Activities in Heaven

One of the most fascinating Christian apologists of the Medieval time period was Pierre Maurice de Montboissier, better known as Peter the Venerable. One of many observations he made about Christianity and Islam has to do with the ultimate destinations of the respective believers of each religion. He had much to say on the topic, pointing out striking difference between the two versions of heaven, and the implications of those differences.

But before we dive in to his theology, consider the time in which Peter the Venerable lived. During the Medieval period, Western Europe was woefully ignorant about Islam and its tenets. It was the early part of the twelfth century when Peter the Venerable, the head of the monastery of Cluny, became interested in Islam. He began to investigate the religion in order to evangelize Muslims. All he found were fables, rumors, or old wives tales about what Muslims believed. In an attempt to win Muslims, he found himself grossly handicapped by lack of knowledge. This frustrated him to action. Peter himself said

“I was indignant that the Latins did not know the cause of such perdition and, by that ignorance, could not be moved to put up any resistance; for there was no one who replied [to Islam] because there was simply no one who knew [about it]” [i]

Unlike previous Christian Arab apologists, Peter takes a more irenic tone throughout his treatise. Yet he did this without compromising core Christian values. His emphasis was on understanding and evaluating Islamic doctrine in a fair and educated way. Yet his criticisms of Islam were well thought out and humbly delivered. What a great role model for us today.

One of the specific items Peter the Venerable discussed was the Christian and Islamic views of heaven. In Islam, there is a certain specificity about what paradise will be like. For example, in this verse of the Qur’an, those who go to heaven are rewarded with fine jewelry, nice clothes, and get to relax on comfortable sofas.

[18.31] These it is for whom are gardens of perpetuity beneath which rivers flow, ornaments shall be given to them therein of bracelets of gold, and they shall wear green robes of fine silk and thick silk brocade interwoven with gold, reclining therein on raised couches; excellent the recompense and goodly the resting place.

In other parts of the Qur’an, such as chapter 37:39-49 there are more descriptions of paradise, which include fruits, people being held in high regard, and chaste companions provided for the pleasure of those rewarded in paradise. Some people may argue that these descriptions of comfort, rest, and abundance are analogous to those references in the Bible, such as Revelation 7:16 and Revelation 22:2. Indeed, there are some similarities between Christianity and Islam.

However, there is one major difference, and it’s critically important. Actually, it isn’t even a difference, but rather an omission. What we learn about the Islamic view of heaven isn’t so much about what we are told about it, but rather what is left out. What is glaringly absent in any descriptions of the Islamic heaven is the worship of God.

In Christianity, the worship of God in heaven is mentioned extensively. What the Bible describes regarding heaven isn’t so much about what rewards will be given to us, but what our worship will be like toward God. Whole chapters of the book of Revelation describe the worship scene. Revelation 4:11 presents a snapshot of the kind of praise we will be able to give God. In Revelation 7:9-10 we get a picture of a massive throng of worshippers coming out of every people group on the planet! What rewards believers do get, we will give back to Jesus out of gratitude, just as the twenty four elders do (Revelation 4:10). To some, these extensive description of worship don’t sound enjoyable, but that is because such aspects of our heavenly existence don’t appeal to the satisfaction of our flesh.

Let’s get back to our medieval predecessor, Peter the Venerable. He picks up on this omission and hints at the fact that Islamic heaven misses the spiritual components of worship. He notices that Islam only discusses those aspects of heaven correlated to earthly pleasures.

“He painted a paradise not of angelic society, nor of the vision of God, nor of that highest good which neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man (Isaiah 64:4, 1 Corinthians 2:9), but actually in such a way as he wished it to be prepared for himself. He promises to his followers there the eating of meats, and all kinds of fruits, there rivers of milk and honey and gleaming waters, there the embrace and sensual satisfaction of the loveliest woman and virgins, in which things his whole paradise is comprehended”. [ii]

In Islam, the focus is on the rewards God gives to us. In Christianity, the focus is on the worship that we will be able to give back to God. Heaven is much less about what we get; it’s much more about who is there with us.



[i] Kritzeck, James. Peter the Venerable and Islam. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964, p30.

[ii] ibid.

Posted in Unraveling_Islam | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Crusader Inversion

Many of the recent articles here have had a medieval focus. Yet there has been a gaping omission with reference to this time period. It is quite likely that any dialogue with a Muslim will quickly migrate to one particular time in Christian history, the Crusades. Is there any strange inversion or ironic twist that might better help the Christian understand this infamous time in our history?

Both Muslim and Christian alike are aware of the Crusades, unarguably one of the greatest Christian atrocities of all time. When confronted with the topic of the Crusades, most Christians will respond that the actions of those of the time didn’t reflect the teaching of Christ. Christians may also point out that there are good Christians and bad Christians, just as there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. These statements are true, but they miss the real point.

A little closer look shows what happened. While the global politics, societies, and events of the time were complex, there is a critical moment to note. This watershed moment was when Pope Urban II gave his speech in Clermont in 1095, asking Europeans to retake the Holy Land as Christian territory . Here is an excerpt from his speech.

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested” [i]

Frequent readers of this blog will spot this irony more clearly before explicitly being spelled out. What Pope Urban II did in this speech is introduce the concept of forgiveness of sins via death in battle into Christianity. This decree by the Pope came nowhere from Scripture and was a result of human error. Nowhere does our Lord Jesus Christ teach remission of sin for dying in battle. Rather, this teaching comes from Islam. It is unclear whether the Pope took this teaching from Islam, but the reality is that it is an Islamic teaching nonetheless. Those who disagree should ask themselves what other religion preaches salvation for dying in battle? Obviously Christians are disgusted at the concept of jihad within Christianity. It is embarrassing and distasteful when considering the mandate of Pope Urban II. He deviated from the teachings of Christ and imitated an element of Islamic doctrine.

At any rate, the events that followed this speech were disastrous. Christians melded an aspect of Islam into Christian thought wholesale, and Christians are still apologizing for it almost a millennium later. What is critical here is not that individual Christians of the 11th and 12th centuries engaged in brutal acts. What is critical is that Biblical ideology itself was viciously altered. This perverted ideology caused its followers to act in horrible ways. By papal decree, the concept of jihad, though not specifically named, was smuggled into a place where it never belonged, and never will belong.

So what is the point? The point is that the Crusades started as a result of jihad being declared. Does the Muslim applaud the teaching of jihad or not? This is a question that every Muslim should be asked. If they applaud jihad, then they should not be against the concept of the Crusades. If they denounce jihad, then they do not follow Islam. Many Muslims may react viscerally to this line of reasoning.

Muslims may counter that jihad is only warranted against infidels, so jihad is acceptable when perpetrated against others, but vicious and unwarranted when perpetrated against them. But why is this so? The concept of treating others as you wish to be treated as a moral code is one most people can relate to and will agree with (Luke 6:31). Why is it moral to treat someone else differently than you yourself would wish to be treated? Here the teachings of Jesus can be brought to bear on the topic. Notice that we have moved from arguing over the rightness or wrongness of the Crusaders, and gotten back to Jesus’ message and its relevance for everyone.

To recap, in the case of Christianity, the height of brutality came when the Pope took a page from Islam and tried to shoehorn it into Christian theology. It is just too ironic to watch Muslims harangue Christianity for the one instance when it attempted to adopt an aspect of Islamic teachings. The question must be asked: Do Muslims applaud the inclusion of this Islamic teaching into Christianity or do they denounce adopting this piece of Islam into Christianity? I hope this irony is not lost on you. Muslims condemn Christians of the 11th and 12th century for trying to adopt a tenet of Islam.

[i] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

Posted in Unraveling_Islam | Tagged , | 1 Comment

A Prophet Like Unto Moses

The advent of the Messiah is the pinnacle of God’s redemptive plan for everyone on this planet. Given the importance of this event, it was critical that God’s people would know how to recognize Him when He came. There are various clues within the Old Testament, but perhaps none more laden with meaning than Deuteronomy 18:18. In this verse, God relays through Moses the idea that someone else is coming. While the exact details are not spelled out, a pointer for recognition of this future prophet is given.

I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

What does it mean to be “a prophet from among their countrymen like you”? To be like Moses is rather vague. Muslims typically misuse Scripture is an attempt to find Muhammad in prophetic passages. Muslims will take passages such as the one above that clearly point to the Messiah, and hijack it by insisting that they point to Muhammad. [i] [ii] How can a reader of the Old Testament be confident that this verse points to Jesus, and not another prophet of the Old Testament, or even a self-proclaimed prophet such as Muhammad? In order to unwrap the true interpretation of this verse, it must be viewed in context as well as how it is referenced in the New Testament. In this and later follow-up articles, the Muslim’s erroneous interpretation of the verse will be exposed, and the true meaning will be unpacked. By doing so, it will be shown yet again who Jesus is by seeing who Muhammad is not.

Thoughtful individuals know that context is essential to understanding Scripture. So what is chapter eighteen of Deuteronomy all about? Predominantly, it is about identifying false prophets. This is accomplished by warning people against the use of divination and spiritualists. These false diviners are easily determined by a track record of erroneous prophetic predictions. While prophecy itself is a much broader concept than just predicting future events, someone who incorrectly does so can immediately be recognized as a false prophet. Deuteronomy 18:22 defines this lack of accurate prophetic utterance as the litmus test for prophethood. If anyone speaks prophecy that is not later fulfilled, God says such a person should not be considered a prophet.

22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Inability to predict the future is a surefire way to recognize a false prophet. Muhammad never made any testable predictions, and therefore he cannot be confirmed as a prophet. Some Muslims may disagree with this, and therefore this topic will be expanded upon in more detail later. However, close analysis shows Muhammad does not utter any prophetic predictions that can be verified, and therefore the passage in Deuteronomy by necessity of logic cannot point to him.

Yet the means of identification for the true prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18 still remains. One of the best ways to figure out what the Bible has to say is to let the Bible interpret itself. Errors in interpretation occur when proof texting a single verse out of context in an effort to shoehorn it into a theological agenda. Fortunately, God clarifies this important verse in other places in the Bible. The New Testament starts to shed some light on this by directly referencing this verse. In Acts 3:20-22 Peter references the prophet like Moses and then announces that the verse referred to Jesus.

Peter’s testimony in Acts provides enough Scriptural evidence to support the thesis that Deuteronomy 18 looks forward to Jesus and therefore not Muhammad. However, Jesus Himself also comments on His being foreshadowed by Moses. In John 5:46 Jesus points out that Moses was referencing Him.

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

Jesus doesn’t quote Deuteronomy 18 specifically, and therefore may be more broadly referring to Moses’ writings in general. Yet many scholars believe He may be directly referring back to Deuteronomy 18.

So without even going very far in depth, the Bible in the context of the passage excludes Muhammad from being the prophet “like unto Moses” mentioned in verse 18. It does so just four verses later in Deuteronomy 18:22. Moreover, the Bible references itself making it evident that the passage in Deuteronomy 18 references Jesus, not Muhammad. In subsequent articles, the specific arguments of Muslim apologists will be shown to be in error, and the deeper meaning of what it means to be “a prophet like unto Moses” will be expanded upon.

[i] http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-3.htm

[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrygtnHfjxU

Posted in Unraveling_Islam | Tagged , | 1 Comment