of conduct that will identify Muslims and please God, Christianity
teaches that there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor or please him–we
are all too imperfect and wicked due to our own selfish choices. Christians have no hope of ever doing
anything to build a relationship to God."
In
Islam, a human being can have a relationship with God if he keeps trying
to follow God's guidance and if he keeps repenting whenever he fails. By choosing to
follow the will of God, a human being can accomplish the highest level of
righteousness and can be even better than the angels who do not have the
responsibility of choosing, but only obey God. From an Islamic view, humans can
please God by worshipping him and spreading the word of God, his guidance, peace,
and mercy to the universe. Although good
deeds are crucial to enter to paradise, they are not sufficient. Because humans
can make mistakes, only the forgiveness of Allah after judgment will help to
enter paradise.
You
wrote:
"Instead, we believe that our only hope is that God
sacrificed himself for us–the one perfect person, God having taken on human
flesh as Jesus, innocently and deliberately dying in the place of all the
people who have ever lived, including you and I. In Christianity, Jesus is not seen as a prophet but as God
himself committing suicide to pay an eternal debt that we could not pay."
For
Muslims, every human is responsible of his or her own actions. The Qur’an
emphasizes the worship of God with knowledge and reason. God gives us intelligence and all tools
needed to be able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, no one will pay for the sins of
anyone else. We all, in this life, are
responsible to be good and to teach people a good way of life, helping them to
be on the right path. Those actions are also considered good deeds for
ourselves. One of the strong beliefs of
Muslims is that God is JUST. This gives
meaning to the existence of a day of judgment, paradise and hell. This means that Allah will consider people on
the basis of their actions in this life, and will judge them. The balance of their good and bad deeds will
determine their future life, with the mercy of God. But it is also true, as the teachings of the
Prophet clearly state, “No one will enter heaven exclusively because of their
deeds.” God’s mercy is ultimately needed for anyone to enter heaven.
Please
forgive my poor English and let's continue this exchange in other messages.
Take
care
Ahmed
10/16/01 From Jim:
Ahmed-
I am
honored by the time you have taken to give thoughtful replies and
comments. I will offer just a few
additional remarks. I am off to
Washington for a scientific meeting.
I have
extracted these specific comments and responses from your prior message. You wrote:
"The bottom line is to believe in one God and do good
deeds. After that Allah is the only
judge of people because he is the one knowing what they hide in their hearts…In
Islam, a human being can be a perfect creation if he fellows the guidance of
God. By choosing to follow the will of
God, a human being can accomplish the highest level of righteousness and can be
even better than the angels who do not have the responsibility of choosing, but
only obey God. From an Islamic view, humans can please God by worshipping him
and spreading the word of God, his guidance, peace, and mercy to the
universe. Although good deeds are
crucial to enter to paradise, they are not sufficient. Because humans can make
mistakes, only the forgiveness of Allah after judgment will help to enter
paradise.... For Muslims, every human is responsible of his or her own actions.
The Qur’an emphasizes the worship of God with knowledge and reason. God gives us intelligence and all tools
needed to be able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, no one will pay for the sins of
anyone else. We all, in this life, are
responsible to be good and to teach people a good way of life, helping them to
be on the right path. Those actions are also considered good deeds for
ourselves. One of the strong beliefs of
Muslims is that God is JUST. This gives
meaning to the existence of a day of judgment, paradise and hell. This means that Allah will consider people on
the basis of their actions in this life, and will judge them. The balance of their good and bad deeds will
determine their future life, with the mercy of God."
Your
thoughtful explanations are very helpful.
In my humble opinion, they place a sharp focus on the central difference
between the Christian theology and that of Islam.
I think
we both believe in a God who is utterly just.
Divine justice is an attribute we both feel strongly characterizes our
God. Your description above suggests
that God asks men and women to do their best to follow him, obey his laws, seek
his guidance, and do good works. They
then are to look to his forgiveness, in the end, to hope for paradise.
Where
is justice in this model? On what basis
can an eternally just God accept less than perfection from us? Do not all of us deserve condemnation in the
sense that none of us can claim to be righteous for an hour let alone a
lifetime? Jesus himself taught that even
evil or selfish or immoral THOUGHTS are equivalent to evil or selfish or
immoral actions, so all of us are condemned.
It is as if Allah is promising to "forget" or
"overlook" such imperfections if we earn his favor. How much righteousness is enough to earn
this? How many sins is Allah willing to
forgive?
I
actually grew up with exactly this view of God– believing that if, on balance,
I was good more often than I was bad, God would look at my life on a scale and
see that I was more good than bad and accept me in heaven. He would just forgive the bad parts.
On
exploring biblical Christianity more deeply I was shocked to see that this
commonly-held belief (which seems also to lie at the center of Islam) is
absolutely not Christian theology.
Christians
believe that God's just character is so fundamental that he cannot and will not
simply forgive imperfection ad hoc.
Justice must be done.
Imperfection deserves retribution and punishment. Sin must have a penalty. Any sin must have a penalty. The penalty doesn't come only when sin is
greater than righteousness. The penalty
is deserved for any sin at all.
To the
Christian, our just God cannot forgive us unless there is a way to preserve
justice. Justice can be preserved only
if SOMEBODY is willing to pay the debt, take the punishment, bear the penalty.
If a
person breaks a law in America, a fine may be imposed by the legal system. Justice is not served by the judge simply
waiving the fine and telling the guilty party to ignore it. SOMEBODY must pay the fine.
In
Christian theology, the only person capable of taking on the eternal penalty
that has been earned by all human error and imperfection from time past through
time future is one whose life is perfectly clean, and can be offered in the
place of the lives of all of us who deserve death.
The
irony of Christian theology is that God satisfies the need for eternal justice
by placing punishment and death upon himself as a voluntary act of love,
undeserved by us, but necessary to preserve justice. It was God's self-sacrifice on the cross as
he himself died as a human, that offers eternal hope to the Christian. It is what Jesus did, not what I do, that
satisfies justice. In Christian
theology, you and I deserve eternal separation from God, no matter how much we
try to be good. In Christian theology,
God cannot forgive us and preserve justice, unless SOMEBODY ELSE pays the
penalty.
What I
chose to do in the Spring of 1978 was to believe, for the first time, that my
hope of relating to God personally came only in accepting that he had provided
a gift to me once and for all when Christ died on the cross. The gift was a perfect life given in exchange
for my imperfect one. Justice demands
that somebody pay the price for my sins, no matter how large or small. God volunteered to pay the price for me in
Christ. My choice was simply to believe
in this gift, and to, by my will, accept it.
Thus
(forgive the length) I would conclude that the Islamic theology you helpfully
present resembles exactly what I believed before I was exposed to biblical
Christianity. It is what is believed by
many who call themselves Christians. It
is similar to Judaism as well. It
suffers from the problem that was made so clear in the animal sacrifices
demanded in the Old Testament: something
or someone has to pay the price for our sin.
To the Christian, the millions of dead animals of the Old Testament are
an unmistakable foreshadowing of the single sacrifice that would one day end
sacrifices forever.
When I
meet my God some day, I will place no hope in my righteous deeds, and I will
place no hope in his forgiveness. I will
place my hope only in the sacrifice of one perfect life, made on my behalf one
Friday afternoon outside of Jerusalem.
Respectfully-
Jim
11/7/01 From Ahmed:
Jim-
Thank
you very much for the time you reserve to this dialogue. It's a pleasure to
discuss these matters with you, although my responses are always late! Thanks again for your patience.
You
wrote:
"Where is justice in this model? On what basis can an eternally just God
accept less than perfection from us? Do
not all of us deserve condemnation in the sense that none of us can claim to be
righteous for an hour let alone a lifetime?
Jesus himself taught that even evil or selfish or immoral THOUGHTS are
equivalent to evil or selfish or immoral actions, so all of us are
condemned. It is as if Allah is promising
to "forget" or "overlook" such imperfections if we earn his
favor. How much righteousness is enough
to earn this? How many sins is Allah
willing to forgive?"
As you
know, Muslims approach or understand God by his 99 attributes or names. Three of those attributes are: most just,
most merciful and most forgiving.
Muslims believe that God did not send Adam and Eve to this earth as
punishment. There is no original sin. We believe that human beings are trustees of
God on earth and that this life is only a test for our behavior. God wants all
human beings to enter paradise if they work hard for it. Therefore, on the day
of judgement, the principle of personal accountability for what we have done in
this life is central in Islam. Each
human being has two angels accompanying him all his lifetime: one records the
good deeds and the other one records bad deeds.
On the day of judgment, each individual will be resurrected and his
folder will be presented to him. God
will be the judge between people on the basis of these records.
Let me
give one view of how Muslims understand the mercy and justice of God. Let's say, to be simple, that good deeds in
this life are rewarded by positive points and bad deeds are given negative
point in one's account on the day of judgment.
Because God is merciful and knows that human beings will commit sins
anyway, he decides that:
–if a
person does one good deed in this life, he will be rewarded 10, 700 or even
more positive points, depending on the act.
–if he
had the intention of doing a good deed and he didn't do it, he will get one
positive point.
–if he
did one bad deed, he will get only one negative point (except major sins).
–if he
had the intention of doing a bad deed and he didn't do it, he will get one
positive point.
God
tells us that he can forgive any sin between him and his slave as long as the
person did not worship something besides God.
In Islam there are basically two kinds of situations that God will
consider in one's personal record on the day of judgment:
1. Sins or affairs between the slave and God
(for example, a person failing to do his or her prayers, failing to fast during
Ramadan, etc.) These are personal acts
or omissions that do not involves anybody else, and are therefore
"secrets" between the slave and his lord.
2. Actions involving other human beings, animals
or nature (for example, lying, wrongdoing, injustice on earth, corruption,
dishonesty, etc.) In these cases,
Muslims believe that divine justice will be done first.
God's justice
is easily seen if you consider a scenario where God is judging two people. In Islamic theology, during the day of
judgement, the two people will both face God.
The folder for each person will be presented in front of Allah. The wrongdoer will then pay the other
person. No mercy or divine forgiveness
will apply in this case. It is simple
justice first. How will the payment will
be made? There is no money. All that we will have will be our good and
bad deeds: positive and negative points.
But remember that God makes it easy to accumulate positive points. The wrongdoer will therefore pay his
adversary by giving him the value of the wrongdoer's negative acts from his
positive points until the wrongdoer pays him off. Now if the wrongdoer does not have enough
good deeds to make full payment, God will take the equivalent negative points
from the victim's account and put them on the balance of the wrongdoer.
The
scenario will continue for every human being with whom each person has had
dealings in this life. If the person in question has enough positive points to
pay everybody, and still has some remaining positive points, we can assume that
the person was generally good in this life.
He can hope for the forgiveness of God regarding the deeds between him
and his lord, and he can hope to go to paradise. If, on the other hand, he does not have
enough good deeds to pay off the people he has offended, God gives them justice
by transferring their negative points to the wrongdoer's balance. The offender will obviously accumulate a lot
of negative points, and we can logically assume that that person was generally
bad in this life. His destiny will be
the hell fire.
Once
justice is done between people, if for any reason God decides to forgive
somebody the negative points, that's a matter between God and him. God is just, wise and forgiving. For example, the prophet Mohammed (peace be
upon him) said that a man once entered paradise because he gave water to a dog
dying of thirst. Thus, the life not only
of a human, but also of an animal, is sacred in Islam. Further, saving a life is like saving all of
humanity, and taking a life is like killing all of humanity.
It is
therefore seen as categorically impossible to pay off the debt of murder on the
day of judgment. On the other hand, one
is rewarded many positive points for saving a life. Such a reward will make a
huge difference in one's balance on the day of judgment.
The Qur’an
also tells us that in affairs between God and his servant, God can forgive
almost every sin but one. This
unforgivable sin is to have worshipped someone or something other than
God. Basically, if one worships only the
one true God, creator of the universe, one can hope for forgiveness when
"internal affairs" (between the person and God) are settled on the
judgement day after justice for other human beings and all God's creation has
been settled.
You
wrote:
"The irony of Christian theology is that God satisfies
the need for eternal justice by placing punishment and death upon himself as a
voluntary act of love, undeserved by us, but necessary to preserve
justice. It was God's self-sacrifice on
the cross as he himself died as a human, that offers eternal hope to the
Christian. It is what Jesus did, not
what I do, that satisfies justice. In
Christian theology, you and I deserve eternal separation from God, no matter
how much we try to be good. In Christian
theology, God cannot forgive us and preserve justice, unless SOMEBODY ELSE pays
the penalty."
It is
honestly quite difficult to talk about justice when a person, as an actor,
doesn't have to pay himself! We are
talking about the hereafter! On the day
of judgment, if we want to talk about absolute justice, there should be no one
who can help. This creates a profound
sense of responsibility. The consequence
of the "savior" concept is that one can do whatever he or she wants
because he or she knows that somebody could pay for their mistakes and save
them from the hell fire! There is no
sense of absolute justice and personal accountability in this view. If God knows that he will save people by
scarifying himself, then it's senseless to create heaven and hell. We need only heaven. And what will happen to people who never get
the message of Jesus, peace be upon him?
On the
other hand, God gave us intellect and reason to use for our well being in this
life in all matters including religion.
What will happen to people who, on the basis of this reason, cannot
accept and believe in the doctrine of the trinity? For Muslims, believing in
the one God must be based on reason and rigor.
The Qur’an stresses reasoning hundreds of times, as well as thinking and
knowledgeable belief in God. Religion is
not a matter of faith based on acceptance, at least from Qur’anic point of view. God will judge us with absolute reason and
proof. He requires that we do the same
with respect to religion. Without this,
nothing will make sense or be worthy.
Please
share with me your understanding of how the concept of original sin and its consequences
could be understood in the context of absolute divine justice.
Muslims
believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, never taught people that he was a son of
God, nor did he teach the doctrine of the trinity. Could you clarify to me the concept of the
trinity (i.e. its meaning and its
HISTORY)? Why do you consider Jesus
(peace be upon him) as son of God? Why
does God need to have a son?
Please forgive me if in any way I hurt your
feeling or offend you with these questions. It's certainly not my intention and
it's not obeying the teaching of the Qur’an in a matter of dialogue with the
people of the book. It's my personal
weaknesses and mistake! My English does
not help! But I try!
Respectfully.
Ahmed
11/26/01 From Jim:
Hi
Ahmed-
Happy Ramadan :)
I have
been at a scientific conference and now am on vacation with my family in
Florida, so I have had lots of relaxation and a nice change of pace. I've been thinking about your recent note and
wanted to provide some additional ideas about Christianity.
Although
it has been suggested to me that a verbal discussion with you might be more
polite (and I am happy to do that any time) I also find the chance to write out
my ideas to be helpful. For your sake, I
am sorry that you must write in English !
Before
I respond to some of your comments and questions, let me say that I write to
you because of my beliefs as an "evangelical" Christian. Being an evangelical means that I believe
that I have been given good news to share with others who have not yet heard
it. Even though there are religions such
as Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and many others that are based on the ideas
of teachers who have come since the time of Jesus Christ, evangelical
Christians believe that Christianity remains the truth, and that it alone
explains and completes the story of God's relationship with humans, as set
forth in the Old Testament (writings that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all
share). Other religions may share
"echoes" of the one truth, but only one can be true.
At the
core of this discussion is Jesus' claim to be the unique and exclusive path to
God. I may not be able to convince you
that faith in Jesus Christ as God's perfect sacrifice to pay for your sins is
the only way for you to be accepted by God, but I will keep trying, and will
keep praying that despite your background and sincere acceptance of Islam, that
you will consider that there might be an entirely different path to God. This is, of course, my prayer for all
Muslims, and I look forward to a day when Christianity can be openly and freely
explained to curious Muslims in all the countries of the world.
In any
case, whether or not you come to accept that Christianity is the only true path
to God, this is what Jesus himself taught in sayings such as "I am the way and the truth and the
life–nobody comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). It is clear from Jesus' teaching that he
believed himself to be one with God (who he called his "Father"), and
that those who had seen him (Jesus) had seen God. He taught that he needed to be killed in
order to fulfill God's plan, and he taught that he would be raised back to life
three days later. These supernatural
claims set Jesus apart from the other prophets of the Old Testament and of
Islam. We then are left to decide
whether Jesus was really God revealed as a human ("Emmanuel" means
"God with us") or whether he was insane and an evil imposter. The one thing we cannot do is to say that he
was simply a great teacher or prophet, while ignoring what he said about
himself. I fear that Islam deals with
Jesus this way–choosing to teach that Jesus was one of many prophets that
pointed people to God, but then ignoring the fact that he claimed to be God
himself, and claimed that his death was required for the salvation of the
world. Thus, a person can reject
Christ's claims, or accept them, but cannot logically say Jesus was a great
teacher or prophet while ignoring the content of his claims.
Now, I
appreciate your comments and clarifications about your view of justice and
forgiveness in Islam. I pointed out that
in Christian theology, sins (imperfections) cannot be forgiven without just
payment from somebody, and I argued that only God's chosen, perfect sin-bearer
(Jesus Christ) can pay for my sins. Your
response is interesting. First, you note
your belief that detailed records are kept of all our actions, whether good or
bad. Christians would agree with this,
except to point out that thoughts, not just actions, are also recorded, along
with good things left undone. Second,
you propose that God has a disproportionate grading system such that bad
actions count less than good actions. In
this model, it becomes possible for a "generally good" person to come
out ahead and have hope of acceptance by God.
Third, you propose the interesting idea that:
"…The folder for each person will be presented in
front of Allah. The wrongdoer will then
pay the other person. No mercy or divine
forgiveness will apply in this case. It
is simple justice first. How will the
payment will be made? There is no
money. All that we will have will be our
good and bad deeds: positive and negative points. But remember that God makes it easy to
accumulate positive points. The
wrongdoer will therefore pay his adversary by giving him the value of the
wrongdoer's negative acts from his positive points until the wrongdoer pays him
off…"
This is
an interesting idea. It is very useful
to contrast this view of divine justice with that presented in
Christianity. In your view, justice is
first worked out between the records of people, with each person hoping that
their positive scores will be enough to cover all the negative scores they have
accumulated in interactions with others for their whole lives. Even then, you point out that God might step
in and save a person who has run out of positive points.
So,
although this is an interesting model (and I used to believe pretty much
exactly this model when I was younger) it is not consistent with the teachings
of the Bible, and it requires some optimistic views of the "grading
system" for which I suspect neither the Qur’an nor the Bible provides
direct evidence or detail.
For
example, who says the scoring system will really make it easy to accumulate
positive points relative to negative?
What if, in God's eyes, a negative action actually counts 1000x worse
than a positive action? What if positive
and negative actions actually count exactly the same rather than positive
counting more? If any of these scenarios
is true (and who knows?) then I have no hope of having enough points to pay off
my debtors. Why should God set up a
system where it is easier to accumulate positive points? That doesn't seem just. The problem with any such system is that none
of us ever have a clue how we are doing, and we must logically live in
perpetual doubt about whether our scores are adding up. (Actually I would have
absolutely no doubt that my evil scores are always way ahead, even with the
favorably scoring system!)
Christianity
looks at this same point scoring model and declares a much more pessimistic
view. According to Christianity, the
only person who can claim a right to live with God in heaven is a person who
has a perfect life (no negative points at all!). In this view, one cannot simply use positive
points to cancel negatives and see what is left, one must never get even a
single negative point if they wish to claim the God-like perfection required
for heaven. Perfection is not being more
clean than dirty, but rather, being perfectly clean with no dirt at all! I think honest people realize that no matter
what the scoring system, we all end up with some dirt. The angel on my negative shoulder is always
very busy counting, no matter how hard I try.
The
Bible teaches that "There is no one
righteous, not even one"
(Romans 3:10) and "for all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Another verse along these lines says "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles
at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10). This view suggests a much more strict scoring
standard than in Islam– we can't hope for acceptance based on a balance between
good and bad, but only in the absolute absence of bad. We can't hope for some optimistic scoring
system, because all of us will have negative scores.
I could
quote you various verses from Jesus' teaching and the writings of his friends
to demonstrate this ancient principle.
However, it boils down to this:
What if this view is correct? You
and I are in terrible, eternal danger if we are counting on the power of our
good acts and intentions. What if it's
true that God's standard is MUCH higher?
This is what Jesus implied when he reminded his friends that even
thinking an unclean thought cost the same number of points as committing the
unclean act.
Here is
a case in point: You state that God will
forgive almost all sins, but he will not forgive idolatry (the improper worship
of someone or something other than God).
However, according to Jesus' standards, the problem is that any of us
who have even imagined or entertained the notion of placing something above God
in our lives (money, fame, publications, sex, academic promotion, etc.) has
already committed idolatry, the unforgivable sin. I've committed idolatry over and over, and
I'm not proud of it.
BUT, I
know that I have committed the unforgivable sin of idolatry many times, and I
have thought about many terrible actions that (according to Jesus) count
against me just as much as if I had actually done them. I suspect that you have had exactly the same
experience. In fact, the more concerned
about righteous behavior we become, the more aware we are that we are actually
characterized by evil and selfishness rather than the goodness we claim. By that standard, my life (and yours, I
suspect) are hopelessly evil.
So,
Christianity declares all people are justly condemned to hell by their
imperfection. You, me, everyone.
The
good news is that in his wisdom, mercy, and justice, God has provided a just
and fair alternative to this punishment that you and I deserve. It is payment of my debt and your debt by
Christ, as we have discussed before.
Receiving the gift requires a personal conscious choice to accept it
(that choice is what is meant by becoming a Christian). Knowing about Jesus is not enough. Knowing him personally as savior is what is
required.
Before
I conclude, let me make this personal, Ahmed.
There is a real possibility that God's scoring system is not what you
describe, but more like what I describe (or even worse!). There is a real chance that God demands a
much higher standard than what you have been planning on.
What if
I am right and you someday face this righteous God who demands evidence that
you are perfectly pure and clean, and deserve to share heaven with him? What will you say? Honesty demands that you and I admit that we
aren't pure and clean, nor do we deserve heaven even if we somehow have more
good points than bad (In my view, heaven is a sterile environment, and the
question for us as we seek to enter isn't–are we "clean", but rather,
are we absolutely sterile?). It is there
that you are left with no hope other than a vague desire that God forgive you
and ignore the evil you have done in both actions and in your mind. It is then that I will respond to God "I
freely admit that I have tried to live a good life, but have fallen short and
do not deserve heaven. But I also accept
the free gift of salvation from my sins made possible by what Jesus did for
me". Christianity means believing
that Christ has paid for my sins with his death, and choosing to accept his
death in my place.
You
were concerned (appropriately) that this total forgiveness means that
Christians might give up trying to be good and revel in sinfulness. Christianity would actually theoretically
allow that. In practice, people start
out as sinners and they stay as sinners.
I may try more to please God out of gratitude for his forgiveness, and
to imitate his character, but I know it is hopeless to try to earn his love
this way. I'll never deserve any of his
forgiveness no matter how hard I try. As the Bible teaches "But God demonstrates his own love for us in
this: while we were still sinners,
Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
We are told in the Bible that Christians will turn from deliberate and
persistent sinful behavior if they have a personal relationship with their
savior, Jesus, but we will never attain perfection. As a Christian, I just realize more and more
how imperfect I am, and how much I thank Jesus Christ for his gift to me!
Ahmed,
I'd like you to consider the possibility that Islam offers you no solution for
the problem of your personal imperfection.
I'd like you to consider admitting to God that your life falls far short
of perfection, and that you need a savior and can't make it on your own. You can come to God admitting your sin, and
choosing to believe that Jesus Christ has paid for it in your place. Asking Jesus to be your savior and believing
by faith that he has saved you is the simple essence of Christianity. It is truly that simple. This is only a sincere prayer away, and I
respectfully challenge you to consider making this choice in your heart.
We are
left with the issues of salvation for those who don't know of this offer of
Jesus' sacrifice for us, and for those who find the trinity unacceptable. You write:
"Please share with me your understanding of how the
concept of original sin and its consequences could be understood in the context
of absolute divine justice. Muslims
believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, never taught people that he was a son of
God, nor did he teach the doctrine of the trinity. Could you clarify to me the concept of the
trinity (i.e. its meaning and its
HISTORY)? Why do you consider Jesus
(peace be upon him) as son of God? Why
does God need to have a son?"
Let me
start by saying that anyone who claims to understand all or even most aspects
of theology must be incorrect, so what I offer is a simplistic human
understanding of the Old and New Testaments.
First
off, the Old Testament of the Bible, which is shared by Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam, makes it very clear that God wished humanity to understand that
somebody had to pay for sin (imperfection).
As I wrote previously, the entire basis for temple worship of God in the
Old Testament was the understanding that God's people could never live up to
the standard set in the ten commandments, so some payment was required each
year to atone (pay) for their sins. For
many centuries that payment was animal sacrifice. Christians see this as a picture of the final
sacrifice that would eventually pay for all sin, once and for all. The idea of a sacrifice to pay for sin lies
at the very heart of Judaism and Christianity.
If this concept of sacrifice to pay for sin (imperfection) is missing
from Islam, this is truly a huge difference that cannot be underestimated. This concept of sacrifice explains why Jesus
was called the "Lamb of God that
takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The idea of a father sacrificing his beloved
son was also provided in advance as Abraham was willing to offer Isaac in
obedience to God (Genesis 22).
The
other thing that needs to be said is that Christianity is absolutely
monotheistic, affirming that our Lord is one God, the creator of all things,
and the energy, matter, and information in which all exists. I certainly believe our God may have created
more than one universe, and that there may be many created worlds in this
universe with living things. It is
possible that some of these worlds have remained sinless, though I suspect many
have chosen sin, as did humans, assuming they, like us, were given free will
and have a tendency toward pride. If so,
I believe our God has reached out to all of these worlds in love with redemption
plans based on grace (undeserved mercy) as he has done here on earth.
Although
Christianity is monotheistic, Christians believe in a mystery that Jesus
himself taught–namely that God reveals himself in different ways. In physics we learn that matter and energy
are different manifestations of the same concept, and matter is a kind of
condensed energy with E=mc^2. We also
learn that a wave/particle duality applies to all matter and energy, such that
the product of Planck's constant and frequency is also equal to mc^2. Thus matter, energy, and wave character are
all interconvertible aspects of matter/energy/waves in the universe. As physicists, we understand this to be true,
though we can't really express what is the ultimate information that takes on these
forms. It is one single kind of
information, but it can be experienced in more than one way, and it is
mysterious.
So,
Christians encounter the one true God in various personal ways. Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah
(Savior) but also expressed that he was on his father's business. That would still allow the idea that he was
simply a prophet. But Jesus did not
claim to be a prophet (the authorities would not have minded that). Rather, he claimed to be God with us, made
man. He claimed that he and the Father
were one, and that those who had seen Jesus had seen the Father. It is for this blasphemy that he was
killed. Christians do not understand how
the single God of the universe shared humanity with us while remaining the
single God of the universe. Since we are
locked in time and space, it is quite impossible for us to understand this
aspect of God's character.
Jesus
prayed to God, his father, and called out to God as he died on the cross. How could God die on the cross and at the
same time cry out "My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). I don't know.
Christian theology says that at the moment of his death, Jesus was left
alone with the sins of mankind, and was separated from his Father. I sometimes think that the idea of God
becoming man was simply the best way God could show us the depth of his
personal love for us–that he was willing to enter history and suffer a kind of
suicide to serve us, rather than be served by us. The love exemplified by this humility and
condescension is beyond comprehension.
So our
single God sacrificed himself for us.
Jesus also taught that after his physical life as a human was ended, he
would remain tangibly with us in the future through the experience of his life
in our lives. This is the personal
aspect of Christianity that makes it possible for me to say that I have a
personal relationship with God. The word
Jesus used to describe his presence in our lives was "paraclete", or
one who comes alongside us as a helper.
We call this aspect of God his spirit.
The trinity describes The creator-sustainer aspect of God, his human
existence in this world as Christ, and his persistent existence in the lives of
believers since his resurrection.
Christians see this as one God, though mysteriously. Muslims may find this confusing.
A final
point. I believe that Christ's death has
the potential to pay the price for all sins that have ever been committed, and
that will ever be committed. It is
possible that God will somehow force all people to be forgiven. I believe that God has granted us free will
so that humans can choose whether to live for God or not, can choose whether to
humble themselves and accept Christ or not.
Christians believe that God has asked us to share the task of communicating
the gift of Christ with the world, so people can choose to accept or not. God has not opted to make this irresistably
obvious or to force the issue.
What
does God do about people who have not heard about his offer of forgiveness in
Christ? What about children or the
mentally incompetent? We really don't
know, because the Bible doesn't explain.
However, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt that God will treat
ignorance as grounds for forgiveness. It
would seem that each person must decide for himself or herself, and Christians
are asked to share the message of hope for personal salvation, as I have humbly
been attempting with you.
To
close, Christianity offers a message of hope for personal salvation to those
who recognize their need for it. To
folks who feel that their good lives put them on firm ground with God,
Christianity has nothing to offer. This
message is for those who see their lives as falling hopelessly short of God,
and who recognize their need for a savior, and believe God has provided such a
savior.
In your
thinking, I humbly will continue to pray that you begin to consider whether
you, like me, need such a savior.
Respectfully,
Jim
6/20/02 From Ahmed:
Hi
Jim. I have reviewed our correspondence
and have a few more comments. You wrote:
Unlike Islam, which
spells out a code of conduct that will identify Muslims and please God,
Christianity teaches that there is nothing we can do to earn God's favor or
please him–we are all too imperfect and wicked due to our own selfish
choices. Christians have no hope of ever
doing anything to build a relationship to God.
Instead, we believe that our only hope is that God sacrificed himself
for us–the one perfect person, God having taken on human flesh as Jesus,
innocently and deliberately dying in the place of all the people who have ever
lived, including you and I. In
Christianity, Jesus is not seen as a prophet but as God himself committing
suicide to pay an eternal debt that we could not pay.
This is never taught by Jesus. If you read the Bible, it’s specifically
taught by Paul, not Jesus. This sounds
like a good story, if only it were true!
Paul never saw Jesus. Jesus’
disciples all disagreed with Paul.
You also previously wrote:
To the Christian, our just God cannot forgive us unless
there is a way to preserve justice.
Justice can be preserved only if SOMEBODY is willing to pay the debt,
take the punishment, bear the penalty.
That type of justice is not even
acceptable here in America. If you commit a crime, and your son offers to go to
jail instead of you, would the judge accept that? Would a judge have agreed to
let Timothy McVeigh’s mother take his place on the execution table? God would
clearly not accept that either! Why would he accept to put an “innocent lamb”
on the cross for everyone’s sins? This example does not work because we are
talking about someone paying with their life! Furthermore, if the judge wanted,
he could easily waive the fine. Judges often do that! If judges can do that,
why wouldn’t God be able to do that? Again, this is not the religion that
Jesus brought. It is the Christianity
that Paul advocated and that Caesar selected at the conference of Nicea in 360
AD! As a matter of fact, when you read
the Bible telling the story of Jesus trying to escape the Roman soldiers, it
gives a clear indication that Jesus was not pleased about the prospect of being
killed by the Romans. If Jesus' mission
was clearly to be put to death and that was a part of his destiny, why would
Jesus try to escape, hide, and avoid being caught? Again, read the Bible! If Jesus’ mission was really to die for us,
wouldn’t he have at least said that sometime in his life? Wouldn’t he have
taught this concept to his disciples?
His mother? His brother
James? And yet, nowhere do the 4 gospels
ever say that. Actually, James disagreed
plainly with Paul when Paul started teaching this type of theology, and Paul’s
letter back to James (which is in the New Testament) clearly tries to defend
Paul’s position against the Jerusalem disciples. Even Peter, who is considered
to be the first pope, disagreed with Paul.
Please, READ the Bible! Would you
accept this logic when one of your children gets in trouble? Would you agree to
give the punishment to another child?
This is the logic that Paul introduced in an attempt to reconcile the
true teachings of Jesus with all the pagan worship and sacrifice rituals that
were common at that time: Virgin sacrifice, drinking of blood, eating of flesh,
etc… All these rituals were absorbed into Christianity by Paul and that’s
exactly why the Jerusalem disciples disagreed with him. Paul’s answer was: What
difference does it make as long as these pagans are entering Christianity?
Since my last e-mail, I have also
read the sermon of the respected Pastor John Steer {a document Jim had earlier
shared]. I did not comment on it last
time because I thought it dealt with several issues that we were going to
discuss anyway. Although I appreciate
his effort in the first part of the sermon presenting the Islamic practices, I
was really disappointed by the last part where he addressed the differences
between Islam and Christian doctrine. I
agree, that Muslims do not believe in Jesus as Son of God but it's not true to
state:
…Islam asserts
that Jesus was merely one of God's many prophets …
In one of my e-mails I give a
small picture of how Muslims venerate Jesus peace be upon him. Please go to (http://islam.org/) and do your
search in the Qur’an using the word Jesus and see.
Muslims do not make differences
between prophets as the Qur’an clearly states (see my first e-mail) contrary to
his following statement:
…Islam teaches that
Muhammad was a superior prophet to Jesus because he brought God's final and
best revelation to humanity…
The fact that Mohamed came with
the last message is not because he is better than Jesus or another prophet.
This is illogical conclusion. The reason
is the timing. Using this logic we can then say Jesus is superior to Moses and
Moses is superior to his predecessors including Abraham!! It does not make sense! They all were sent at different times to
teach the same truth (worshipping the one God)
I was also extremely shocked to
the following statement:
…Also the God of
Islam has a different character than the God of the Bible. Of the 99 beautiful
names for Allah, which Muslims memorize and use for worship, not one of these
names is "love." A popular
saying is that the 100th name of God has been revealed only to the camel, which
accounts for his haughty bearing….According to Dr. John Elder, "Muslims deny the possibility of
atonement because of their belief that God does not love man and indeed is
unaffected by man's action. Any idea
that God so loved the world that he gave his only son is completely foreign to
the Muslim mind…" …Muhammad was
inspired by some supernatural source but it could not be the God of the Bible
for Muhammad rejects God's revelation of scripture.
This is because of the ignorance
of Arabic language. The Arabic word WADUD, one of the 99 names of Allah, means
the lover without expecting a return. He is the pure lover. Other attributes
(names) all together give the most complete picture of God including that he is
the source of love. The word love (hube) in Arabic is used most of the time to
describe love between husband and wife.
By the way, in the Aramaic language and in the Greek language there are
several words to talk about love. One of
my Christian friends tells me that the Greek Bible used at least three
different synonymous of the word love. Unfortunately English has only one.
To conclude from this kind of
misrepresentation that Allah is not the same Gad of the Bible is not
correct. Anyone who knows Arab
Christians know that they use the same word, Allah, for God. The two religions
are talking about the same God. How they
present it is different. As a matter of
fact the Jews, and some fraction of Christians, do not believe in the trinity
too. Are they talking about another God
even if they use the same book?
This discussion stimulated my curiosity
about the Bible and caused me to read more about the history of the Bible and
Christian theology. I also discussed
these things with some friends. I still
did not get a full clear picture (if any) but I believe I grasp the
essence. What I conclude from all this
is that we are discussing topics using our texts as reference to the absolute
truth. I believe that the focal point that we absolutely need, as SCIENTISTS,
is to focus on is the authenticity of the reference (the message). Several
questions and observations come to mind:
The writings of Paul constitute
around 2/3 of the New Testament. The remainder is 4 different versions of the
gospels written at least 30-150 years after the death of Jesus (all of this is
historically documented).
How do we know that Jesus really
did or said what the Bible claims? How
much do we want to trust Paul? How do
Christian theologians verify the accuracy of what is written in the Bible? Is the whole book considered the word of
God? Are there some passages that are
not? How much of it is really Jesus'
teaching? Aren't there a lot of concerns
about authenticity, and historical problems with the message that even
Christians themselves know about? Why
would Jesus bring a message against the Jews and the pagans, and then after his
death give a message to Paul that would be exactly opposite to what he taught
during his life? I truly think that for
scientists like us, to ignore all of this is extremely serious. I am asking these difficult questions because
we cannot have a legitimate theological discussion if the authenticity issue is
not resolved.
The goal of my discussion with
you was not to change your belief. It's
perfectly fine with me that you believe what you want. I was just trying to tell you who I am with
the goal of a better understanding of each other by knowing our common points
and our differences. Being different is
part of what Muslims believe is a sign of God.
If He wanted, he certainly could
make all human being into one nation with one belief. But God knows that diversity within the
society is healthy. Nevertheless, in our
discussion and prayer our ultimate goal should be to seek the guidance of God
and the true message of God.
I am not a Muslim "evangelist"! My aim is tell my close fellow Americans what
is the true teaching of Islam and hopefully increase the comfort of life in
this nation through better communication between all people. Obviously, for
some reasons, Islam is particularly misrepresented and completely misunderstood
in this society even if this is the country (and probably the only one in our
time) where the core of the Qur’anic teaching of how to deal with human affairs
(justice, democracy, freedom of religion, human dignity…) is clearly presented
in the constitution and practiced.
Anyway, thank you for praying for
me. May the one God (the creator of the
universe) guide us all to the right path of worshipping him alone. May he forgive our sins and judge us with his
mercy.
Ahmed.
6/22/02 From Jim:
Dear Ahmed-
Thank you again for your writing,
clarifications, and thoughtful questions.
It is a pleasure to have this important discussion with you. As you know, I had intended to compile the e-mails
we have shared into a final collection that can be shared with others who might
be interested in our discussion of the similarities and differences between
Christianity and Islam. After carefully
reading through your most recent comments and questions, I feel that it is
important to respond to a few of your interesting points, so there is a better
understanding. Then I believe this set
of correspondence will be ready to be shared.
First of all, I agree that a
theological discussion must be based on trustworthy documentation. Christians believe that God has communicated
the essential message of his love through the pages we now have as the Old and
New Testaments. These are certainly very
old documents, among the oldest written stories on earth. As I have shared with you in the book Surprised by Faith, there is very good
evidence for the reliability of the Bible as a historical document. The author shows how our oldest biblical
manuscripts are far closer to the original texts than for any other ancient
documents, and that far more early manuscripts of the Bible exist than for any
other ancient texts (even those secular texts that we study and treat as
essentially unaltered originals). Thus,
for a critical scientist, it is not necessary to dismiss the biblical accounts
as degraded or contaminated. Where
earlier biblical manuscripts have been discovered, they support the view that
the documents have remained essentially intact.
When historical evidence has seemed at odds with biblical records,
further archeology typically suggests the biblical account was correct. Thus, I believe that a critical scientist can
read the Bible and ask what it's teaching implies for life today without
dismissing sections that are not immediately clear.
Your research has led you to
question the balance of New Testament teaching attributed to Paul vs.
Jesus. These are insightful points, and
worth discussing briefly. I appreciate
your urging that I turn to the Bible for clarification of these points. I assure you, I have studied these issues to
some extent, though I'm sure I have much to learn. Several points should be discussed. First, there is good evidence that the
letters of Paul and other writers were actually composed before the gospel
accounts were written. Therefore,
regardless how one might feel about the teachings of Jesus vs. Paul, it seems
likely that Paul's letters were written, circulated, and collected before the
gospel accounts were written (probably to provide documented records of
Christ's life, for teaching purposes).
All of these documents were written after Jesus' death and resurrection,
but probably while most of the eye-witnesses (friendly and otherwise!) were
alive. That is certainly true for Paul's
letters. This makes it difficult to
imagine that fables and alterations could have been inserted unchallenged.
I believe that the New Testament
stands as a single document that God has assembled and preserved to communicate
his love to us, and to explain how we can find a relationship with him. I made an informed decision to come to this
conclusion, though it cannot be proven.
It is clear that other contemporary religious documents existed, and
that these have not been included in the Bible.
The version we have was assembled by groups of people. I believe that God assisted them in selecting
the essential elements. I believe that
what we have is accurate and sufficient for teaching us what God wants us to
know about him. This I cannot prove, but
I chose to believe. Again, where it can
be tested objectively, the Bible is at least as trustworthy as other ancient
documents–evidence suggests much more.
I also believe that you are right
to point out that Jesus and Paul emphasize different things in their recorded
teaching about God. I have always
recognized this, and often wish that Jesus' teachings would have been more
clear (!) In fact, my grandmother
couldn't stand Paul's teachings and attitudes, especially his comments about
women, so she ignored a lot of what he said.
I don't think it is so simple. To
me and the Christians I know, the Bible is seen as an integrated document and
we do not pick and choose which writers we like and do not like, or build a
theology on what seems convenient, or even assume that the teachings of Jesus
are more God's revelation than the teachings of Paul. The entire protestant reformation was based
on the view that an analysis of the Bible, comparing all the texts in light of
each other, would bring us the best understanding of God's message to us.
I believe that Paul's story of
his encounter with God (Acts 9) describes a genuine, life-changing exposure to
the one true God, and that Paul's subsequent life of teaching that God's love
extends beyond the Jews was God's message, not Paul's. Therefore, I believe that the theology
clarified by Paul is precisely as important as the sayings attributed to
Jesus. To me, there is no reason to
value one above the other, as the same God inspired them both. Since God cannot contradict himself, any
apparent contradictions between Jesus and Paul (and you perhaps see more than I
do) must be misunderstandings on our part.
I think it is extremely important
to clarify to you why I believe that Jesus came to earth not so much to be a
teacher or prophet, but to accomplish a mission of sacrifice for us. We have discussed this theme often in these
e-mails. In your last e-mail, you again
raise concern that the concept of Christ as sacrifice for the sins of humanity
was Paul's idea, not Jesus'. I think
many people have the concern you shared.
In my studies, I have come to a different conclusion that I would like
to outline below.
Did Jesus understand that his
primary mission on earth was to die as a sacrifice for us? Although you mention that you feel this is
not supported in the gospels, this is incorrect. We find good evidence that Jesus fully
understood and embraced this terrible mission.
Here are just three examples (there are many more). In John 3:14, Jesus says:
"Just as Moses
lifted up the snake in the desert (a reference to Numbers 21), so the Son of
Man (Jesus) must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have
eternal life. For God so loved the world
that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have everlasting life."
One of several more clear
examples of Jesus teaching in advance about his death and resurrection comes in
Matthew 8:
Speaking to his
disciples, Jesus asked: "But what about you? Who do you say I am? Peter answered, "you are the
Christ"...Jesus then began to teach them that the Son of Man (Jesus) must
suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of
the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took
him aside and began to rebuke him. But
when Peter turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter…
In Luke 22, Jesus eats a last
supper with his disciples, the night before his death. As he held up the bread and wine, he said:
"This is my
body given for you…this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured
out for you."
Also, contrary to your comments
that Jesus tried to escape his fate of death on the cross, there is nothing in
the Bible to suggest that Jesus fled from the crowd who came to arrest him
before his torture and death (there were probably no Roman soldiers involved
until the early hours of the next day, and he didn't try to flee from them
either). He willingly allowed his arrest
(this is why I call it a kind of suicide).
Thus, it is not true that Jesus sought in any way to avoid his
capture. Importantly, we do learn that
Jesus struggled inwardly with his role as sacrifice. I interpret this struggle as evidence that
Jesus perfectly shared humanity and divinity, and that his sacrifice would
involve both pain, and a formal (if brief) separation from one-ness with God. Prior to the confrontation, Jesus, aware of
his impending torture and death, confronted his human frailty, showing us that
he was both God and man. His prayer was
recorded in Luke 22:42:
"Father, if you
are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
As the few examples above show,
Jesus knew that it was his primary mission to die for us, to create a "new
covenant". In fact, Jesus predicts
his death and resurrection "on the third day" nine times in the
gospels (Matthew 16:21. 17:23. 20:19, 27:64, Luke 9:22, 13:32. 18:33. 24:7,
24:46).
Actually, I think the most
important linkage between Jesus and sacrifice comes very early in his public
life, when Jesus comes to his cousin, John the Baptist, to be baptized in the
Jordan River. When he approaches, John
the Baptist makes the following remarkable declaration in Jesus' presence (John
1:29):
"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! "
What did John mean by this very
interesting statement? The answer is extremely
important and deals directly with another of your stated concerns–namely that
the concept of Christ as sacrifice for the world was introduced by Paul, not by
Jesus. Even if it were true that Paul
first presents this concept (which is not true, as we saw above, and will see
below), I do not treat the revelation of
God to Paul of less merit than that of Jesus to his disciples. This is also a discussion of critical importance
to your concerns that the sacrifice of one person can be a legitimate payment
for the debts of another. You wrote
regarding the concept of transfer of punishment from the guilty to an innocent:
That type of justice
is not even acceptable here in America. If you commit a crime, and your son
offers to go to jail instead of you, would the judge accept that? Would a judge
have agreed to let Timothy McVeigh’s mother take his place on the execution
table? God would clearly not accept that either! Why would he accept to put an
“innocent lamb” on the cross for everyone’s sins?
You further suggest that the
notion of sacrifice was a construct of Paul to accommodate pagan worship where
even human sacrifice played a part. You
wrote:
This is the logic
that Paul introduced in an attempt to reconcile the true teachings of Jesus
with all the pagan worship and sacrifice rituals that were common at that time:
Virgin sacrifice, drinking of blood, eating of flesh, etc…
I am afraid that I must point out
a very important and different origin of the concept of the sacrifice of an
innocent on behalf of the guilty. It has
nothing to do with pagan rituals of Roman times. It has nothing to do with Paul's creative
imagination. The origin of sacrifice for
sin was God's own invention, and forms a core basis for the relationship
between the Jews and God in the First Covenant that God gave to Moses in the
Old Testament. For some reason, God made
it abundantly clear that he demanded the sacrifice of innocent animals (by the
thousands each year), as symbolic payment for the sins of the Jews. From Genesis 22 (where God tests Abraham by
his willingness to sacrifice his own innocent son ), to the story of the
Passover (where God commands the blood of innocent lambs be applied to the door
posts of the Jews to redeem their firstborn children as God destroys those of
the Egyptians) there is an introduction of this idea. It is the concept of the protecting
sacrificed Passover lamb that John the Baptist is echoing when he calls Jesus
the "Lamb of God", i.e. the sacrifice God will make for us.
But these are not the only
examples. The Old Covenant with the Jews
is based on the idea that the people will never be able to live up to God's
commandments, and will always face the same sin problem that we face today. Even when they were told to offer full
recompense (justice) to those offended by their sin, God still demanded that
the blood of an animal be offered as payment (atonement) for the imperfection
of the Jews. There are many
examples. Perhaps the best are laid out
in Leviticus chapters 4-7 (please take a look).
Another powerful example is the concept of the innocent
"scapegoat", sent out to die in the desert bearing the sins of the
people: an innocent paying with his life for the sins of the guilty.
Thus, perhaps the example of the
American justice system is not a perfect model for the concept that ultimate
justice requires payment, not arbitrary forgiveness. This real model comes from God himself, in
the Old Testament. The concept of
substitution of innocent blood to pay for the sin of a guilty person is thus
not my idea (or Paul's)–it is God's idea.
I admit that it is a strange idea, but God clearly instructed the Jews
that this was the crucial basis for their continued relationship with him. This bizarre requirement to kill animals so
that their innocent blood might be received by God as atonement was given for a
reason. Why would this principle be so
fundamental to God? The Christian sees
all of the animal sacrifice demanded by God in the Old Testament as a picture
to the Jews of their fundamental problem (and yours and mine too). We don't measure up, and even if we try to
pay back our debts to our fellow man, our sin makes us impure in God's
eyes. God demanded regular animal
sacrifice to show that payment for sin was an ongoing and permanent problem– a
constant need for cleansing of people who were constantly sinning.
To the Christian, this same God
provided this picture to the Jews to foreshadow the permanent solution he would
eventually offer– a perfect sacrifice that would pay, once for all time, the
debt of sin. Without such a new covenant
and perfect sacrifice, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament would remain
a requirement of relationship to God (for that matter, it's not clear to me why
the demand for such sacrifices is now ignored by the Jews, and other
"people of the Book").
The concept that the blood of an
innocent is seen by God as just payment for the sins of the guilty is therefore
his own idea, plainly taught to the Jews throughout the first books of the Old
Testament. It is God's idea, not
Paul's. It is all the more remarkable
that Jesus gave his life during the Jewish Passover feast, the time of
remembering how the blood of innocent lambs saved the people from God's anger.
One other thing. You expressed your concern that the concept
of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of the world was offensive to Peter
and others among the original disciples.
You wrote:
If Jesus’ mission
was really to die for us, wouldn’t he have at least said that sometime in his
life?…Even Peter, who is considered to be the first pope, disagreed with
Paul.
This is a mistaken view. The book of Galations tells us that the
original disciples (including James and Peter) proposed that the many new
non-Jewish converts to Christianity first take on a Jewish lifestyle, and Paul
successfully argued against this practice.
In fact, Peter himself (one of the original disciples who knew Jesus
best) makes some of the most eloquent references to Jesus as God's innocent
sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Some
examples come from Peter's first letter, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 2:24-25, 3.18, which
I quote here:
For you know that it
was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed
from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with
the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect…He himself bore
our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for
righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed…For Christ died for sins once
for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.
Likewise, the John the disciple
writes in 1John 2:2, speaking of Jesus:
He is the atoning
sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole
world.
and later in 1John 4:10, John
writes:
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us
and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
To summarize, I have tried to
clarify that 1) I believe God is equally revealed through the teachings of
Jesus and Paul (and the other contributors to the Bible), 2) that Jesus fully
taught to his disciples his mission to die as a sacrifice, 3) that Jesus never
tried to avoid his arrest or death, but peacefully allowed these to proceed,
consistent with his primary mission, 4)
that Jesus claimed to be God on earth and predicted his death and
resurrection, and 5) that Jesus as perfect sacrifice for human sin fulfills the
picture of innocent blood paying for the sins of the guilty–a concept of
atonement central to all of the Old Testament, where it was made clear that
humans can never face God counting on their own merit. Besides Christ's own words, this view was
presented in the writings of Jesus' closest friends, Peter and John, and by
Paul.
As we conclude this correspondence,
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these most interesting and important
subjects. I agree with you that, as
scientists, the basis for theological discussion must rely objectively on the
documents we believe to convey revealed truth.
It would seem to me that questions for our own future personal study
must include the issues of 1) the historical integrity of the Bible and Qur’an,
and 2) the significance of the animal sacrifice demanded by God as atonement
for sin in his relationship with his people, the Jews.
Respectfully,
as always
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment