Judas to the Rescue

Posted on January 6, 2013 by Robert Sievers

Much has been written on this blog and elsewhere regarding the Islamic view of Jesus and His sacrifice. Yet the question stands of how can the Christian help a Muslim come to understand that what Jesus did was a gift given out of love? How does he come to know that substitutionary sacrifice is an honorable act, and not something to be ashamed of? Is there another way to bring this truth home without starting an argument?

Moreover, this particular topic refers to the foundational moment of Jesus’ life, his crucifixion. Most religious discussions with Muslims wander off course down obscure rabbit trails. It would be preferable to linger and discuss the crucifixion in a constructive way. Yet the more focus that is placed on the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection, the more offensive and confrontational the conversations may become. There must be avenues to discuss these core doctrines of salvation in a new way without compromise.

Oddly enough, to get at the truth and power of the cross, let’s dig deeper into the Muslim account of what occurred at the time of the crucifixion. The following is taken from the tafsir of ibn Kathir, a respected Qur’an commentator.

They surrounded `Isa [Jesus] in the house, and when he felt that they would soon enter the house or that he would sooner or later have to leave it, he said to his companions, “Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise?” A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, “Well then, you will be that man.” Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa…When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. [i]

This is a story many Muslims are aware of, and are more than happy to share with Christians. In this account, Jesus was under pressure and about to be arrested. He needed a diversion in order to escape. This story portrays a young man willing to accept being made to look like Jesus, thus taking his place. In this way, the Jews would carry out their plan of crucifixion, but on the wrong person. As a reward for this offer, the would-be doppelganger was granted paradise for such a noble and honorable effort. By agreeing to be an alternate candidate for crucifixion, sacrificing himself for the greater good, the young disciple saved Jesus from the cross.

There is an incredible irony here. In order to prove how the Christians are misguided about the merits of substitutionary sacrifice, a story is created expressing the merits of substitutionary sacrifice! In other words, in order to prove that Christians are wrong about the honor of one man dying for another, they tell a story about one man who agreed to die for another. The double irony here is that some Muslims believe that Judas was the young disciple.[ii] The fact that Judas is the hero of the day could be unpacked to reveal many more hidden and sinister sides to the account. However, let’s stay focused on the fact that an act cited in order to avoid the ignominy of a righteous one suffering showcases the nobility of a righteous young disciple suffering.

Muslims are quick to defend Islam at any cost. When a Muslim retells his version of the story, how Judas gave of himself to die for Jesus, he will vociferously and boldly proclaim the wonder and nobility of such a selfless act. With careful attention to the Holy Spirit, the friend to the Muslim can give him just enough room to allow him to undermine his own theology. Such an approach is not without danger. Those Muslims who are not seeking may see that they painted themselves into a corner, and there could be an acerbic reaction. It is paramount that enough of a friendship has been established to bear the weight of such an eye-opening discussion. As a debate tactic, such a device is useless. As a method of leading a friend to truth, sometimes more shrewd strategies could be employed.

[i] Ibn Kathir, “The Evil Accusation the Jews Uttered Against Maryam and Their Claim that They Killed `Isa,” Tafsir Ibn Kathir Translation 26 October 2002, Dar-us-Salaam Publishing, 14 Jan, 2011. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=12730, 14 Jan, 2011

[ii] Muhammad ‘Ata ur-Rahim and Ahmed Thomson Jesus, Prophet of Islam (London: Ta-Ha, 1996) 37.

Posted in Unraveling_Islam | Tagged | Leave a comment

Athanasius, Islam and Repentance

Posted on December 28, 2012 by Robert Sievers

Start with wrong assumptions, and invariably you will end up with wrong conclusions. The problem is that it is quite difficult to recognize what the assumptions of any system actually are. Humans take so much for granted, whether due to our culture, our religion, or our experiences, that we get locked into one way of thinking without seeing why our own invalid assumptions are leading us to incorrect conclusions.

Consider God’s mechanism for forgiveness. Just how do humans receive forgiveness? Do you just ask for it or is there something else required? In both Christianity and Islam, to gain forgiveness requires repentance. On the surface, someone might conclude both religions are similar. Yet as usual, when a person digs deeper, a great theological divide emerges.

To unravel this difference, let’s go all the way back to the beginning, Adam’s disobedience. In Christianity, the fall of man is an incredibly significant event. Adam’s sin initiated a sequences of events, one of which was causing sin to afflict the entire human race (Romans 5:12). The ground was cursed, and Adam was informed that he would once again return to dust (Genesis 3:19). Death had now entered the world, and God’s creation, created in His own image, would now perish. In Islam the story is similar, but with a critical difference. Adam’s sin is viewed by Islam as having no lasting consequence. According to the Qur’an (2:37), Adam asked for forgiveness and received it. As far is Islam is concerned, that’s the end of the story. For example, one Muslim web site puts it this way,

Therefore, even though the Quran mentions the sin of Adam and how he was banished from the Garden, it places no responsibility on the shoulders of his progeny. [i]

So here is the critical difference. In Christianity, the fall of man was the beginning of the sin nature of man, a curse which always ends in death. How does a just God simply ignore our sinful nature? Even if a person repents of a sin, there are myriad more to deal with. What about the underlying problem of the heart now governed by the propensity to sin (Jeremiah 17:9)? Conversely, in Islam, the mistake of Adam was followed by his repentance, and that was that. While Muslims are instructed to follow his example of asking for forgiveness, there is no original sin and therefore no other relevance.

How does this all tie back to the Christian and Muslim view of how to receive forgiveness? In Christianity, since humans are now inherently bent toward sin, there needs to be a mechanism not just to forgive any one particular sin, but rather to change our entire sin nature. Islam teaches that people are not inclined to sin, therefore repentance is all that is required. In the 4th century, Athanasius commented on this errant view,

“Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well-enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature…” [ii]

In other words, Athanasius recognized that if you start with the assumption that man was not corrupted by the fall, you will come to the conclusion that repentance alone would be sufficient to regain a right standing with God. However, with the realization that the entrance of sin into the world had permanent ramifications, the mechanism for repentance would require help from God Himself.

“His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all.” [iii]

So how does man, who now has a sinful nature, return to his state before the fall? Here God foresaw the dilemma and therefore had already made provision for the solution. He Himself would come, and conquer death (Romans 5:19). By so doing, He maintained consistency with His command that sin would result in death, but also with His goodness in that His creation, once corrupted, would have a way of reconciliation and thus would not fade into nonexistence from death and permanent separation from Him.

The point in all this is that Islam starts with a flawed assumption, that sin did not pass into all humanity from the fall of Adam. If you start with that assumption, you will invariably come to the wrong conclusion that repentance, apart from Christ, would be enough (Qur’an 110:3). In this one aspect, I must admit Islam is internally consistent. However, since man does have a sinful nature, there must be a way for that repentance to have efficacy. That way is provided by God Himself via the death of His Son (Romans 5:18).

Without an understanding of the intrinsic sinful nature of man, it is logical to not understand the need for a Savior.

[i] http://knowingallah.com/v2/Document.aspx?id=1469&lang=en

[ii] Athanasius, St. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladamir’s Seminary Press, 1993, p33

[iii] ibid

Posted in Unraveling_Islam | Tagged | Leave a comment

Athanasius on Islam

Posted on December 13, 2012 by Robert Sievers

My favorite patristic author is St. Athanasius. His work On the Incarnation is one of the best books I have ever read, and I highly recommend it to anyone. The fact that it was written in the 4th century makes it all the more worthy of our attention. Athanasius lived roughly two centuries before Muhammad, thus making the title of this article anachronistic. Yet possibly one of the most astounding pieces of his work is how he dispels a common Muslim misperception. As he deals with the paradox of how Jesus could be both all man and all God, he turns the upside-down Islamic view of Jesus completely right-side up.

Muslims are constantly referring to aspects of Jesus’ humanity in an attempt to disprove His deity. The Muslim theory goes that if Jesus engaged in human behavior, He could not be God. Of course, since Jesus was both all man and all God, proving He was human does not in any way invalidate the fact that He was also God. If you read various Christian and Muslim web sites, what you will find is article after article quoting the Qur’an and the Bible in attempts to refute and counter-refute each other’s arguments. Is there a simple yet overarching theological truth buried here that can unravel this debate?

Consider one particular aspect of the Muslims’ assault on Jesus’ incarnation. The argument goes that Jesus, as a man, was required to do a variety of humiliating bodily functions that normal humans do. As such, He could not be God in the flesh, as God would not defile Himself by the baser aspects of human existence. Here is a typical example of a Muslim’s perspective:

“The Quran says that Jesus and his mother, they both used to eat earthly food, like all other human beings; they were both servants who used to eat food (i.e. they used to defecate like any human being), and one who is such cannot be a god because of his compound being and fallible nature, and because of the [impurities such as] urine and excrement that he produces.” [i]

In other words, Jesus could not be God because being human means being impure, while God is pure and cannot be defiled.

So what did Athanasius have to say on the subject? While writing about God becoming human, he considers this exact question. The two possibilities are as follows. The first option is that an incorruptible God could be corrupted by humanity. The second is that a corruptible humanity would be purified by God. Muslims believe the former, while Christians believe the latter. Consider what St. Athanasius said:

“Not even His birth from a virgin, therefore, changed Him in any way, nor was He defiled by being in the body. Rather, He sanctified the body by being in it.” [ii]

A few sentences later, Athanasius says the same thing in another way,

“Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body, but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling.” [iii}

Here we are faced with a simple choice. Which force is stronger, the impure nature of humanity, or the incorruptible nature of God? The answer seems straightforward to me. How could being all man and all God degrade or contaminate God? Rather, wouldn’t we expect the human nature of Jesus to be elevated and purified by His deity? Physical acts notwithstanding, the conclusion is that God was not made impure by living life as a human, but rather that God the Son was the perfect sacrifice because of His unique make-up.

Again, we see a diametrically opposite view of the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an. Christians recognize that a pure and holy God can overcome anything, including the potentially unclean aspects of being human. Muslims believe these unclean aspects of the human existence would forever taint an all powerful creator.

Once again, Islam has a completely antithetical approach to who God is.

[i] http://www.experiencefestival.com/wp/article/in-the-quran-jesus-used-to-defecate-and-urinate-like-any-man
[ii] Athanasius, St. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladamir’s Seminary Press, 1993, p45-46.
[iii] ibid, p46

Posted in Unraveling_Islam | Tagged | Leave a comment