Reflections on Islam

Home , Day of Resurrection, James White (theologian), Tahrif

Summer 2016 Summer on Islam on Refections Volume 20 · Number 2 20 · Number Volume

SBJT · Vol. 20 · No. 2 · Summer 2016 Refections on Islam ST-528-2016 www.sbts.edu 2825 Lexington Road Louisville, Kentucky 40280 Louisville, Kentucky (502) 897-4413 • 1 (800) 626-5525

Vol. 20 • Num. 2 Summer 2016

Reflections on Islam

Stephen J. Wellum 5 Editorial: Proclaiming the Gospel to Islam

Rodney Stark 9 Te Case for the Crusades

James R. White 29 “Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God”: Surat Al Maida and the Qur’an’s Understanding of the Trinity

Tony Costa 41 Jesus in Islam

Tony Costa 59 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

J. Scot Bridger 75 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology: Te Jamā ‘at Al-Mu’manīn or “Assembly of the Believers” in the Tought of Mazhar Al-Mallouhi

SBJT Forum 95

Book Reviews 99

Editor-in-Chief: R. Albert Mohler, Jr. • Editor: Stephen J. Wellum • Associate Editor: Brian Vickers • Book Review Editor: Jarvis J. Williams • Assistant Editor: Brent E. Parker • Editorial Board: Randy L. Stinson, Daniel S. Dumas, Gregory A. Wills, Adam W. Greenway, Timothy Paul Jones, Steve Waters • Typographer: Eric Rivier Jimenez • Editorial Ofce: SBTS Box 832, 2825 Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY 40280, (800) 626-5525, x 4413 • Editorial E-Mail: [email protected]

Editorial: Proclaiming the Gospel to Islam Stephen J. Wellum

Stephen J. Wellum is Professor of Christian Teology at Te Southern Baptist Teo- logical Seminary and editor of Southern Baptist Journal of Teology. He received his Ph.D. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and he is the author of numerous essays and articles and the co-author with Peter Gentry of Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012) and God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Te- ology (Crossway, 2015), and the co-editor of Building on the Foundations of Evangelical Teology (Crossway, 2015 with Gregg Allison), and Progressive Covenantalism (B&H, 2016 with Brent Parker), and author of God the Son Incarnate: Te Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Crossway, 2016).

In the context of North American Christianity, most churches have not thought deeply about Islam, its overall worldview, and how best to take the Gospel to the Islamic world. In fact, before September 11, 2001, unless one was training to go the Middle East as a missionary, Islam as an entire theology and worldview did not receive much atention in our churches and in our theological refection. If polls were taken in our churches about the basic theology of Islam, most Christians would not know much about Islamic belief, the content of the Qur’an, and the challenge Islam poses to the Gospel. Instead, much of our atention in our churches and in our theological training has focused on how to address the growing secularism of Western societies, the infuence of postmodern and pluralistic thought, and other challenges which have sought to undermine the Christian faith. However, for a variety of reasons, probably driven by the larger geo-political developments with the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups associated with Islam, rising immigration paterns in Europe and now in North America, and thus growing Muslim populations in the West, it is no longer an option to be

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 5-8 5 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016) ignorant about Islam. As Christians we must know Islam’s overall theological viewpoint and the challenge it poses to the Gospel. As the second largest religion in the world (and growing), the Church must address Islam not only in terms of growing in our understanding of it, but more importantly, in our evangelistic witness and gospel proclamation to Islam. Unfortunately, in addition to our poverty of knowing Islam’s basic history, theology, and practices, it seems that much of our discussion about Islam is polarized in two main directions. First, Islam is viewed solely through a geo-political lens and thus (with some merit), viewed as a threat to the West and its democratic forms of government. Yet, viewing Islam this way ofen leads to the Church retreating from engagement with Islam and carrying out loving Gospel proclamation. Individual Muslims, then, are viewed as our enemies'through a geo-political lens'and if the Church is not careful this leads to litle or no engagement with Muslims in terms of faithful Gospel witness. Second, we are repeatedly told by those who tout the ideology of philosophical and religious pluralism that Islam is basically the same as Christianity in its overall outlook and message'with the conclusion that the Church should be more concerned about dialoguing with Muslims than evangelizing them. From a Christian view, both of these options are false and should be avoided. How, then, should we, as Christians view Islam? One of the goals of this issue of SBJT is to help the church to think about Islam biblically, theologically, and apologetically. Given the enormity of the subject, we can only begin to scratch the surface. Islam is a complex and diverse religion with a long history and tradition. It is impossible in one issue to say all that needs to be said. However, we must begin somewhere. Islam and individual Muslims are too important to ignore and from the viewpoint of Scripture, Muslims require not only our love, understanding, and dialogue, but also gospel proclamation which calls them to faith and repentance in the triune Lord who alone is the true and living God. Although the pluralists of our day teach a false hope that all religions are basically the same, Scripture is clear: outside of explicit faith in the Jesus of the Bible as God the Son incarnate and Savior, there is no salvation in this life or the age to come. It is for this reason alone that it is vital for Christians to study Islam and to know what it teaches in terms of its basic theology and worldview outlook, but also to take the truth of the gospel to them. It is the aim of this issue of the journal to continue to equip the church to accomplish both of these tasks.

6 Editorial: Proclaiming the Gospel to Islam

Rodney Stark begins our articles by clearing up a popular and dangerous re-writing of history in terms of the signifcance of the Crusades and its impact on Christian-Islamic interaction throughout the ages. Many today, including our government ofcials, believe that the Crusades were a crime against Islam and that some of the current terrorist atacks are somewhat justifed, or at least beyond our strong condemnation. Ofen a moral equivalence is embraced between the Crusades and current terrorism, which is presently leading to dangerous political policies on the world scene. In response to this false historical narrative, Rodney Stark helps us recover what really happened in the past and helps us gain perspective on Christian-Islamic interaction which has been going on since the mid-seventh century. Tree articles then follow the historical article. All three of these articles ofer important apologetic and theological thinking about Islam. James White challenges Christians to know what the Qur’an actually teaches in regard to Christian theology, specifcally its understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. He demonstrates that as a post-Christian religion, Islam makes claims regarding Christian theology, but, for example, in regard to the Trinity, it is completely inaccurate. Te point White makes is crucial: the Qur’an on its own terms does not give us a Jesus or doctrine of God which is remotely true to the Bible; instead, at point afer point, the Qur’an is simply mistaken. In our witness to Muslims this truth is important to know, and it should stir us to proclaim the triune God of Scripture for who he truly is thus clearing up serious Muslim misunderstandings. In a similar way, Tony Costa writes two articles refecting on how the Qur’an distorts who the Jesus of the Bible is and how, as with the doctrine of the Trinity, gets Christian theology wrong. In addition, he argues that Muslim claims that Muhammad is predicted in Scripture is simply false. Tese three articles are crucial in helping the church not only learn about Islamic theology, but also in equipping us to proclaim the truth of Scripture and the glory of Christ to our Muslim neighbors. In the remaining articles, Scot Bridger and Ayman Ibrahim refect on two important current discussions occurring within Christian missions and in our larger society. Scot Bridger refects on what has been labeled the “Insider Movement” which has important implications for how we carry out our evangelistic witness and mission to Islam. He ofers a critique of the movement by an evaluation of one of its key leader’s view of the church. Lastly Ayman Ibrahim gives us a brief Forum refection on the diference between

7 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016) jihad in Islam and Christianity, which is so important given all the confusion and misunderstanding of what jihad is, both inside and outside the Church. Islam as a religion, and individual Muslim believers, cannot be ignored by the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to take the Gospel to the nations, which includes our Muslim neighbors. It is my prayer that this issue of SBJT will help us not only beter know and understand this world religion in terms of its basic content and theology, but also that it will stir us to pray for our Muslim neighbors, the Islamic world, and thus move us to action in terms of faithful gospel proclamation of the glory of the person of Christ and his all-sufcient work.

8 Te Case for the Crusades1 Rodney Stark

Rodney Stark is Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences and Co-Director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University. He earned his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, where he held appointments as a research sociologist at the Survey Research Center and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society. Dr. Stark has published 38 books and more than 160 scholarly articles on subjects as diverse as prejudice, crime, suicide, city life in ancient Rome, and religion, including Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History (Templeton Press, 2016); Te Triumph of Faith: Why the World is More Religious Tan Ever (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2015); Te Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion (HarperOne, 2011); and God’s Batalions: Te Case for the Crusades (HaperOne, 2009).

Introduction: A Popular Narrative

In the immediate afermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslim terrorists, frequent mention was made of the Crusades as a basis for Islamic fury. It was argued that Muslim biterness over their mistreatment by the Christian West can be dated back to 1096 when the First Crusade set out for the Holy Land. Far from being motivated by piety or by concern for the safety of pilgrims and the holy places in Jerusalem, it is widely believed that the Crusades were but the frst extremely bloody chapter in a long history of brutal European colonialism. More specifcally: that the Crusaders marched east, not out of idealism, but in pursuit of lands and loot; that the Crusades were promoted “by power-mad popes” seeking to greatly expand Christianity through conversion of the Muslim masses2 and thus the Crusades constitute “a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church;” that the knights of Europe were barbarians who brutalized everyone in their path, leaving “the enlightened Muslim

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 9-28 9 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

culture … in ruins.”3 As Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, DC, suggested: “the Crusades created a historical memory which is with us today'the memory of a long European onslaught.”4 Two months afer the atack on New York City, former president Bill Clinton informed an audience at Georgetown University that “Tose of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless” vis-à-vis the Crusades as a crime against Islam, and then he summarized a medieval account about all the blood that was shed when Godfrey of Bouillon and his forces conquered Jerusalem in 1099. Tat the Crusades were a crime in great need of atonement was a popular theme even before the Islamic terrorists crashed their hijacked airliners. In 1999, the New York Times had solemnly proposed that the Crusades were comparable to Hitler’s atrocities or to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.5 Also in 1999, to mark the 900th anniversary of the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem, hundreds of devout Protestants took part in a “Reconciliation Walk” that began in Germany and ended in the Holy Land. Along the way the walkers wore T-shirts bearing the message “I apologize” in Arabic. Teir ofcial statement explained the need for a Christian apology:

Nine hundred years ago, our forefathers carried the name of Jesus Christ in batle across the Middle East. Fueled by fear, greed, and hatred ... the Crusaders lifed the banner of the Cross above your people ... On the anniversary of the First Crusade ... we wish to retrace the footsteps of the Crusaders in apology for their deeds ... We deeply regret the atrocities commited in the name of Christ by our predecessors. We renounce greed, hatred and fear, and condemn all violence done in the name of Jesus Christ.6

And, of course, in February 2016, in response to criticisms of his unwilling- ness to identify recent terrorist atackers as Muslims, President Barack Obama said to those atending the National Prayer Breakfast: “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember during the Crusades … people commited terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

A Longstanding Narrative

Tese are not new charges. Western condemnations of the Crusades originated in the “Enlightenment,” that uterly misnamed era during which French and

10 Te Case for the Crusades

British intellectuals invented the “Dark Ages” in order to glorify themselves and vilify the Church. Hence, Voltaire (1694-1778) called the Crusades an “epidemic of fury which lasted for two hundred years and which was always marked by every cruelty, every perfdy, every debauchery, and every folly of which human nature is capable.”7 According to David Hume (1711-1776) the Crusades were “the most signal and most durable monument to human folly that has yet appeared in any age or nation.”8 Denis Diderot (1713-1784) characterized the Crusades as “a time of the deepest darkness and of the greatest folly … to drag a signifcant part of the world into an unhappy litle country in order to cut the inhabitants’ throats and seize a rocky peak which was not worth one drop of blood.”9 Tese atacks reinforced the widespread “Protestant conviction that crusading was yet another expression of Catholic bigotry and cruelty.”10 But the notion that the Crusaders were early western imperialists who used a religious excuse to seek land and loot probably was originated by Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), who claimed that the Crusaders really went in pursuit of “mines of treasures, of gold and diamonds, of palaces of marble and jasper, and of odoriferous groves of cinnamon and frankincense.”11 During the twentieth century, Gibbon’s thesis was developed into a quite elaborate “materialist” account of why the Crusades took place.12 As summed up by Hans Mayer, the Crusades alleviated a severe fnancial squeeze on Europe’s “knightly class.” According to Mayer and others who share his views, at this time there was a substantial and rapidly growing number of “surplus” sons, members of noble families who would not inherit and whom the heirs found it increasingly difcult to provide with even modest incomes. Hence, as Mayer put it, “the Crusade acted as a kind of safety valve for the knightly class ... a class which looked upon the Crusade as a way of solving its material problems.”13 Indeed, a group of American economists recently proposed that the Crusaders hoped to get rich from the fow of pilgrims (comparing the shrines in Jerusalem to modern amusement parks) and that the pope sent the Crusaders east in pursuit of “new markets” for the church, presumably to be gained by converting people away from Islam.14 Te prolifc Geofrey Barraclough wrote: “our verdict on the Crusades [is that the knightly setlements established in the East were] centers of colonial exploitation.”15 It is thus no surprise that a leading college textbook on Western Civilization informs students that “From the perspective of the pope and European monarchs, the crusades ofered a way to rid Europe of

11 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

contentious young nobles ... [who] saw an opportunity to gain territory, riches, status, possibly a title, and even salvation.”16 Or, as the popular writer Karen Armstrong confded, these “were our frst colonies.”17 Tus, it is the accepted myth that during the Crusades: an expansion- ist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted, and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam.

A Different Narrative

Tese claims have been uterly refuted by a group of distinguished contemporary historians.18 Tey propose that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations, by many centuries of bloody atempts to colonize the West, and by sudden new atacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by a plea from the pope, this had nothing to do with hopes of converting Islam. Nor were the Crusades organized and led by surplus sons, but by the heads of great families who were fully aware that the costs of crusading would far exceed the very modest material rewards that could be expected'most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupting themselves to go. For example, Godfrey of Bouillon sold the entire province of Verdun and also heavily mortgaged his province of Bouillon to fnance his participation. Moreover, the Crusader kingdoms that the knights established in the Holy Land, and which stood for two centuries, were not sustained by local exactions, but required immense subsidies from Europe. In addition, it is uterly unreasonable to impose modern notions about proper military conduct on medieval warfare−both Christians and Muslims observed quite diferent rules of war. Even so, the Crusaders were not nearly as brutal or bloodthirsty as they have been portrayed. Finally, claims that Muslims have been harboring biter resentments about the Crusades for a millennium are nonsense'Muslim antagonism about the Crusades did not appear until about 1900 in reaction against the decline of the Otoman Empire and the onset of actual European colonialism in the Middle East. Now for the details.

Provocations Muslims began raiding Christian areas in the lifetime of Muhammad. Ten, a year afer his death, Muslim invasions began in earnest when their forces

12 Te Case for the Crusades entered Syria, then a Christian province of the Eastern Roman Empire. Muslim forces soon won a series of batles, taking Damascus and some other cities in 635, and by 636 the Byzantine army was forced to abandon Syria. Next the Arabs marched into the Holy Land'Jerusalem was taken in 638, Caesarea Maritima in 640. From there Muslim armies invaded Christian Egypt, taking Cairo; Alexandria fell to them in 642. A major Muslim Empire now ruled most of the Middle East and was spreading along the North African Coast'then a major Christian region. Tirty years later the Empire stretched past Tangier and reached the Atlantic. By 714 much of Spain was occupied. Soon major thrusts were made into France before the Franks managed to repel the Muslim forces in 732 at Tours, litle more than 100 miles south of Paris. In 831 Muslim forces invaded Sicily and held it until 1072, and in 846 they sacked Rome and then withdrew to rule over southern Italy for the next two centuries. Tus, by the time of the First Crusade, Christendom had been fghting a defensive war with Islam for more than 450 years! It seems very odd that those who are so vociferous about the misery and injustice imposed by Europeans on their former colonial empires, fail to admit any such consequences of Muslim imperialism. But, in fact, Muslims were brutal and intolerant colonialists. In any event, the Crusades were fundamentally defensive and it is against this general background of chronic and longstanding western grievances that the very specifc provocations for the Crusades must be considered. Tese involved the destruction of, and threat to, holy places in Jerusalem and the murder, torture, enslavement, robbery, and general harassment of Christian pilgrims. In 1009, at the direction of Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim, Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem'the splendid basilica that Constantine had erected over what was believed to be the site of the tomb where Christ lay before the Resurrection. Worse yet, the Muslims atempted to destroy the tomb itself, leaving only traces of the hollow in the rocks. As word of the desecration of the holiest of all Christian shrines reached Europe, it prompted considerable anger and concern among the informed elites. But the crisis soon passed because Al-Hakim was assassinated and some semblance of religious tolerance was restored in Jerusalem, thus per- miting resumption of the substantial fow of Christian pilgrims. Indeed, the value of the pilgrim trafc probably was the primary factor in the very liberal policies that had prevailed in Muslim-controlled Jerusalem through

13 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

the centuries. Despite the great distances involved and the limited means of transportation, pilgrimages to Jerusalem were surprisingly common. In the frst of his famous three volumes on the Crusades, Sir Steven Runciman reported “an unending stream of travellers poured eastward, sometimes travelling in parties numbering thousands, men and women of every age and every class, ready...to spend a year or more on the [journey].”19 A major reason for going to the Holy Land was the belief that a pilgrimage would absolve even the most terrible sins. Tus, many pilgrims came all the way from Scandinavia'some even from Iceland. As Runciman explained, the Norse “were violent men, frequently guilty of murder and frequently in need of an act of penance.”20 But then, later in the eleventh century, everything changed again. Te Seljuk Turks, recent converts to Islam, became the new rulers of Asia Minor, pushing to within 100 miles of Constantinople. Perhaps because they were new to Islam, or perhaps because they were still semi-nomadic tribesmen untainted by city-dwelling, the Turks were unfinchingly intolerant. Tere was only One True God and his name was Allah, not Yahweh or Jehovah. Not that the Turks ofcially prohibited Christian pilgrimages, but they made it clear that Christians were fair game. Hence, every Anatolian village along the route to Jerusalem began to exact a toll on Christian travelers. Far worse, many pilgrims were seized and sold into slavery while others were tortured, ofen seemingly for entertainment. Tose who survived these perils “returned to the West weary and impoverished, with a dreadful tale to tell.”21 Anger and anxiety about the Holy Land continued to grow. It is important to understand just how vivid was the image of the Holy Land to sincere medieval Christians. It was where Christ and the disciples had lived, and to an almost palpable degree still did. In the words of Robert Payne, in Palestine Christians “expected to fnd holiness in a concrete form, something that could be seen, touched, kissed, worshipped, and even carried away. Holi- ness was in the pathways trodden by Christ, in the mountains and valleys seen by Christ, in the streets of Jerusalem where Christ had wandered.”22 In Jerusalem, a Christian could even climb the hill on which the cross had borne the Son of God. But no longer. It was in this climate of opinion that Alexius Comnenus, Emperor of Byzantium, wrote from his embatled capital to the Count of Flanders requesting that he and his fellow Christians in the West come to the rescue.

14 Te Case for the Crusades

In his leter, the Emperor detailed gruesome tortures of pilgrims and vile desecrations of churches, altars, and baptismal fonts. Should Constan- tinople fall to the Turks, not only would thousands more Christians be murdered, tortured, and raped, but “the most holy relics of the Saviour,” gathered over the centuries, would be lost. “Terefore in the name of God ... we implore you to bring this city all the faithful soldiers of Christ ... in your coming you will fnd your reward in heaven, and if you do not come, God will condemn you.”23 When Pope Urban II read this leter he was determined that it be answered in deeds. He arranged for a great gathering of clergy and laity in the French city of Clermont on November 27, 1095. Standing on a podium in the middle of a feld, and surrounded by an immense crowd that included poor peasants as well as nobility and clergy, the pope gave one of the most efective speeches of all time. Blessed with an expressive and unusually powerful voice, he could be heard and understood at a great distance. Subsequently, copies of the speech (writen and spoken in French) were circulated all across Europe.24 Te pope began by graphically detailing the torture, rape, and murder of Christian pilgrims and the deflement of churches and holy places: “Many of God’s churches have been violated … Tey have ruined the altars with flth and deflement. Tey have circumcised Christians and smeared the blood on the altars or poured it into baptismal fonts. It amused them to kill Christians by opening up their bellies and drawing out the end of their intestines, which they then tied to a stake. Ten they fogged their victims and made them walk around and around the stake until their intestines had spilled out and they fell dead on the ground ... What shall I say about the abominable rape of women? On this subject it may be worse to speak than to remain silent.” At this point Pope Urban raised a second issue to which he already had devoted years of efort'the chronic warfare of medieval times. Te pope had been atempting to achieve a “Truce of God” among the feudal nobility, many of whom seemed inclined to make war, even on their friends, just for the sake of a good fght. Afer all, it was what they trained to do every day since early childhood. Here was their chance! “Christian warriors, who continually and vainly seek pretexts for war, rejoice, for you have today found a true pretext … If you are conquered, you will have the glory of dying in the very same place as Jesus Christ, and God will never forget that he found you in the holy batalions … Soldiers of Hell, become soldiers of the living God!”

15 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Now, shouts of “Dieu li volt!” (God wills it!) began to spread through the crowd and men began to cut up cloaks and other pieces of cloth to make crosses and to sew them on their shoulders and chests. Everyone agreed that next spring they would march to Jerusalem. And they did. It has ofen been suggested that we should not trust the pope or the emperor on what was taking place in the Holy Land. Perhaps they were misinformed. Perhaps they were lying to arouse a military venture for reasons of their own. James Carroll has even suggested that the pope cynically used the Muslims as threatening outsiders in order to unite the European princes “against a common enemy.”25 But as Runciman pointed out, Euro- peans, especially the nobility, had trustworthy independent information on the brutalization of the Christian pilgrims'from their own relatives and friends who had managed to survive. Even had the pope and emperor been cynical propagandists, that would not alter the motivation of the Crusaders, for that depended entirely on what the knights believed.

Economic Aspects of the Crusades Had there been a fnancial squeeze on the knightly class, about the last thing they would have done was march of on a Crusade to the Holy Land. As Peter Edbury explained, “Crusading was expensive, and the costs were borne by the crusaders themselves, their families, their lords and, increasingly from the end of the twelfh century, by taxes levied on the Church in the West.”26 Even the many Crusader castles and the garrisons by which Christians held portions of the Holy Land for two centuries were not built or sustained by local exactions, but by funds sent from Europe. Indeed, the great wealth of the knightly crusading orders was not loot, but came from donations and legacies in Europe.27 All told, “large quantities of Western silver fowed into the crusader states.”28 Te Crusades were possible only because this was not a period of economic decline, but one of growth “which put more resources and money into the hands of the ruling elites on Western Europe.”29 Moreover it was not “surplus” sons who went. Because the “cost of crusading was truly enormous”30 only the heads of upper class households could raise the money to go: it was kings, princes, counts, dukes, barons and earls who enrolled, led, and paid the expenses for companies of knights and infantry.31 Even so, they raised the needed funds at a very great sacrifce. Many sold all or substantial amounts of their holdings, borrowed all they

16 Te Case for the Crusades could from relatives, and impoverished themselves and their families in order to participate.32 As for making up their losses by looting and colonizing in the Holy Land, most of them had no such illusions'indeed, most of them had no plans to remain in the East once the fghting was done, and all but a small garrison did return home.

Why Tey Went Te knights of Europe sewed crosses on their breasts and marched East for two primary reasons, one of them generic, the other specifc to Crusading. Te generic reason was their perceived need for penance. Te specifc reason was to liberate the Holy Land. Just as it has today, the medieval Church had many profound reservations about violence, and especially about killing. Tis created serious concerns among the knights and their confessors because war was chronic among the medieval nobility and any knight who survived for very long was apt to have killed someone. Even when victims were evil men without any redeeming worth, their deaths were held to constitute sins,33 and in most instances the killer enjoyed no obvious moral superiority over the victim−sometimes quite the reverse. Consequently, knights were chronically in need of penance and their confessors imposed all manner of acts of atonement. Confessors sometimes required a pilgrimage to a famous shrine, and for particularly hideous sins, a journey all the way to the Holy Land. As already noted, pilgrimages to Jerusalem were remarkably common for several centuries before the First Crusade. Tousands went every year, ofen in large groups−for example, in 1026 a group of 700 persons from Normandy made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and along the way they were joined by many other groups of Western pilgrims.34 A major reason pilgrimages were so common was because the knights of Europe were both very violent and very religious. Tus, when Count Tierry of Trier murdered his archbishop in 1059, his confessor demanded that he undertake a pilgrimage, and he went.35 Perhaps the most notorious pilgrim was Fulk III, Count of Anjou (972-1040), who was required to make four pilgrimages to the Holy Land, the frst as penance for having his wife burned to death in her wedding dress, allegedly for having had sex with a goatherd. All things considered, four pilgrimages may have been far too few, given that Fulk was a “plunderer, murderer, robber, and swearer of false oaths, a truly terrifying character of

17 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

fendish cruelty … Whenever he had the slightest diference with a neighbor he rushed upon his lands, ravaging, pillaging, raping and killing; nothing could stop him.”36 Nevertheless, when confronted by his confessor Fulk “responded with extravagant expressions of devotion.”37 Tus the call to Crusade was not a call to do something novel'no doubt many knights had long been considering a pilgrimage. Indeed, the pope himself had assured them that Crusading would wash away all their sins and, at the same time, they could rescue the Holy Land, including Christ’s tomb, from further damage and sacrilege at the hands of the enemies of God. It was an altogether noble and holy mission, and the knights treated it as such. Te Burgundian Stephen I of Neublans put it this way: “Considering how many are my sins and the love, clemency and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because when he was rich he became poor for our sake, I have determined to repay him in some measure for everything he has given me freely, although I am unworthy. And so I have decided to go to Jerusalem, where God was seen as man and spoke with men and to adore the place where his feet trod.”38 Had the Crusaders not been motivated by religion, but by land and loot, the knights of Europe would have responded earlier, in 1063, when Pope Alexander II proposed a crusade to drive the infdel Muslims out of Spain. Unlike the Holy Land, Moorish Spain was extremely wealthy, possessed an abundance of fertile lands, and was close at hand. But hardly anyone responded to the pope’s summons. Yet, only about thirty years later, thousands of Crusaders set out for the dry, impoverished wastes of faraway Palestine. What was diferent? Spain was not the Holy Land! Christ had not walked the streets of Toledo, nor was he crucifed in Seville. So fnally, on June 7, 1099, and against all odds, the Crusaders arrived at Jerusalem. Of the original forces numbering perhaps 130,000, disease, privation, misadventure, desertion, and fghting had so reduced their ranks that the Crusaders now numbered only about 15,000, although Muslim historians placed their numbers at 300,000.39 Tose who reached Jerusalem were starving'having long since eaten their horses. Nevertheless, following a brief siege, on July 15, 1099 the badly out-numbered Crusaders burst into the city. Tus, afer about 460 years of Muslim rule, Jerusalem was again in Christian hands, although it was nearly destroyed and depopulated in the process.

18 Te Case for the Crusades

Te Crusader Kingdoms With Jerusalem in their possession, and having defeated a large Egyptian army sent to turn them out, the Crusaders had to decide what to do to preserve their victory. Teir solution was to create four kingdoms'independent states along the Mediterranean Coast. Tese were the County of Edessa, named for its major city; the Princedom of Antioch, which surrounded the city of Antioch in what is now southern Turkey; the County of Tripoli was just south of the Princedom and named for the Lebanese coastal city of that name; and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, an enclave on the coast of Palestine roughly equivalent to modern Israel.40 Unlike the other three kingdoms, Edessa was land-locked. When the main body of Crusaders marched south in 1098 to atack Antioch, Baldwin of Boulogne led a smaller force east to Edessa and managed to convince Toros, the ruler of the city (who was a Greek orthodox Christian), to adopt him as his son and heir! When Toros was assassinated by angry subjects, Baldwin took over. Edessa was the frst Crusader state (founded in 1098) and the frst to be retaken by Islam (1149). Crusaders captured the city of Antioch in 1098 afer a long siege during which the knights ran so short of supplies that they ate many of their horses. Almost immediately afer the Crusaders had taken the city, a new Muslim army appeared and laid siege to the knights. Against staggering odds, Bohe- mond of Taranto led his troops out from the city and somehow defeated the Muslims−subsequent accounts claim that an army of saints had miraculously appeared to help the knights. Following this victory, Bohemond named himself prince. Te area remained an independent state until 1119 when it was joined to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1268 Antioch fell to an army led by Baybars, Sultan of Egypt, whose troops killed every Christian they could fnd. Te County of Tripoli was the last of the four Crusaders states to be established'in 1102. It came into being when Count Raymond IV of Toulouse, one of the leaders of the First Crusade, laid siege to the port city of Tripoli. When Raymond died suddenly in 1105, he lef his infant son as heir so when the knights fnally took the city the County became a vassal state of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was captured by Mameluke forces in 1289. By far the most important and powerful of the Crusader states was the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was also known at Outremer, the French word for “overseas” (outre-mer). Initially that term applied to all the Crusader states,

19 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

but it came to refer primarily to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Like the other states, Outremer was never a European colony, it being fully independent. Godfrey of Bouillon, who led the capture of Jerusalem, was installed as the frst ruler, with the title Defender of the Holy Sepulcher. Godfrey was chosen not only for his integrity, but also for his military talent which was just as well since no sooner was he in command than he was confronted by a very large Egyptian army intent on recapturing Jerusalem. Rather than shelter his outnumbered forces behind the walls of the city, Godfrey marched them out for a night atack that found the Egyptians sleeping and defeated them with a great loss of life. Tis terrible defeat long deterred Muslim leaders from mounting new atacks. Te Muslim historian Ibn Zafr recorded “reproachfully: ‘He [the Egyptian vizier] had given up hope of the Syrian coastline remaining in Muslim hands and he did not personally wage war against them afer that.’”41 Tis was fortunate for the Crusaders, since following their victory over the Egyptians, nearly all of the forces of the First Crusade boarded ships and sailed home, leaving the Outremer to be protected by a small company of about 300 knights and perhaps 2,000 infantry.42 Eventually their ranks were substantially reinforced by two knightly religious orders in which “monastic discipline and martial skill were combined for the frst time in the Christian world.”43 Te Knights Hospitaller were founded initially to care for sick Chris- tian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Eventually, the order kept its “medical” name, but in about 1120 expanded its vows from chastity, poverty, and obedience to include the armed protection of Christians in Palestine. Te Knights Templar originated as a military religious order in about 1119. Hospitallers wore black robes with a white cross on the lef sleeve, the Templars wore a white robe with a red cross on the mantel. Te two orders hated one another quite intensely, but together they provided the Kingdom of Jerusalem with a reliable force of well-trained soldiers who built and garrisoned a chain of extremely well-sited castles along the frontiers of the Kingdom. Nevertheless, the existence of the kingdoms remained perilous, surrounded as they were by a vast and populous Muslim world. For many years, whenever the Muslim threat loomed especially large, new Crusades were mounted in Europe bringing fresh troops east in support of the Crusader kingdoms'and then went home again. Eventually, Europeans lost their fervor to defend the “Holy Land” and Islamic forces began to eat away at the Crusader areas. Still,

20 Te Case for the Crusades that the Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted until 1291, when its last fortress at Acre fell to a huge Mameluk army, seems a remarkable achievement. As already noted, not only the defenders, but most of the funds for all of this came from Europe.44 Both of the knightly orders established many religious houses in Europe from which they not only sent young recruits, but a constant, substantial fow of cash, some of it raised by productive the activities of the houses'each owned great estates including some towns and villages'but most of it was donated by wealthy Europeans. About seventy years afer the conquest of Jerusalem, the trade routes from Asia shifed to pass through the Kingdom’s ports. Tis seems to have enriched Genoa and Pisa (and perhaps Venice), since these cities controlled maritime trade on the Mediterranean, but it had litle impact on the general economy of the Kingdom and surely played no role in motivating Crusaders.45 Tus, the Crusader states “remained dependent on Christendom for men and money, endured as long as Christendom retained enough interest to keep supplying them, and withered and collapsed when that interest was lost.”46 Since a colony is normally defned as place that is politically directed and economically exploited by a homeland, the Crusader states were not colonies47'unless one places a high material value on spiritual profts. Nevertheless, the Crusaders made no atempt to impose Christianity on the Muslims. In fact, “Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion.”48 Consequently the Crusader kingdoms always contained far more Muslim residents than Christians. In the thirteenth century some Francis- cans initiated conversion eforts among Muslims, but these were based on peaceful persuasion, were quite unsuccessful, and soon abandoned.49 In fact, the Church generally opposed any linkage between Crusading and conversion until the issue arose during the “Crusades” against Christian heretics in Europe.50

Crusader “War Crimes” In the last paragraph of his immensely infuential three-volume work on the Crusades, Sir Steven Runciman regreted this “tragic and destructive episode.” Te “high ideals” of the Crusaders “were besmirched by cruelty and greed … by a blind and narrow self-righteousness.”51 In the wake of Runciman’s huge work, many more historians adopted the tradition that the Crusades pited a

21 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

barbarian West against a more sophisticated and more civilized East. Tus, the emphasis has been given to evidence that the Crusaders were brutal, blood-thirsty, religious zealots. It is the massacre subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem that is taken as certain proof that the Crusaders were brutal even for their era and especially so in comparison with their Muslim opponents. Following a short, siege the Christian knights took the city by storm and this is said to have been followed by an incredibly bloody massacre of the entire population. Unfortunately, these claims were writen by Christian chroniclers “eager to portray a ritual purifcation of the city.”52 Did it really happen? Te chroniclers’ accounts seem farfetched'streets don’t run knee-deep in blood'but it seems likely that a major massacre did occur. However, it is important to realize that according to the norms of warfare at that time, a massacre of the population of Jerusalem would have been seen as justifed because the city had refused to surrender and had to be taken by storm, thus inficting many casualties on the atacking forces. Had Jerusalem surrendered as Crusaders gathered to assault the walls, it is very likely that no massacre would have occurred. But, mistakenly believing in their own military superiority, the Muslims held out. In such cases commanders (Muslims as well as Christians) believed they had an obligation to release their troops to murder, loot, and burn as an example to other cities that might be tempted to hold out excessively long in the future. Tus, Muslim victories in similar circumstances resulted in wholesale slaughters too. Te remarkable bias of so many western histories of the Crusades could not be more obvious than in the fact that massacres by Muslims receive so litle atention. As Robert Irwin pointed out, “In Britain, there ha[s] been a long tradition of disparaging the Crusaders as barbaric and bigoted warmongers and of praising the Saracens as paladins of chivalry. Indeed, it is widely believed that chivalry originated in the Muslim East. Te most perfect example of Muslim chivalry was, of course, the twelfh-century Ayyubid Sultab Saladin.”53 In fact, this is not a recent British invention. Since the Enlightenment, Saladin has “bizarrely” been portrayed “as a rational and civilized fgure in juxtaposition to credulous barbaric crusaders.”54 For example, in 1898, Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm visited Damascus and placed a bronze laurel wreath on Saladin’s tomb. Te wreath was inscribed: “From one great emperor to another.”55

22 Te Case for the Crusades

Much has been made of the fact that Saladin did not murder the Christians when he retook Jerusalem in 1187. Writing in 1869, the English historian Barbara Huton claimed that although Saladin “hated Christians … when they were suppliants and at his mercy, he was never cruel or revengeful.”56 But neither Huton nor most other modern, Western sympathizers with Islam have had anything to say about the fact, acknowledged by Muslim writers, that Jerusalem was an exception to Saladin’s usual butchery of his enemies. Indeed, Saladin had planned to massacre the knights holding Jerusalem, but ofered a safe conduct in exchange for their surrender of Jerusalem without resistance (and unlike many other Muslim leaders, he kept his word). In most other instances Saladin was quite unchivalrous. Following the Batle of Hatin, for example, he personally participated in butchering some the captured knights and then sat back and enjoyed watching the execution of the rest of them. As told by Saladin’s secretary, Imad ed-Din: “He [Saladin] ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and sufs and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was siting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.”57 It thus seems fting that during one of his amazing World War I adventures leading irregular Arab forces against the Turks, T. E. Lawrence “liberated” the Kaiser’s wreath from Saladin’s tomb and it now resides in the Imperial War Museum in London. Not only have many western historians ignored the real Saladin, they have given litle or no coverage to Baybars (also Baibars), Sultan of Egypt, although he is much more celebrated than Saladin in Muslim histories of this period. When Baybars took the Knights of the Templar fortress of Safad 1266, he had all the inhabitants massacred even though he had promised to spare their lives during negotiations.58 Later that same year his forces took the great city of Antioch. Even though the city surrendered afer four days, Baybars ordered all inhabitants, including all women and children, killed or enslaved. What followed was “the single greatest massacre of the entire crusading era”59'it is estimated that 17,000 men were murdered and tens of thousands of women and children were marched away as slaves. Since Count Behemund VI, ruler of Antioch, was away when this disaster befell his city, Baybars sent him a leter telling him what he had missed: “You

23 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

would have seen your knights prostrate beneath the horses’ hooves, your houses stormed by pillagers … You would have seen your Muslim enemy trampling on the place where you celebrate Mass, cuting the throats of monks, priests and deacons upon the altars, bringing sudden death to the Patriarchs and slavery to the royal princes. You would have seen fre running through your palaces, your dead burned in this world before going down to the fres of the next.”60 Te massacre of Antioch is seldom reported in the many apologetic western histories of the Crusades. Karen Armstrong did report this massacre, but atributed it to “a new Islam” that had developed in response to the dire Crusader threat and with a “desperate determination to survive.” Armstrong also noted that because Baybars was a patron of the arts, he “was not simply a destroyer … [but also] a great builder.”61 Even so, Armstrong’s evaluation of Baybars is faint praise compared with that of the Muslims. An inscription from about 1266 calls him: “the pillar of the world and religion, the sultan of Islam and the Muslim, the killer of infdels and polytheists, the tamer of rebels and heretics … the Alexander of the age.”62 Many other inscriptions also compare him with Alexander the Great. Of course, even though most of the Crusaders went to war for reasons of faith and at considerable personal cost, few of them adopted a religious lifestyle. Tey ate and drank as well as they were able and most of them routinely violated many commandments, especially those concerned with murder, adultery, and coveting wives. Moreover, they did not disdain the spoils of batle and looted as much as they were able'which wasn’t much when balanced against the costs of Crusading. And of course they were ofen cruel and blood-thirsty'afer all they had been trained from childhood to make war, face to face, sword to sword and Pope Urban II called them “Soldiers of Hell.” No doubt it was very “unenlightened” of the Crusaders to be typical feudal warriors, but it strikes me as even more unenlightened to anachronistically impose the Geneva Convention on the Crusaders while pretending that their Islamic opponents were either U.N. Peacekeepers or hapless victims.

Rediscovering the Crusades Karen Armstrong would have us believe that the Crusades are “one of the direct causes of the confict in the Middle East today.”63 Tat may be so, but

24 Te Case for the Crusades not because the Muslim world has been harboring biterness over the Cru- sades for the past many centuries. As Jonathan Riley-Smith explained: “One ofen reads that Muslims have inherited from their medieval ancestors biter memories of the violence of the crusaders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before the end of the nineteenth century Muslims had not shown much interest in the crusades … [looking] back on [them] with indiference and complacency.”64 Even at the time they took place, Muslim chroniclers paid very litle atention to the Crusades regarding them as invasions by “a primitive, unlearned, impoverished, and un-Muslim people, about whom Muslim rulers and scholars knew and cared litle.”65 Moreover, most Arabs dismissed the Crusades as having been atacks upon the hated Turks, and therefore of litle interest.66 Indeed, in the account writen by Ibn Zafr at the end of the twelfh century, it was said that it was beter that the Franks occupied the Kingdom of Jerusalem as this prevented “the spread of the infuence of the Turks to the lands of Egypt.”67 Muslim interest in the Crusades seems to have begun in the nineteenth century, when the term itself68 was introduced by Christian Arabs who translated French histories into Arabic'for it was in the West that the Crusades frst came back into vogue during the nineteenth century. In Europe and the United States “the romance of the crusades and crusading” became a very popular literary theme, as in the many popular novels of Sir Walter Scot.69 Not surprisingly, this development required that, at least in Britain and America, the Crusades be “de-Catholicized.”70 In part this was done by emphasizing the confict between the Knights Templar and the Pope, transforming the former into an order of valiant anti-Catholic heroes. In addition, there developed a strong linkage between the European imperial impulse and the romantic imagery of the Crusades “to such an extent that, by World War One, war campaigns and war heroes were regularly lauded as crusaders in the popular press, from the pulpit, and in the ofcial propaganda of the British war machine.”71 Meanwhile in the East, the Otoman Empire was fully-revealed as “the sick man of Europe,” a decrepit relic unable to produce any of the arms needed for its defense, which highlighted the general backwardness of Islamic culture and prompted “seething anger”72 against the West among Muslim intellectuals, eventually leading them to focus on the Crusades. Tus, current Muslim memories and anger about the Crusades are a

25 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

twentieth century creation,73 prompted in part by “post-World War I British and French imperialism and the post-World War II creation of the state of Israel.”74 It was the last Sultan of the Otoman Empire to rule with absolute authority, Abdulhamid II (reigned from 1876-1909), who began to refer to European Crusades. Tis prompted the frst Muslim history of the Crusades, published in 1899. In the introduction, its author, Sayyid Ali al-Hariri, noted that: “Te sovereigns of Europe nowadays atack our Sublime Empire in a manner bearing great resemblance to the deeds of those people in bygone times [the Crusaders]. Our most glorious sultan, Abdulhamid II, has rightly remarked that Europe is now carrying out a Crusade against us.”75 Tis theme was eagerly picked up by Muslim nationalists. “Only Muslim unity could oppose these new crusades, some argued, and the crusading threat became an important theme in the writings of the pan-Islamic movement.”76 Even within the context of Muslim weakness in the face the modern West, Islamic triumphalism fourished; many proposed that through the Crusades the “savage West … benefted by absorbing [Islam’s] civilized values.” As for Crusader efects on Islam, “how could Islam beneft from contacts established with an inferior, backward civilization?”77 Eventually, the brutal, colonizing Crusader imagery proved to have such polemical power that it eventually drowned out nearly everything else in the ideological lexicon of Muslim antagonism towards the West, except, of course, for Israel and paranoid tales about the world-wide Jewish conspiracy.

Conclusion

Te Crusades were not unprovoked. Tey were not the frst round of Euro- pean colonialism. Tey were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. Te Crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. Te Crusades are not a blot on the history of Christianity. No apologies are required.

1 Tis is a somewhat revised version of Chapter 13 of my Te Triumph of Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2011) which was based on my God’s Batalions (New York: HarperOne, 2009). 2 Robert B. Ekelund, et al., Sacred Trust: Te Medieval Church as an Economic Firm (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

26 Te Case for the Crusades

3 Quotes from Tomas F. Madden, “Te Crusades in the Checkout Aisle,” Crisis Magazine (April 12, 2002). 4 Andrew Curry, “Te Crusades, the First Holy War,” U.S. News & World Report (April 8, 2002): 36. 5 New York Times (June 20, 1999): Section 4, p. 15. 6 Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm 7 Quoted in Jean Richard, Te Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 475. 8 David Hume (1761), I:209. 9 Quoted in Richard, Te Crusades, 5. 10 Jonathan Riley-Smith, “Islam and the Crusades in History and Imagination, 8 November 1898-11 September 2001” Crusades 2 (2003); 154. 11 Edward Gibbon, Te History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (6 vols.; London: Everyman’s Library, reprint, 2010), Book VI: Chapter LVIII. 12 Georges Duby, Te Chivalrous Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); John France, Victory in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Hans Eberhard Mayer, Te Crusades (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972). 13 Mayer, Te Crusades, 22-25. 14 Ekelund, et al., Sacred Trust. Tis is one of the most inept and uninformed eforts at trying to apply economic principles by analogy that I have ever encountered. 15 Riley-Smith, “Islam and the Crusades in History and Imagination,” 159. 16 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization (4th ed.; Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000), 259. 17 Karen Armstrong, Holy War: Te Crusades and Teir Impact on Today’s World (2nd ed.; New York: Random House, 2001), xii. 18 Including: Alfred J. Andrea, Peter Edbury, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Tomas F. Madden, Edward M. Peters, Jean Richard, Jonathan Riley-Smith, and Christopher Tyerman. 19 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 1:49. 20 Ibid., 1:47. 21 Ibid., 1:79. 22 Robert Payne, Te Dream and the Tomb: A History of the Crusades (New York: Stein & Day, 1984), 18-19. 23 Ibid., 28-29. 24 Five major versions of the speech exist, each being incomplete, and there are several translations of each into English. I have selected excerpts from several versions. 25 James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword: Te Church and the Jews#a History (Boston: Mariner Books, 2001), 241. 26 Peter Edbury, “Warfare in the Latin East,” in Medieval Warfare: A History (ed., Maurice Keen; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 95. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 John Gillingham, “An Age of Expansion: c. 1020-1204,” in Medieval Warfare: A History (ed., Maurice Keen; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 59. 30 Tomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Litlefeld, 1999), 12. 31 Jonathan Riley-Smith, Te First Crusaders, 1095-1131 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., 49. 34 Ibid., 29-30. 35 Ibid., 28. 36 Richard Erdoes, AD 1000: Living on the Brink of the Apocalypse (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 26. 37 Riley-Smith, Te First Crusaders, 28. 38 Quoted in ibid., 72. 39 Carole Hillenbrand, Te Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), 54. 40 Bernard Hamilton, Te Leper King and His Heirs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); John L. LaMonte, Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1291 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932); Joshua Prawer, Te Crusaders’ Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (New York: Praeger, 1972); Jonathan Riley-Smith, Te Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277 (New York: Macmillan, 1973); Runciman, A History of the Crusades; Christopher Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusade (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2006). 41 In Hillenbrand, Te Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, 77. 42 Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades, 178. 43 Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades, 49.

27 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

44 Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades, 179. 45 Riley-Smith, Te First Crusaders, 1095-1131, 17. 46 Charles Issawi, “Crusades and Current Crisis in the Near East: A Historical Parallel,” International Afairs 33 (1957): 272. 47 Jonathan Phillips, “Te Latin East 1098-1291,” in Te Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (ed., Jonathan Riley-Smith; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 112. 48 Madden, “Te Crusades in the Checkout Aisle,” 3. 49 Benjamin Z. Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches Toward the Muslims (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). 50 Ibid. 51 Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3:480. 52 Tomas F. Madden, “Te Real History of the Crusades,” Crisis Magazine (April 1, 2002); also see Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades, xv. 53 Robert Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents (Woodstock and New York: Te Overlook Press, 2006), 213. 54 Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades, 351. 55 Elizabeth Siberry, “Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” in Te Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (ed., Jonathan Riley-Smith; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 368. 56 Ibid., 115. 57 Quoted in Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades, 78. 58 Ibid., 181. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid., 181-182. 61 Armstrong, Holy War: Te Crusades and Teir Impact on Today’s World, 448. 62 In Hillenbrand, Te Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, 230. 63 Armstrong, Holy War: Te Crusades and Teir Impact on Today’s World, 448. 64 Riley-Smith, “Islam and the Crusades in History and Imagination,” 160-161. 65 Edward Peters, “Te Firanj are Coming1Again,” Orbis (Winter, 2004): 6. 66 Hillenbrand, Te Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, 4-5. 67 In ibid., 45. 68 Tere was no Arabic term for “Crusades.” 69 Adam Knobler, “Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: Te Modern Uses of the Medieval Crusade,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 48 (2006): 310. 70 Ibid., 310. 71 Ibid. 72 Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 3. 73 Peters, “Te Firanj are Coming1Again;” Riley-Smith, “Islam and the Crusades in History and Imagination.” 74 A. J. Andrea, “Te Crusades in Perspective: Te Crusades in Modern Islamic Perspective,” History Compass 1 (2003): 2. 75 Emmanuel Sivan, Modern Arab Historiography of the Crusades (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Shiloah Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, 1973), 12. 76 Knobler, “Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: Te Modern Uses of the Medieval Crusade,” 320. 77 Various Muslims quoted by Riley-Smith, “Islam and the Crusades in History and Imagination,” 162.

28 “Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God”: Surat Al Maida and the Qur’an’s Understanding of the Trinity James R. White

James R. White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Teology, and various topics in the feld of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty-four books, including Te Forgoten Trinity (Bethany House, 1998), Te Poter’s Freedom (Calvary Press, revised, 2000), Scripture Alone (Bethany House, 2004), Te God Who Justifes (Bethany House, 2007), and What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (Bethany House, 2013). Dr. White is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 140 moderated, public debates around the world and over 40 of those debates have been with Muslims, including the debate in the Juma Masjid in Durban, South Africa. Dr. White is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and an avid cyclist.

And when God said, “O Jesus son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind, ‘Take me and my mother as gods apart from God?’” He said, “Glory be to Tee! It is not for me to uter that to which I have no right. Had I said it, Tou wouldst surely have known it. Tou knowest what is in my self and I know not what is in Ty Self. Truly it is Tou Who knowest best the things unseen.1

One can read the central texts in Muslim Scripture relating to the Christian doctrine of God and what the Qur’an considers the errors of the Christian

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 29-40 29 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

faith in a single siting, literally in a mater of minutes. And yet the vast majority of Christians are blissfully unaware of the fact that they are addressed, directly, by the Scriptures of one of the largest religions in the world, and exhorted to repent of their beliefs. Sadly, the Qur’an is a closed book to Christians, including Christian leaders, just as much as the Bible is a closed book to the world’s Muslims. Tere are a limited number of truly signifcant texts in the Qur’an that address Christian belief and teaching about Jesus. But one particular surah, Surat Al-Maida, (Surah 5) is rich with texts directed to the Christian people in particular. We will utilize this surah as the base text upon which to ask, “Does the form and content of the Qur’an allow for the construction of a coherent understanding of the author’s knowledge of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?” Trough this lens we can likewise consider subsidiary questions such as the nature of the Qur’anic revelation and its relationship to what Christians would think of as serious exegesis based upon genre, context, seting, and authorial intent. Can the text bear up under the same kind of scrutiny Christians are accustomed to applying to their own Scriptures? And if a sufcient contextual argument can be sustained, can we come to any frm conclusions regarding the accuracy of the Qur’anic response to the Christian afrmation of the Trinity?

Preliminary Considerations

Christians approaching the Qur’anic text ofen bring assumptions that lead to confusion when seeking to apply their reading to conversations with Muslims themselves. A few brief observations will assist in our inquiry. First, Sunni orthodoxy teaches today that the Qur’an is eternal and uncre- ated. As such, there is nothing of man in it. Tis not only raises numerous theological issues relating to the atributes of God, etc., but most important for our purposes, it likewise means that all of the questions Christians normally ask about the author, authorial context, language, content, etc., are seen in a fundamentally diferent way by the majority of Muslims. We cannot ask questions about what the author of the Qur’an understood or believed since he has nothing to do with the actual content of the book. He is merely the passive instrument. Traditionally, the entirety of the Qur’an came down on “Laylat al-Qadar,” the night of power, when it was given to the angel Jabreel. Ten it was

30 Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God parceled out to Muhammad over the course of twenty-two years. Muhammad was merely a recipient. His understanding of, for example, Christian doctrine, is irrelevant since it has no bearing on the actual words. Second, Surat Al-Maida is considered, traditionally, to be one of the last surahs revealed. From a historical perspective, then, it would come afer all of the conficts in Muhammad’s life, including his back-and-forth relationship with both Jews and Christians. What it refects, then, concerning the Christian faith would be “fnal,” both in the sense of refecting the fnal stance of Muhammad toward these faiths as well as in regards to the mater of “abrogation,” the concept held in some form or another by the majority of Muslims whereby later portions of the Qur’an are allowed to abrogate or supersede previous portions.

The Text Reviewed

Surat Al-Maida is next to impossible to outline as the subject mater is varied and the blocks of text exist without transitional statements. Te only theme that appears multiple times in the narrative is that of the errors of Chris- tians regarding Jesus, yet these discussions are intermixed with a number of (seemingly) unrelated exhortations. While this may seem unusual at frst sight to someone accustomed to following a closely reasoned argument such as that of Paul in Romans or that found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is normative for much of the Qur’an. Contextual exegesis is rarely an option with a collection of poetry that makes as one of its primary arguments for inspiration not the content of its message but the overwhelming beauty of its form. Tis is refected as well in the tafsir (commentary) literature writ- ten on the Qur’an over the centuries. No atempt is made to harmonize or contextualize. Each block of text is taken as a unit and atached to traditions (normally statements from the hadith literature) without any felt need to create a contextual fow of interpretation. Given the late date of Surat Al-Maida, it should be noted that the phrase in ayah 3, “Tis day I have perfected for you your religion,” is taken as a summary statement of the revelation of the Qur’an, a closing word, in essence. Tis ofen adds weight and authority to the entirety of the surah. Afer various regulations regarding food laws and oaths, we come to the frst key text relevant to the Christian faith:

31 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

14 And with those who say, “We are Christians,” We made a covenant. Ten they forgot part of that whereof they were reminded. So We stirred up enmity and hatred among them, till the Day of Resurrection. God will inform them of what they used to do. 15 O People of the Book! Our Messenger has come unto you, making clear to you much of what you once hid of the Book, and pardoning much. Tere has come unto you, from God, a light and a clear Book, 16 whereby God guides whosoever seeks His Contentment unto the ways of peace, and brings them out of darkness into light, by His Leave, and guides them unto a straight path. 17 Tey indeed have disbelieved who say, “God is the Messiah, son of Mary.” Say, “Who would have any power over God if He desired to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and those on earth all together?” Unto God belongs sovereignty over the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is between them. He creates whatsoever He will, and God is Powerful over all things.

It is asserted that Allah made a covenant with the Christians, but they “forgot” a part of this covenant. Possibly strife and schism amongst the Christians is seen as judgment for this violation of the covenant, or the natural result. In any case, similar to the accusations made against the Jews in ayah 13, which included “forgeting,” as well as some form of tahrif2 in the phrase “what you once hid of the Book,” the exhortation is to look to the clearer revelation of the Qur’an, “a light and a clear Book.” Te Arabic term mubinun is used here for clear, perspicuous, evidently in contrast to the Christian Scriptures in which things have been “hidden.” Immediately following the ofer of Allah’s guidance into the ways of peace, light, and the straight path (echoing the thoughts of the opening surah of the Qur’an, words repeated by every Muslim in the daily prayers, where they pray to be guided to the straight path and not the path of those who have gone astray, i.e., the Christians) comes a sharp word of warning and here we encounter the frst representations of the errors of the Christians. We are not being disrespectful when we say the phrase “God is the Messiah, son of Mary” is a very clumsy way of expressing the Christian belief in the deity of Christ. But the odd phraseology aside, it is important to note that this confession is specifcally said to be disbelief (kafara). It is important to recognize how clear the Qur’anic teaching is at this point. Tis is not just a disapproved opinion, this is unbelief. And in this instance we are ofered a counter-argument. Counter-arguments ofen provide invaluable insights into the understanding of the

32 Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God author of a text (hence the value of debate and direct interaction). Surely this is the case here, for the essence of the argument is that God could have destroyed the Messiah and his mother and all other human beings. Te point is the creatureliness of the Messiah. Te Christian does not immediately see the force of the argument in light of the doctrine of the Incarnation, but just here we must ask if there is any evidence in the Qur’anic text of an understanding of that very doctrine. Given that the Qur’an shows no evidence of direct interaction with the writen New Testament, we cannot assume the author had ever read John 1:14 or Philippians 2:5-11. But from the Islamic perspective, this consideration is irrelevant, for the author of the text is Allah, not Muhammad, and surely by the year A.D. 630 the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the hypostatic union, were well known to the Almighty. Surely if this is a counter argument provided by the deity himself to his people as a means of responding to the Christians the argument should demonstrate the deepest insight and strength of refutation. Yet it is based upon an assumption that is all too rarely recognized: that there can be no incarnation. Tough God is allowed to be able to create, he surely cannot enter into his own creation, cannot take on a perfect human nature, if he so wills for his purposes. Tis is the fundamental assumption of Islamic theology, but it is an assumption rarely feshed out and expressed with clarity. Te Surah moves on from here to a discussion of Moses and the Israelites, and then quickly to an odd and controversial narrative concerning Cain and Abel. Ayah 32 contains the famous line, “Whosoever slays a soul … it is as though he slew mankind altogether, and whosoever saves the life of one, it is as though he saved the life of mankind altogether.” But this worthy and high line is followed quickly by the prescription of killing, crucifying, or cuting of the hands and feet on opposite sides of those who “wage war against God and His Messenger” (33). Te surah transitions into a vitally important section, worthy of deep study and inquiry of itself, with great relevance to Christian/Muslim dialogue, regarding the giving of the Torah, the Injeel, and the Qur’an. All are described as revelations of God. One of the rare direct citations of the Bible is found in ayah 45, where the Lex Talionis is cited (Exod 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21).3 An argument is then presented linking the giving of the Torah to Moses, the Injeel to Jesus, and the Qur’an to Muhammad. Te

33 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

people of the Gospel are specifcally mentioned, and they are instructed to “judge by what God has sent down therein (i.e., the Gospel).” Tough it is beyond our scope of inquiry here, it should be noted that this text is central to a compelling Christian apologetic in defense of the validity of the New Testament Scriptures over against the charge of textual corruption that has become the primary Islamic point of atack. Tese words have no meaning if the people of the Gospel did not have access to the Gospel itself! Likewise, ayat 66-68 assume the continued presence of the Torah with the Jews and the Injeel with the Christians. Both groups are chastised for not having “observed” those revelations in ayah 66, and in 68 we read, “Say, ‘O People of the Book! You stand on naught till you observe the Torah and the Gospel, and that which has been sent down unto you from your Lord.’” Just as in the argument in ayat 44-48, the assumption is Torah, Injeel, Qur’an'all sent down, all revelation, all still in the possession of their respective communities (“and that which has been sent down unto you from your Lord” referring to the Qur’anic revelation). Tis places the relevant time frame directly in the days of Muhammad, and if the Torah and Injeel were no longer available, the words would have no meaning. But clearly, for the author at this point, all three revelations are present, viable, and authoritative.

72 Tey certainly disbelieve, those who say, “Truly God is the Messiah, son of Mary.” But the Messiah said, “O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” Surely whosoever ascribes partners unto God, God has forbidden him the Garden, and his refuge shall be the Fire. And the wrongdoers shall have no helpers. 73 Tey certainly disbelieve, those who say, “Truly God is the third of three,” while there is no god save the one God. If they refrain not from what they say, a painful punishment will befall those among them who disbelieved. 74 Will they not turn to God in repentance and seek His forgiveness? And God is Forgiving, Merciful. 75 Te Messiah, son of Mary, was naught but a messenger1 messengers have passed away before him. And his mother was truthful. Both of them ate food. Behold how We make the signs clear unto them; yet behold how they are perverted! 76 Say, “Do you worship, apart from God, that which has no power to beneft or harm you, when it is God Who is the Hearing, the Knowing?” 77 Say, “O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion beyond the truth, and follow not the caprices of a people who went astray before, and led many astray, and strayed from the right way.” 78 Tose who disbelieved

34 Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God

among the Children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus son of Mary. Tat was because they disobeyed and used to transgress.

Tis section of ayat may be the longest contiguous polemic against Chris- tian beliefs in the Qur’an, at least in reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Te strength of the condemnation should not be underestimated. Te Christian profession of the Trinity (and most specifcally the deity of Christ) is said to be “disbelief.” Tis is said to be an ascription of a partner to God, the unforgivable sin of shirk4 which excludes from paradise and sends to the fre. Tere are no helpers for such wrongdoers, and a painful punishment awaits them for their disbelief. Tey must repent, for they have become “perverted.” Te Qur’an contains many condemnation texts, but this series of statements must be allowed to have its full weight when considering the relationship of Islam to Christianity. But looking past the strong condemnation, we fnd this text central to ascertaining the accuracy, or depth, of the Qur’an’s criticism of Christian belief. Te frst phrase is a clumsy assertion of the deity of Christ in the words, “Truly God is the Messiah, son of Mary.” Te counter claim, a quote from Jesus, echoes John 21:17. As with almost all of the quotations ascribed to Jesus in the Qur’an, it is a-contextual and unsourced. Its primary assertion is that since Jesus worships God, he cannot be God. Tat is, the presupposition of unitarianism is assumed. Tere is no indication in the argument, however, that the author understands the distinction, already quite evident in Christian theology of his day, between unitarian monotheism and Trin- itarian monotheism. Te next key Christian assertion recorded by the Qur’an is, “Truly God is the third of three.” Te specifc term for “Trinity”, well known in Christian usage in Muhammad’s day, is not used in the Qur’an. Instead, the ordinal number “three” is used, as it is here, thalithu thalathatin, literally, “third of three,” but properly rendered “one of three.” One of the strong consistencies of the text of the Qur’an is observable here as well. In every single instance where the ordinal “three” is used in reference to the Christian confession, the next phrase contains a strong assertion of monotheism, just as here, “there is no god save the one God.” So, clearly, the category of existence in view is gods/god, so the use of the term “three” is in reference to a charge of polytheism, just as the “third of three” must mean “three gods.” Tis

35 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

connects directly to the concept of association already mentioned. Nothing in these words indicates an understanding of such categories as being or person, and understandably so, if we assume these are the words of an Arabic religious leader from the early portion of the fourth decade of the seventh century, for not only had the Bible not yet appeared in Arabic, but surely the patristic writings would not appear in Arabic for many centuries to come. But while this observation is natural for the Christian, the Muslim does not have the option of viewing the situation thusly. Allah knew all about ousia and hypostasis and the like, and could have formulated arguments against the Christian faith that would be accurate and powerful, if the doctrine is, in fact, so erroneous as to consign those who believe in it to everlasting fre. Te most important question before us however is, “Who are the three?” Can we merely assume accurate knowledge on the part of the author of the Qur’an so that Father, Son, and Spirit, can be safely supplied? Or might we already have seen a clue as to the author’s understanding earlier in the Surah when Mary was included as one of those who could have been destroyed by Allah if he had so willed? We come to one of the most important texts in answering this question in ayah 75 where we are told that Jesus was “naught but a messenger” using language that limits Jesus’ nature to the creaturely. Like all messengers, Jesus is mortal.5 And Jesus has a truthful mother. And then we have the assertion, “Both of them ate food.” Why would the Qur’an need to tell us that Mary ate food? For the same reason that it tells us Jesus ate food. If you eat food, you are not divine. Allah is never hungry, Allah never eats. Both Jesus and Mary ate food, therefore both Jesus and Mary are not divine. But, this would mean that the “three” in the mind of the author of the Qur’an would be Allah, Mary, and their ofspring, Jesus. Is this conclusion defensible? We need to fnish looking at Surat Al-Maida to see. Te text moves on to identify the Jews and the mushrikun as those “most hostile” toward believers, but it then says that those “nearest in afection” to believers are those who say “We are Christians” (v. 82). It is very rare for the Qur’an to speak positively of any other religion. But even this positive word has caveats. It is limited to “priests and monks” who are not arrogant, and, ayah 83 seems to indicate that in particular these are Christian converts, because they have believed the Qur’an. Tis would leave those who remain obstinate outside of the commendation of the text. Te text transitions, without notice, into various exhortations regarding

36 Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God foods, wine, gambling, idols, and divining arrows. Rules regarding hunting follow, moving directly, again without even an atempted transition, into a discussion of the Kabah and then more miscellaneous laws and exhortations. Tis moves into a brief discussion of the messengers sent by God, including a specifc recitation of the words spoken by Allah to Jesus, evidently sometime in the future. Signifcantly, Allah makes reference to the story, frst found in the Infancy Gospel of Tomas, of Jesus creating birds from clay and making them come alive.6 Tis is followed by the story of the heavenly table (from which the surah derives its name), which is sent down to the disciples of Jesus, along with the warning that if they disbelieve afer such a miracle, “I shall punish him with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any other in all the worlds” (115). Finally, in the very last words of the surah, the topic addressed multiple times rises once more:

116 And when God said, “O Jesus son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind, ‘Take me and my mother as gods apart from God?’” He said, “Glory be to Tee! It is not for me to uter that to which I have no right. Had I said it, Tou wouldst surely have known it. Tou knowest what is in my self and I know not what is in Ty Self. Truly it is Tou Who knowest best the things unseen. 117 I said naught to them save that which Tou commanded me: ‘Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them, so long as I remained among them. But when Tou didst take me [to Tyself], it was Tou Who wast the Watcher over them. And Tou art Witness over all things.

Tis seems to refer to a conversation, at the day of judgment, between Allah and Jesus.7 Famed commentator Ibn Kathir noted about this text:

Allah will also speak to His servant and Messenger, Isa son of Maryam, peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in the presence of those who worshipped Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah … Tis is a threat and a warning to Christians, chastising them in public ... Tis Ayah also shows the crime of the Christians who invented a lie against Allah and His Messenger, thus making a rival, wife and son for Allah. Allah is glorifed in that He is far above what they atribute to Him.8

37 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Jesus is asked to testify whether he was the source of the errors of the Christian faith. It is a consistent theme of the Qur’an that Christians have gone into “excess” in their religion, they have transgressed the bounds, and here evidence is ofered pre-emptively from the lips of Jesus himself. But the question he is asked gives deep and abiding insight into the understanding of the author, for it frames the very form of rebutal being ofered by the Qur’an. What is the concern? Did Jesus teach men to “take me and my mother as gods apart from God?” Te language is clear, and there are three principal individuals named: Allah, Mary, and Jesus. Tey are clearly distinguished from one another. To “take” here is to take as deities, as gods, for in ayah 117 Jesus ofers, as evidence of his innocence, his consistent teaching to men, “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” So clearly the author of the Qur’an lays out the three to which he had made reference earlier in this surah: Allah, Mary, and Jesus, and to this error Jesus responds in the negative. Immediately we must ask the question, “Can we connect the earlier sections which provide such important contextual information to these fnal ayat?” Surely if these sections were concurrent we would have unquestionable confdence in the conclusion, but they are not. And yet, what other context could they all be referring to? It is very common for the Qur’an to address the same topic multiple times with interruptions, especially in the longer surahs that make up the frst half of the book. And tafsir writers have, from the earliest times, felt no difculty in connecting these texts together despite the presence of other subjects and topics between their appearances in this surah. Given the similarity in terminology and expression throughout Surat Al-Maida’s discussion of the errors of the Christians, together with the same terminology and thought in Surat al-Nisa (4) 171f, it is very difcult to avoid the conclusion that we most assuredly do have a sound basis for concluding that these texts are properly taken together, and therefore that we do here have an identifcation of the “three” to which the Christians refer in their worship: Allah, Mary, and Jesus.

Historical/Theological Considerations

Ofen it is urged that the Qur’an is here addressing a very small group of Christians, heretics of some sort, such as the Collyridians, who (it is alleged' information is very sparse) worshipped Mary. Tis kind of efort is normally

38 Take Me and My Mother as Gods Apart from God made to avoid the difculty inherent in explaining why the author of the Qur’an, namely, God, would describe the Trinity in such an inaccurate fash- ion. Of course, there is no evidence of the existence of such a group in the days of Muhammad in or around Mecca or Medina. Further, those criticized earlier for shirk and excess and disbelief in their worship were, specifcally, the Christians, not a tiny sub-set of them. Only by isolating 116-117 from the preceding sections could such a reading be adopted. Many Muslims today point to such dogmas as the Bodily Assumption of Mary, defned by Roman Catholicism less than a century ago, as evidence of the accuracy of the words of 5:116. And yet even in its highly compromised position Rome specifcally denies exalting Mary to the position of deity, and a modern dogma such as this was hardly current in the days of Muhammad. If we take Surat Al-Maida as a whole, we can, in fact, put together a strong statement of condemnation of Christian theology and Christology proper that gives us compelling insight into the thinking of the author of the Qur’an. When we do so we see that his concern is polytheism and the afrmation of a strong form of unitarian monotheism. His strong warnings to the Christians focus upon a perceived violation of monotheism and the dreaded association of a created being with God. Te threeness of the Christian proclamation is interpreted not as Father, Son, and Spirit, but instead it is seen as Allah being “one of three,” and the only three that is enumerated is Allah, Mary, and Jesus. Tis ties frmly into the consistent Qur’anic statement that God is “exalted above having a son,” and the nearly creedal afrmation of Surat al-Ikhlas, (112) 3, “He does not beget, nor is He begoten.”

Application Te Christian mandate to proclaim the gospel to every creature under heaven places us in the position of answering the question, “What do we do with this information?” Muslims need to know about the true Jesus revealed in the Christian Scriptures who difers fundamentally and essentially from the Qur’anic Isa, Son of Mary. Te reality that the author of the Qur’an did not possess true and accurate knowledge (which was readily available in his day) of the doctrine of the Trinity is a key apologetic and evangelistic truth. Muslims anachronistically view the Qur’an as the “guardian” of the previous Scriptures, correcting alleged errors and corruptions. But if they can come to see that the author of the Qur’an was guided by human ignorance, and

39 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

was in error at this very fundamental point, it is possible to use this truth as a springboard to the presentation of the gospel. Specifcally, one of the greatest barriers to the Christian message among Muslims is the idea that Christians engage in the unforgivable sin of shirk, the association of something or someone with Allah in worship. Yet, if the Qur’an is in error regarding the “three,” this opens the possibility of explaining the true oneness of God’s being, and the threeness of the Persons, so that we can demonstrate that since the Son has eternally been God, and is not the ofspring of God and a “consort,” there is no shirk involved in worshipping him. Tis can remove one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the truth in the life of a Muslim.

1 Surat Al-Maida (5) 116. In late 2015 a new translation of the Qur’an appeared in English. Te Study Qur’an: A New Translation and Commentary edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Caner K. Dagli, Maria Massi Dakake, and Joseph E. B. Lumbard (New York: Harper One, 2015). Tis new translation truly broke ground as it is a true “study Qur’an” in the tradition of major “study Bibles,” with a small amount of text and a large amount of commentary on almost every page, along with extended appendices. It represents a wide variety of Islamic scholarship, which in and of itself is a tremendous accomplishment. Oddly, it adopted an older English form, replete with Tee’s and Tou’s. But given it is representative of a very wide swath of modern Islamic thought, it will be used as the base text in this article. 2 Tahrif is a term fraught with difculties and controversy. It refers to alteration or corruption of the text, but can refer either to the misinterpretation of the text, or to the alteration of the actual words of the text (tahrif al-mana and tahrif al-nass, respectively). Numerous articles and even books have been writen arguing every possible understanding of the Qur’an and even the hadith on this topic, all of which together seem to prove that confusion on the topic goes all the way back to the origins of Islam. Two of the many important contributions on this topic would be: Gordon Nickel, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an (Leiden: Brill, 2011), and Abdullah Saeed, “Te Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures” in Te Muslim World 92 (2002):419-436. 3 As with all other possible citations of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, it is most probable that the author of the Qur’an is relying upon oral retelling of these texts. Tis particular text, for example, is well known by many who have never spent a moment reading the Bible. 4 Te majority opinion of Muslims around the world is surely that Christian worship involves shirk, and most would identify it as major rather than minor shirk. Westernized Muslims, however, ofen recognize that Christianity is in fact monotheistic and hence hesitate to use the strong term shirk of Christian worship. Tis text, however, seems unambiguous. 5 Just as one fnds in Surah 3:55 and 19:33, the Qur’an speaks naturally of Jesus’ death. Yet, this creates confict with Surah 4:157, leading to all sorts of speculative remedies. But this text, too, seems to assume Jesus’ death, once again casting serious questions on the origin and meaning of the logion of 4:157. 6 See my translation of the relevant text in What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2013), 237-238. 7 As rendered in the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn: And remember when Allah will say on the Day of Rising to rebuke his followers: “‘Isa son of Maryam! Did you tell people, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah’?” he (‘Isa) will tremble and say, “Glory to you!” declaring Allah free of inappropriate partners and other things. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, trans. Aisha Bewley (London: Dar Al Taqwa Ltd., 2007), 277. 8 Tafsir Ibn Kathir (London: Darussalam, 2003), 3:303-304, 306-307.

40 Jesus in Islam Tony Costa

Tony Costa teaches apologetics at the Toronto Baptist Seminary, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and also serves as adjunct professor with Heritage College and Seminary, Cam- bridge, Ontario, Canada, and Providence Teological Seminary in Franklin, Tennessee. He earned his PhD in theology and New Testament studies from Radboud University in the Netherlands. He also holds a BA and MA in religious, biblical, and philosophical studies from the University of Toronto.

Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps more than any other historical fgure, has consistently remained a magnetic person for the past two millennia. Since the earliest inception of the Christian movement, Jesus has remained a source of spiritual, historical and philosophical inquiry, while at the same time, remaining a person of intense controversy. Te question of the identity of Jesus is a question that will not go away, but continues to vex the modern person. Who really was Jesus of Nazareth? Was he a prophet? Te Messiah? Te Son of God? A charismatic Jewish rabbi? Or a zealot with a revolutionary vision to bring about the destruction of the Roman occupants and thereby usher in the kingdom of God? Te other extreme side of the question asks whether Jesus even existed at all.1 Perhaps he was a mythical fgure invented by early Christians by copying from pagan sources? All of these questions have been raised, entertained, debated, and answered. Te debate however is not over, as the question of Jesus’ identity still persists.

The Identity of Jesus

In what appears to be an ironic twist, Jesus himself seemed to be cognizant of questions pertaining to his identity. In Mathew 16:13- 17 we read,

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 41-57 41 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For fesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.2

Te query of the identity of Jesus is posed as two questions in the Mathean text.3 One is in the third person plural, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Mat 16:13), and the second in the second person plural, “But who do you say that I am?” (Mat 16:15). Te answer that is given to the frst question is quite enlightening. People assume that Jesus is merely a human prophet, that he was John the Baptist or Elijah, or Jeremiah or just “one of the prophets.” He was not necessarily diferent, or extraordinary, but just one among the prophets. On this point, the religion of Islam would be in full agreement. Muslims would agree with the popular consensus in the time of Jesus that he was only a prophet. Te Qur’an4 claims that Muslims are to make no distinction among the prophets (Q 2:285).5 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam is also said to be one of the “messengers,” a title also used of the prophets in the Qur’an (Q 36:3). Other prophets like Elijah, Lot, and Jonah are also said to be “one” of the messengers / prophets (Q 37:123, 133, 139). Te qualitative diference with Muhammad is that he is believed to be the “seal of the prophets,” the fnal prophet (Q 33:40). In Islam Jesus was only a prophet, a messenger sent by Allah.6 Te Qur’an asserts,

O People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians]! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor uter aught concerning Allah save the truth. Te Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Tree”1Cease! (it is) beter for you!1Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufcient as Defender (Q 4:171; italics mine).

Tis passage from the Qur’an issues a warning and rebuke to the “People of the Scripture” or “People of the Book,” a title used throughout the Qur’an

42 Jesus in Islam for Jews and Christians. Te warning is specifc in this context to Christians. Tey are told not to “exaggerate” which involves the claim that Jesus is divine, that he is associated with the “Tree” (thalatha in Arabic), a garbled reference to the Christian belief in the Trinity which we will address shortly. Te Qur’an asserts here that Jesus “was only a messenger of Allah.” Tus, in Islam, Jesus is only a messenger, a prophet among other prophets. Tis is the same claim that many of Jesus’ contemporaries in the frst century made of him as we saw in Mathew 16:14. Jesus as a messenger or prophet in Islam, cannot in any way, shape or form be associated with God. Te Qur’an moreover asserts the oneness of Allah, “Allah is only One God.” Christians, however, like Jews, also believe in one God, and thus fnd it strange that the Qur’an calls this part of their faith into question.

Son of God and the Trinity

Te reason for this is twofold. First, the idea of the Trinity is seen as a poly- theistic distortion of the unity of God. Secondly, Jesus being the Son of God is taken in Islam to be blasphemous and so serious that it constitutes the sin of shirk, that is, associating partners with Allah. Tis is the unpardonable sin in Islam which bars one’s entrance into paradise as the following passages indicate: “Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin” (Q 4:48), and “Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto Him. He pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah hath wandered far astray” (Q 4:116).7 To the notion that Jesus is the Son of God, the Qur’an retorts as we saw above with the claim, “Far is it removed from His [Allah’s] Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufcient as Defender.” Te claim that Allah could have a son is denigrating, and tantamount to assaulting the very transcendence of God and makes God dependent on someone else as a partner or associate. Note again the remark, “His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufcient as Defender.” Allah is independent, he does not need anyone. Tis is reinforced in what is believed to be the most important chapter in the Qur’an, surah 112, composed of only 4 verses which states:

43 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begeteth not nor was begoten. And there is none comparable unto Him.

Note the third verse which notes that Allah lam yalid wa lam yūlad, begets not, nor is he begoten, a clear critique of the Christian use of the term “begoten” in relation to Christ especially as set out in the Nicene Creed that the Son is “begoten, not made.” Tus, one of the main ofensive strikes against Christianity is the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. Te seriousness of atributing a son to God is so serious that the Qur’an makes several references to this Christian teaching described as “excess” and an “exaggeration,” and “those who go astray” (Q 1:7). To say that God has a son is paramount to seismic proportions, of causing the earth to split open, to set the mountains crumbling, and for the heavens to be rent asunder.

88 And they say: Te Benefcent hath taken unto Himself a son. 89 Assuredly ye uter a disastrous thing 90 Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, 91 Tat ye ascribe unto the Benefcent a son, 92 When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Benefcent that He should choose a son. 93 Tere is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Benefcent as a slave (Q 19:88-93).

Te Qur’an also states elsewhere, “And they say: Allah hath taken unto Himself a son. Be He glorifed! Nay, but whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth is His. All are subservient unto Him” (Q 2:116). Te Qur’an is very clear that the appropriate relationship of God to any creature, and all creation for that mater (including Jesus), is that of a slave to his / her master. Te basic Islamic paradigm in terms of relationship between the human and God is that of a slave-master relationship. All humans, and all of creation are slaves of God, which as we have seen, would also include Jesus. Tus the Qur’an asserts, that Jesus is merely a slave of Allah, like all other prophets, and certainly not the Son of God. Te term “Muslim” itself is associated with the concept of “slave” as the word “Muslim” means “one who has submited” or “surrendered” to Allah. Tis word is also associated with the word “Islam” which means “submission.” Jesus and all the prophets were Muslims, slaves of Allah.8

44 Jesus in Islam

In the Qur’an, Jesus is proudly declared to be a slave of Allah, “Te Messiah [Jesus] will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favored angels” (Q 4:172). Indeed, Jesus himself afrms in the Qur’an as an infant speaking from the cradle, “Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet” (Q 19:30; cf. 5:110). 9 One of the reasons the Qur’an mandates the violent subjugation of Jews and Christians (Q 9:29) is because of their claims that God has a son. Te majority of references is certainly to Christians who profess Jesus as Son of God, but it also includes the Jews whom the Qur’an charges with claiming Ezra is the son of God,

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Te Messiah [Jesus] is the son of Allah. Tat is their saying with their mouths. Tey imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fghteth against them. How perverse are they! (Q 9:30).

Tis claim is indeed fantastic as there is no evidence in any extant Jewish texts of any such belief among the Jews regarding Ezra.10 While the Qur’an condemns the use of sonship language in regards to Jesus on the grounds that it atacks the unique sovereign majesty of Allah, there is another reason. Te Qur’an seeks to expose what it perceives to be an egregious error on the part of Christians who claim God has a son by seting forth the following question: “To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things” (Q 6:101; Yusuf Ali translation; italics mine). Tis idea is repeated again, “And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son” (Q 72:3; Yusuf Ali translation; italics mine). It should be noted in these two passages that the Qur’an provides its own understanding of what it means to say that God has a son. To say God has a son means that God has a wife or consort. In other words, the Qur’an takes the meaning of “son” in a very literal way and assumes that when Christians confess Jesus as Son of God, they are simultaneously asserting that God has a wife! For what purpose? To produce a son. Tis notion would involve sexual reproduction which would also at the same time, necessitate a physical body with sexual organs. Tis immediately poses a problem. Christians have never believed that God had a wife, or that he procreated Jesus through a wife.

45 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Tis indicates that the author(s) of the Qur’an was / were grossly ignorant of Christian theology. Tis also leads to the Qur’anic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Trinity. Te Christian understanding of Jesus as Son of God is closely linked to the belief in the Trinity where the Son is the second person in the Godhead. Te Qur’an also makes a connection in this area, but does so in a literal way. Te literalistic belief in God having a wife and a son is so embedded in the Qur’an, that the Qur’an charges Christians with believing in three gods, namely, the father, the mother, and the son. Notice how the words “wife” and “son” are used in relation to Allah in Q 72:3 (cf. 6:101). Earlier we noted how the Qur’an warns Christians, “say not ‘Tree’'Cease! (it is) beter for you!” (Q 4:171). What or who does the “Tree” refer to? Some Qur’an translators have tried to add to this text to make it seem that what is under atack here is the doctrine of the Trinity. Yusuf Ali translated this part of Q 4:171 as follows: “Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be beter for you.”11 Te irony here is that the Qur’an says nothing about the Trinity nor does it use the word “Trinity” in Arabic, but rather the cardinal number “Tree” (thalatha in Arabic). Why would Yusuf Ali introduce a word into the text of the Qur’an which is clearly not there? Tis would be at best, a corruption and misrepresentation of the text. Another pertinent text related to this idea of the “Tree” is Q 5:73, “Tey surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve [italics mine].” How is Allah a “third of three”? If Allah is the third of three, then who are the other two?12 Te answer to this question lies in Q 5:116,

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorifed! It was not mine to uter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Tou knewest it. Tou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Ty Mind. Lo! Tou, only Tou, art the Knower of Tings Hidden [italics mine]?

Te “Tree” the Qur’an is referring to is Allah, Mary, and Jesus,. In other words, Allah is the implied father, Mary the mother, and Jesus the son. Notice the plural “gods” where Jesus and his mother are joined together with Allah. When we bring all the passages together from the Qur’an, the

46 Jesus in Islam idea is that Christians believe that Allah had a wife or consort named Mary, and their ofspring, their son, was Jesus. Tis conclusion raises a question: When did Christians or any Christian denomination in history ever make the claim that the Trinity constituted the belief in the Father, the Mother, and the Son as three gods? Te answer is, of course, never. No Christian has ever held to such a belief. Tis idea in the Qur’an is not Trinitarian theology, but tritheism, the belief in three gods'something Christians have always repudiated. Tus, we see not only a gross misrepresentation of the sonship of Jesus, but also that of the Christian belief in the Trinity. Scholars have correctly noted that “[Muhammad] never understood the doctrine of the Trinity”13 and that “[Tere are] mistaken concepts of the Trinity in the Quran.”14 Te Concise Encyclopedia of Islam summarizes this point quite well,

In some cases the “material” which forms the substance of Koranic narrative, details of the creeds of Christianity and Judaism for example, does not correspond to those religion’s own understanding of their beliefs … Tis could be said, for example, of the notion of the Trinity found in the Quran … Te Trinity seen in the Koran is not the Trinity of the Apostles Creed, or of the Nicene Creed.15

Tis raises a legitimate question. If Allah inspired the Qur’an, how could did he get these Christian doctrines so terribly wrong? Did he not know what Christians in the seventh century believed regarding Jesus and the Trinity? Or is it possible that the author(s) of the Qur’an did not know or just misunderstood what Christians believed altogether on these central doctrinal issues? Before taking leave of this passage, it is worth noting the words of Jesus which are given in response to Allah’s queries in Q 5:116, “Tou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Ty Mind.” Here the direct emphasis on the humanity of Jesus and his uter ignorance of what is in Allah’s mind cannot be denied. Compare this to what Jesus says in the New Testament, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Mat 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22). Notice that the Father and the Son have absolute and intimate knowledge of one another. In addition, only the Son possesses the sovereign right to reveal the Father to “anyone to whom” he chooses. If we recall the passage in Mathew 16:17 above, we will observe a striking

47 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

chord with Mathew 11:27. In Mathew 16:17 Jesus tells Peter that the Father revealed the identity of Jesus to him as Messiah and Son of the living God (Mat 16:16). In Mathew 11:27, Jesus states that he reveals the Father. Both the Father and the Son share the divine prerogative of revealing each other to their people. Te dissimilarity between the Jesus of Islam and the Jesus of the Bible could not be so clear as it is in the consideration of these points. As we have seen, the Qur’an vehemently denies that Jesus is the Son of God, or that he is associated with Allah in any way and that such an association results in tritheism. If Jesus was merely a mortal and he could not be the Son of God, then it also follows that believers in Jesus cannot be children of God as the Qur’an 5:18 states,

Te Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say: Why then doth He chastise you for your sins? Nay, ye are but mortals of His creating. He forgiveth whom He will, and chastiseth whom He will. Allah’s is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the journeying [italics mine].

Tis text bears out that no believer Jew or Christian can call themselves sons of Allah, they are rather “mortals” and the slaves of Allah. Te main problem as we have seen is that the language of sonship in regards to Jesus is taken literally/biologically in the Qur’an. However, Christians do not take such language literally, but analogically/fguratively and so there is no need to posit God needing a wife to have a son. Jesus is not the Son of God by physical generation akin to a father and a mother. Christian theology holds that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, there never was a time when he was not as he is the eternal one (cf. John 1:1-3; 8:58; 1 John 1:1-2). What is ironic is that while the Qur’an applies this literalistic use of sonship to Christians and condemns them for it, it nevertheless also recognizes that terms such as “son” can be used metaphorically or in a non-literal sense. Te Qur’an uses the language of “son” and even “mother” without implying that these terms are to be taken literally. Te Qur’an for instance refers to a traveler as waibni alssabeeli, literally, “a son of the road” (Q 4:36). I have not met one Muslim to date who believes that this passage actually means that the road fathers or begets sons and that a traveler is begoten by the road. Tis is clearly metaphorical language for someone who is travelling.

48 Jesus in Islam

We can also consider Qur’an 13:39, “God doth blot out or confrm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book [ommu al-kitabi]” (Yusuf Ali translation; italics mine). Te heavenly tablets which are believed to be the source of the Qur’an are called “mother.” Does this mean that if the heavenly tablets are the mother, the writen text of the Qur’an is the son? Would this make Allah the “father” of the Qur’an? In short, why is the Qur’an allowed to use metaphorical language like “son” and “mother” but the Bible is not? Why is there one rule for the Qur’an, and another rule for the Bible? Tis is clearly the epitome of inconsistency. As we have seen, the Islamic view of Jesus refects the same opinion that the general populace in the frst century had of Jesus, that he was merely “one of the prophets” (Mat 16:14). It is instructive to note the response that was given to the direct question posed by Jesus to his disciples as to who they thought he was (Mat 16:15). Mathew 16:16-17 states, “Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For fesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’” Te confession of Peter involves two afrmations, that Jesus is the Christ / Messiah, and that he is the Son of the living God. Tis confession is virtually the same as that found in John 20:31, “but these are writen so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Tis confession contradicts the Islamic portrayal of Jesus. It should also be noted that the confession of Peter was not derived from a human source, but rather as Jesus said it was from, “my Father who is in heaven” (Mat 16:17). Te testimony of God the Father in the New Testament is to listen to, look to, and believe in his Son.16

The Virgin Birth (Conception) of Christ

While the Qur’an denies the divine sonship of Jesus, it nevertheless has some points of agreement with the Bible. Te Qur’an unequivocally afrms the virgin birth of Jesus. Jesus is called “the son of Mary” in the Qur’an (cf. Mark 6:3). His mother Mary, is the only woman mentioned by the name in the Qur’an and one of the surahs (chapters) of the Qur’an, namely surah 19 is named afer Mary (sura Maryam). Te nativity account of Jesus’ birth in the Qur’an is very diferent from that of Mathew and Luke, and it is related

49 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

in the Qur’an in surahs 3 and 19. Te Qur’anic nativity appears to have been borrowed or infuenced by an older apocryphal text known as the Te Gospel of Pseudo-Mathew, chapter 20 which contains striking parallels. Joseph who plays a prominent role in the biblical nativity accounts is conspicuously absent in the Qur’an, no mention is made of him or his association with Mary. Te other point of agreement is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, a title which appears eleven times in the Qur’an.17 Te Qur’an refers to Jesus as Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), but the Qur’an never defnes or explains the meaning of al-Masih, the Messiah. While the Qur’an overtly emphasizes the humanness of Jesus, it nevertheless gives him titles that are unique to Jesus alone among all the prophets, such as “a word from him [Allah]” (Q 3:45) and “his [Allah’s] word” (Q 4:171),18 terminology which some Christians feel resonate with John 1:1, but this should not be pushed too far as if the Qur’an justifes New Testament Christology.19 Jesus is also called “a spirit from him [Allah]” (Q 4:171).

The Sinlessness and Miracles of Jesus

Another point of agreement is the sinlessness of Jesus. While the Qur’an afrms that Muhammad was a sinner and was ordered to confess his sins (Q 40:55; 47:19; 48:2),20 Jesus is said to be the only prophet, the only human who did not sin as he was “faultless” (Q 19:19) and “blessed” (Q 19:31).21 Jesus is also a miracle worker in the Qur’an. He heals the blind, the lepers, and raises the dead. Jesus also breathes life into clay birds so that they are animated (Q 3:45-50; 5:110),22 he also asked Allah to lower a table spread with food for his disciples (5:112-115),23 and he also had the ability to tell people what they had stored in their homes (Q 3:49). However, the qualifying clause in the Qur’an is that Jesus did these miracles by Allah’s “permission” (Q 5:110) and “Allah’s leave” (Q 3:49), and not by his own authority, thereby stripping Jesus of any divine status.

Te Ministry of Jesus and His Prediction of the Coming of Muhammad

One of the unique features of Jesus in the Qur’an is that he is a prophet who actually predicts and points forward to the coming of Muhammad and mentions him by one of his names. Te Qur’an 61:6 states, “And remember,

50 Jesus in Islam

Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confrming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Apostle to come afer me, whose name shall be Ahmad24 (Yusuf Ali translation).” Tus Jesus is not presented as the fnal fulfllment of the Law and the Prophets as we see in the New Testament (Luke 24:25- 27, 44-46), but rather as a herald, a forerunner who points forward to the advent of Muhammad. He is the Islamic version of John the Baptist who points forward to one greater than him. Over the course of history, based on this and another text of the Qur’an (Q 7:157), Muslims have scoured the New Testaments gospels to fnd anything remotely connected to Jesus predicting Muhammad’s coming and many argued that the Paraclete passages in John 14-16 are actual references to Muhammad, and not to the Holy Spirit. Tus the Qur’an is not Christocentric, but centered and culminates with Muhammad. Te centrality of Muhammad is also seen in the fact that Allah entered into a covenant with all the prophets in which they agreed to believe in and aid Muhammad (Q 3:81). Abraham also predicts the coming of Muhammad (Q 2:129), although not by name as Jesus does in Q 61:6. Te ministry of Jesus accordingly to Islam was a restricted one in that he was sent only to the children of Israel. Te Qur’an does not fully support this claim but in Islamic apologetics this form of argumentation is employed to elevate and enhance Muhammad’s status as a universal prophet with a message for all people in general. While the former prophets were sent to their particular people, Muhammad is sent to all.

The Crucifixion and Death of Jesus

Another striking feature of Jesus in Islam is the direct denial of his crucifxion and death, and by extension his resurrection. Islam believes in the ascension of Jesus, but this event unlike the gospels / Acts does not follow Christ’s death and resurrection, but rather, precedes it as a means to rescue Jesus from the evil machinations of his enemies to have him killed. Te classic text of the Qur’an on this subject is found in Q 4:157-158,

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger1they slew him not nor crucifed him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no

51 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Te text of Q 4:157 made up of forty Arabic words has engendered much debate and controversy in Islam. Many Muslim commentators difer on whether Jesus died or not, whether someone was crucifed in his place, sometimes known as the “substitution theory.” Te Qur’an says that it so appeared to them, shubbiha lahum, that Jesus was crucifed and died but it was in fact, an illusion. Islamic tradition says someone who looked like Jesus was crucifed instead. Several candidates have been profered such as Judas Iscariot, Simon of Cyrene, a Roman soldier, a Jewish rabbi.25 Some have speculated the “swoon theory” that Jesus was in fact crucifed, but did not die on the cross but rather was rendered unconscious and was later revived in the tomb. Te various views and opinions on this subject among Muslim scholars is indicative of the fact that this passage (Q 4:157) is not clear but rather ambiguous. Other passages in the Qur’an do in fact speak about Jesus’ death (Q 2:87; 3:55; 19:33), and do not deny it as Q 4:157 does. Te most reliable Hadith collections of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim do not even address this passage but remain silent on it. If we take Q 4:157 at face value, the crucifxion of Jesus was a delusion foisted on the world by Allah himself because the earliest believers in Jesus did believe he did in fact die on the cross as do the vast majority of scholarship through the centuries. Te classical Islamic rejection of the crucifxion and death of Jesus has bafed historians because the evidence in favor of it is so overwhelming. Te death of Jesus by crucifxion is admitedly the most certain fact we can know about the historical Jesus.26 If we return to the Mathean passage we notice that immediately afer the identity of Jesus was revealed as the Christ and Son of God, Jesus proceeds to predict and discuss his impending passion, death, and resurrection (Mat 16:21). Tis reveals that the person (identity) of Christ is closely related to the work of Christ. Afer hearing this prediction Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked him for making such a claim. It would be unthinkable that the Messiah, the anointed of God, and the Son of God should sufer such an ignominious death (Mat 16:22). Tis brought about a stinging sharp rebuke from Jesus against Peter identifying the source of Peter’s critique with Satan himself (Mat 16:23). Peter’s refusal to accept the death of Jesus in Jerusalem

52 Jesus in Islam is not so diferent from the Islamic justifcation for the rejection of Jesus’ death by crucifxion as set out in the Qur’an 4:157-158. If Jesus, the prophet of Allah was allowed to be tortured and die a cruel shameful death such as crucifxion, the Allah must have failed to save Jesus’ honor.27 Here we come to the heart of the mater insofar as Christianity is concerned. A denial of the death of Jesus logically leads to the denial of the resurrection of Jesus. Tere can be no resurrection without death. Te death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is the very center, the foundation of the Gospel. To deny the death and resurrection of Christ, is to deny the Gospel itself. One of the earliest Christian creeds is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4,

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of frst importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.

Te creedal material found in verses 3-4 which mention Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection is extremely early. James Dunn argues that it originated within months afer the death of Jesus28 and Gerd Lüdemann argues that the creed was created in the frst two years afer Jesus’ death and can be no later than three years.29 Paul also goes on to note that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then the Christian faith is vain and futile (1 Cor 15:12-19). In denying the crucifxion and death of Jesus, Islam as a result denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To deny this Gospel and to bring another one in its place is to incur the anathema of God himself (Gal 1:6-9). It is this Gospel, of Christ crucifed, dead, and risen that is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). In Mathew 16:13-21 we saw how the identity of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God is intricately tied to his death and resurrection. It is clear from what we have examined in this article that the Jesus of Islam is not the Jesus of the Bible. Muslims and Christians can use the same terminology such as “God” and “Jesus” but the meanings of these words vary considerably. To assume they mean the same thing is nothing short of equivocation. Te Jesus of Islam is a Muslim prophet who although he is the Messiah (which remains ambiguous by way of defnition in the Qur’an) is nonetheless a mere human. Te Jesus of the

53 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Bible is the Messiah, the Incarnate Son of God and Savior of sinners. Te apostle Paul warned of those who would use Christian terminology in an equivocating manner, even introducing “another Jesus.”

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a diferent spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a diferent gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough (2 Cor 11:3-4).30

The Second Coming of Jesus

Muslims will ofen share that they also believe in the second coming of Jesus, just as Christians do. While this may be a point of similarly, the details of the second coming of Jesus are vastly diferent from that of the Bible. Since Jesus did not die on the cross but was rescued by Allah and taken up into heaven, the death of Jesus has not yet occurred. He has yet to die. Te Qur’an does not say anything about the second coming of Jesus but contains some vague references to Jesus being a witness against the People of the Book on the Day of Resurrection which is a term for the last day or day of judgement (Q 4:159; 43:61). More explicit references to the second coming of Jesus is found in the Hadith collection. A number of things should be noted. Jesus returns as a jihadi, to fght on behalf of Islam. One of the frst orders of business is that Jesus will destroy the cross (it should be recalled Jesus did not die on the cross; Q 4:157), the emblem of Christianity, thus destroying Christianity itself. He will see to it that Islam triumphs over all religions. He will kill the pigs and abolish the jizya (a special poll tax that subjugated Jews and Christians pay in an Islamic state; Q 9:29) because Islam will be the only religion on the earth. Jesus will also fght and kill the Antichrist. Other traditions say that Jesus will live for forty years, and then die, and be buried in the city of Medina beside the Islamic prophet Muhammad.31 Te points above clearly show the signifcant disparity between the Jesus of Islam and the Jesus of the Bible. It should be noted that the speeches atributed to Jesus in the Qur’an have no relation to that of the canonical gospels, our most reliable sources for the historical Jesus. Te fgure of the

54 Jesus in Islam

Qur’anic Jesus is also dissimilar to the biblical one. A number of Muslim scholars have noted this problem. Tarif Khalidi says the following about Jesus in the Qur’an,

Te Qur’anic Jesus is in fact an argument addressed to his more wayward followers, intended to convince the sincere and frighten the unrepentant. As such, he has litle in common with the Jesus of the Gospels, canonical or apocryphal.32

Khalidi goes on to boldly state that the Islamic Jesus is “a Muslim creation … an artifcial creation” and that he “may be a fabrication … [and] meta-historical.” 33 Te Jesus of the Qur’an appears to be a justifcation for Islam and for the Islamic prophet Muhammad whose coming he predicts.

Conclusion

In this article I have sought to describe the Jesus of Islam. We have seen that there is a sharp diference between the Jesus of Islam and the Jesus of the Bible. Te former is a Muslim prophet, who had a restricted ministry to the Jews, he predicted the coming of Muhammad, and according to classical Islam, he did not die on the cross and was thus was not resurrected. He will return as a jihadi to destroy Christianity, correct the People of the Book and judge them, and expand Islamic hegemony throughout the world. He would then die and be buried next to Muhammad. We also saw that the identity of the Jesus of Islam clashes with that of the biblical Jesus and especially in regards to his redemptive work in procuring the salvation of sinners. It is important that both Christians and Muslims continue to move forward in dialogue to understand each other. It is not constructive to ignore the diferences that we have surveyed in this article and pretend they are not signifcant. Te issues are profoundly important and weighty and must be addressed.

1 See for example Robert M. Price, Jesus is Dead (Cranford: American Atheist Press, 2007). For a refutation of such Christ myth arguments and their advocates see Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Te Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012). See also my Review of Robert Price, Jesus is Dead. Online: htps://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7049. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations are taken from the English Standard Version. 3 Tis pericope in Mathew is known as the Petrine confession because of Peter’s confession about Jesus’

55 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

identity. Parallels to this account are also found in Mark 8:27-29 and Luke 9:18-20. Scholars also believe the Fourth Gospel contains a parallel in John 6:67-69. 4 All references and citations of the Qur’an will be designated with the abbreviation Q and unless otherwise stated, the English translation of the Qur’an used in this article will be that of Marmaduke Pickthall, Te Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an (Delhi: Millat Book Center, 1930). While the English in Pickthall’s translation appears archaic and appears to resemble King James “English” I consider Pickthall’s translation to be the most faithful and accurate to the original Arabic text of the Qur’an. 5 For more on this topic, see my blog post, Tony Costa “‘To Distinguish or Not to Distinguish? Tat is the Question: A Problem With the Distinction of the Prophets in the Qur’an and Jesus”. Online: htp://www. answeringmuslims.com/2016/01/to-distinguish-or-not-to-distinguish.html. 6 Tis is the Arabic word used for the deity in the Qur’an and in Islam in general. Te word Allah comes from the Arabic al-illah which means “the god.” On Allah and its meaning see Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: Te Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 13-31. 7 While the Qur’an states in these passages that Allah does not forgive those who commit shirk, there are other passages in the Qur’an which show that Allah does forgive those who commit shirk, presenting an obvious tension (Q 2:51-52; 4:153; 6:76-78). 8 Not only was Jesus a Muslim, but his disciples were also Muslim according to the Qur’an, “And when I inspired the disciples [of Jesus], (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger [Jesus], they said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Tee) ‘we are muslims’” (Q 5:111; italics mine; cf. Q 3:52; 5:112; 61:14). 9 Te idea of Jesus speaking from the cradle was a well-known legend atested in the apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Savior’s Infancy, chapter 1. In that text, Jesus says, “I am Jesus, the Son of God” (!) 10 On the charge of the Jews calling Ezra the son of God from an Islamic perspective see Mahmoud Ayoub, “‘Uzayr in the Qur’an and Muslim Tradition,” in Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions (eds. W. M. Brenner and S. D. Ricks; Denver: Te University of Denver, 1986), 3-18. Ayoub notes that the charge against the Jews calling Ezra the son of God “cannot be historically substantiated” (5). 11 Other English translations try to include the word “trinity” in Q 4:171 such as those of Hilali-Khan, Khalifa, and Rodwell even though the original Arabic of the Qur’an does not have “trinity” but the Arabic word thalatha for the cardinal number “three.” Muslims usually accuse Jews and Christians of corrupting their Scriptures. Do we have a case here where these Muslim translators are corrupting the text of the Qur’an by including a word that is absent in the original Arabic of the Qur’an? 12 Notice again how Yusuf Ali mistranslates this verse (Q 5:73) to make it look like it is referring to the Trinity by inserting the word “Trinity” into the text, “Tey do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them [italics mine].” Tere is no warrant for this. Te word “Trinity” does not appear at all in the Qur’an. Hilali-Khan and Khalifa do the same in their English translations. 13 Richard Bell, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953), 141. 14 Encyclopedia Britannica (London: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1957), 12:708. 15 Cyril Glasse, ed., Te Concise Dictionary of Islam (London: Stacey International, 1989), 229-30. 16 Mat 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; John 6:40; 1 John 5:9. 17 Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 61. 18 While Jesus is called a “word from [Allah],” Q 3:39 which recounts the birth of John the Baptist, it is said that John would come “to confrm a word from Allah” (italics mine). Te contrast is important. Jesus is a word from Allah, while John is not the word, but comes to confrm it. 19 See comments in Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 61. 20 In the Hadith collection (recorded sayings and deeds of Muhammad) it states: “I heard Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] saying. ‘By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day.’” Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319. 21 In the Hadith collection, both Jesus and Mary appear to have been sinless, an apparent precursor to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary which was declared dogma in December 8, 1854. We fnd the following Hadith statements [bold leters mine]:

“Abu Huraira said, ‘I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Tere is none born among the of-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, EXCEPT MARY AND HER CHILD.’” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641; see also

56 Jesus in Islam

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506). “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: No child is born but he is pricked by the satan and he begins to weep because of the pricking of the satan EXCEPT THE SON OF MARY AND HIS MOTHER…Te newborn child is touched by the satan (when he comes in the world) and he starts crying because of the touch of satan.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5837).

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Te satan touches every son of Adam on the day when his mother gives birth to him WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MARY AND HER SON. (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5838; see also Book 033, Number 6429). If Jesus was not touched by Satan when he was born, and he was blessed and sinless, and Mary was not touched by Satan when she was born, this would seem to imply that Mary was also blessed and sinless. 22 Tis story comes from the pre-Islamic text of Te Infancy Gospel of Tomas 2:1-3. 23 Some scholars believe this to be an adaptation of the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper narrative in the gospels. 24 Tis is an alternate name for Muhammad. 25 Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 65. 26 Luke Timothy Johnson, Te Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), 125; John Meier, “Te Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry?” Journal of Biblical Literature 116.4 (1997): 664-65; Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 229. 27 Norman Anderson, Islam in the Modern World (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 219. 28 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Vol.1; Christianity in the Making; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 825. 29 Gerd Lüdemann, Te Resurrection of Jesus (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38. 30 It is interesting to note that in 2 Cor 11:13 Paul goes on to identify those who preach “another Jesus” as those who are “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” In other words, Paul warns that those preaching “another Jesus” would make clams to being “apostles”. It should be noted that Muhammad made such a claim and is spoken of in the Qur’an as the rasul, an Arabic word meaning “apostle” and “messenger”. Te Greek word apostolos used in the New Testament refers to one who is sent and communicates the idea of an emissary or messenger. Tus, some English translations of the Qur’an will translate the Arabic word rasul as “apostle.” For example in Q 48:29, Pickthall translates the opening line as “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” and Yusuf Ali has “Muhammad is the apostle of God.” 31 See Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 65-66. 32 Tarif Khalidi, Te Muslim Jesus (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2001), 16 (italics mine). 33 Ibid., 44-45 (italics mine).

57 New from BAKER ACADEMIC

Jesus the God-Man The Unity and Diversity of the Gospel Portrayals Darrell L. Bock with Benjamin I. Simpson 978-0-8010-9778-2 • 208 pp. • $19.99p “An excellent entry into the ins and outs of critical study of the historical Jesus. . . . I am pleased to recommend it.” —Craig A. Evans, Houston Baptist University

The Mind of the Spirit Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking Craig S. Keener 978-0-8010-9776-8 • 448 pp. • $32.99c “Only a scholar with Craig Keener’s nous could write the most authoritative work to date on Paul’s belief in the transformation of a person’s mind.” —Michael Bird, Ridley College

The Lost Letters of Pergamum, 2nd Edition A Story from the New Testament World Bruce W. Longenecker 978-0-8010-9796-6 • 208 pp. • $19.99p Praise for the First Edition “Longenecker’s Letters present in a fascinating and compelling way the contexts of Second Temple Judaism and Greco-Roman urban life.” —Joel B. Green, Fuller Theological Seminary

bakeracademic.com u Available in bookstores or by calling 800.877.2665 Visit our blog: blog.bakeracademic.com

287367_SouthernBaptistJournalofTheo_BA_0716.indd 1 6/13/16 1:40 PM Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad? Tony Costa

In Islamic apologetics one inevitably comes across Muslims who, in their interaction with Jews and with Christians in particular, argue that the Bible mentions and prophesied the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Tis argument usually comes as a surprise to Christians and Jews, and those who are familiar with their Scriptures who will ofen reply that they have never seen any such references to Muhammad. Many prominent Muslim apologists have writen and argued for the biblical support of Muhammad, most notably was the Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat. Deedat’s work has a wide infuence on many aspiring Muslim apologists. One of Deedat’s books argued that Muhammad was prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments.1 Christians need to be aware of some of the texts Muslims cite in support of the claim that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible.2 What is the justifcation for the claim that Muhammad is found in the Bible?

Texts in the Qur’an

Te claim itself comes from the Qur’an3 which asserts that Muhammad’s coming is described in the Scriptures of the ahl al-kitab, i.e., the People of the Book, a title given to Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. Tis claim

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 59-73 59 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

appears in at least two signifcant passages, “Tose who follow the messenger [Muhammad], the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will fnd described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them” (Q 7:157; italics mine). In the Qur’an, Jesus actually predicts the coming of Muhammad,

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confrming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Apostle to come afer me, whose name shall be Ahmad4 (Yusuf Ali translation).

Te frst important thing to note is that the Qur’an claims in 7:157 that the Torah and the Gospel are “with them,” i.e., the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians are intact and with them. Why would Allah (the title used for the deity in the Qur’an) claim Muhammad is mentioned in the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians unless their texts were reliable? Would Muhammad appear in unreliable corrupted texts? Tis obviously poses a problem. Tis also runs counter to the common claim today made by Muslims that the present Bible has been corrupted and therefore is untrustworthy.5 An inconsistency immediately emerges at this point when the Bible is brought into the discussion by Islam. Many Muslims charge that the Bible is: (1) corrupted and unreliable; (2) some parts of it are true; (3) some parts of it are false. If (1) is true, then the argument that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible is moot and irrelevant because the Bible cannot be trusted. In that case, the Qur’an cannot be trusted because it directs Jews and Christians to fnd Muhammad in their Scriptures. If Muhammad is indeed mentioned in their Scriptures, then the Qur’an is true. If Muhammad is not found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures then the Qur’an would necessarily be false. Both (2) and (3) essentially amount to saying the same thing and most Muslims opt for either (2) or (3). Te reason for doing so however is not based on any consistent criterion but rather an ad hoc approach, the methodology is contrived from the start. How do Muslims argue what parts of the Bible are true and reliable, and which ones are not? Tey do so by using the Qur’an as their reference guide. Ten the Bible agrees with the Qur’an, it is correct, when it does not, it is in error.6 In order for the Muslim to claim that the Bible predicts Muhammad’s coming he / she must hold to point (2) or (3) above.

60 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

In the second passage (Q 61:6) Jesus is quoted as predicting Muhammad’s advent. We immediately see that Jesus is not presented as the fnal fulfllment of the Law and the Prophets as we see in the New Testament (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46; Rom 3:21), but rather as a herald, a forerunner who points forward to the advent of Muhammad. Jesus is the Islamic version of John the Baptist who points forward to one greater than him. Tus the Qur’an is not Christocentric, but is centered and culminates with Muhammad. Tis is a very important point in terms of the Islamic worldview. Te centrality of Muhammad is also seen in the fact that Allah entered into a covenant with all the prophets in which they agreed to believe in and aid Muhammad (Q 3:81). Abraham also predicts the coming of Muhammad (Q 2:129), although not by name as Jesus does in Q 61:6. Tis passage of the Qur’an will become a central text in interpreting a key section in the New Testament which we will examine below. Islamic apologists as we noted above charged Jews and Christians with corruption of the Scriptures. Te reason for this is due to the fact that they believed that Muhammad was mentioned by name in the Bible. Islamic apologists even went as far as blaming the Jews for actually removing the name “Muhammad” from their Torah.7

Biblical Texts Cited by Muslims

Muslim apologists cite Biblical texts in support for the claim that the Bible prophesied the coming of Muhammad. Te most commonly cited texts include Deuteronomy 18:15-19, Song of Solomon 5:16, and several texts from the “Farewell Discourse” in John’s Gospel (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7. Although these texts are not the only ones cited for this claim, they are the main passages to which Islamic apologists appeal.8 We will examine each of these passages and see whether or not they substantiate the Muslim claim that Muhammad is predicted in these texts.9

Deuteronomy 18:15-20

Te LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers- it is to him you shall listen1just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fre any more, lest I die.’

61 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

And the LORD said to me, ‘Tey are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

Muslim apologists reason that that Muhammad is the “prophet” spoken of here and argue that the expression “your” and “their brothers” refers to the Ishmaelites who were half-brothers of the Israelites by virtue of the fact that they were both descended from Abraham via Ishmael. Te reason Muslims point this out is because Ishmael was also a son of Abraham and thus a half-brother of Isaac, the forefather of the Jewish nation. Ishmael, it is argued is the father of the Arab nation, and since Muhammad was an Arab, he would be a descendant of Ishmael, and thus a son of Abraham, and hence relationally be a Semitic “brother” to the Jews. We point out however that if the Ishmaelites or descendants of Ishmael are “brothers” of the Israelites, why could not the Edomites also be their “brothers” spoken of here? Te Edomites were descended from Esau (Gen 36:9), who was the brother of Jacob from the same father Isaac making Esau a full brother. Furthermore, Esau was a direct grandson of Abraham (Gen 25:19, 24-26). If this is the case, would not the Edomites beter qualify as full “brothers” of Israel rather than the Ishmaelites who were half-brothers? Te claim that Muhammad and the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael is necessary as a polemic to butress the Islamic connection to Abraham. However, the evidence seems to indicate that this particular belief that Ismael is the father of the Arabs emerged later in Islam and is suspect. Tere is compelling evidence that Ishmael was not the ancestor of the Arabs or Muhammad.10 Te Qur’an in fact never makes this claim. It emerges centuries later in the biography (Sira) of Muhammad and the Hadith which are records of Muhammad’s sayings and deeds. Ishmael was not the father of the Arabs, and hence not the father of Muhammad. Tere is no record or mention in pre-Islamic sources that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs. Te evidence rather indicates that the Arabs as a people already pre-existed Ishmael, hence it is impossible for Ishmael to be the progenitor of the Arab peoples.

62 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

It is the immediate context however that concerns us here. From the context of the passage and that which precedes it, it is clear that the term “their brothers” is a reference to the Israelites exclusively and no one else. Note Deuteronomy 18:1-2, “Te Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel … Tey shall have no inheritance among their brothers” (italics mine). It is clear from these verses that the “they” refers to the Levites and that “their brothers” refers to the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. In the preceding chapter, Deuteronomy 17:15 which predicts the emergence of the monarchy within Israel and the identity of the rightful monarch who would rule over the people, this point is further made crystal clear: “you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One fom among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” (italics mine). One need only read the lists of the kings who ruled over the Israelites in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles to verify the fact that they were all without exception, Israelites. Troughout the Old Testament, one fnds the expression “their brothers” consistently referring to the tribes of Israel (Judges 20:13; 2 Sam 2:26; 2 Kings 23:9; Neh 5:1). Who, then, is this prophet like Moses? Jews and Christians have consistently recognized this passage as referring to a prophet who would arise out of the people of Israel and not from any another ethnic group. Te Bible which contains this prophecy of the coming prophet also provides us with the fulfllment of this same prophecy. Te New Testament reveals that this prophet is Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. Jesus meets the qualifcations which is outlined in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Jesus came from the nation of Israel, he was of the tribe of Judah, and therefore as a Jew or Israelite, he was one of “their brothers” (see John 4:9, 20-22; Rom 9:4-5; Heb 7:14). Jesus himself claimed to be the One whom Moses prophesied. Jesus said, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46; italics mine). When did Moses write about Jesus? While the Messiah is found throughout the Pentateuch in its types and shadows, the specifc places where Moses would have writen about the Messiah would have been Genesis 3:15 (the prophecy of the seed of the woman crushing the head of the seed of the serpent) and Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Te early disciples of Jesus were also aware of Moses writing about the Messiah. Tey believed Jesus to be “him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote” (John 1:45; italics

63 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

mine). Afer the resurrection, when Jesus sent the apostles to preach the Gospel to the world, the apostle Peter appealed specifcally to Deuteronomy 18:18 in his preaching as a prophecy which was fulflled in Jesus the Messiah (Acts 3:19-26).11 Even Stephen, the frst Christian martyr, when he stood before the Sanhedrin, also quoted Deuteronomy 18:18 as fulflled in Jesus the Messiah, because Moses was one who also predicted “the coming of the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52; cf. 7:37). Tis demonstrates that the idea of the promised prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 was understood by the earliest Christian community to be fulflled in Jesus. Tey were not expecting another prophet to come afer Jesus who would fulfll this prophecy. Te prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18-19 thus cannot be Muhammad, contextually, culturally or historically. He was not a Jew or Israelite, and not a member of any tribe within Israel as Jesus was. Tis prophet who is prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is to be a prophet like Moses. What kind of a prophet was Moses? Deuteronomy 34:10-11 states regarding Moses,

And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land.

Two things are said about Moses here. First, God knew Moses “face to face,” and secondly, Moses was known for all “the signs and the wonders” that were done in Egypt. Te prophesied prophet to come would be like Moses. Can these things be said about Muhammad? Did Allah know or speak “face to face” with Muhammad? No he did not. Allah revealed his messages to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel. Did Muhammad perform signs? Te Qur’an states Muhammad did not perform any signs or miracles even when asked by his contemporaries, but was only a warner (Q 13:7). Jesus on the other hand did know God “face to face” and in fact was in an eternal “face to face” relationship with the Father (John 1:1), and shared his glory before the creation of the world (John 17:5). Jesus was known for his signs and wonders which he performed during his earthly ministry. Te gospel of Mathew shows a close parallel between Jesus and Moses even showing Jesus as the new lawgiver (Mat 5-7). Tis prophet whom Moses

64 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad? spoke of is clearly Jesus himself as the people of his day testifed, “Tis really is the Prophet” (John 7:40). Afer witnessing Jesus perform a sign such as the multiplication of the loaves the people said, “Tis is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (John 6:14). Note the co-relation between the sign Jesus performed and the statement that Jesus is the “Prophet” who was to come. Tis ties in with the character description of Moses in Deu- teronomy 32:10-11 and the prophecy of a prophet like Moses who was to come. Not only did the disciples of Jesus afrm this fact, so did Jesus (Luke 24:44).12 Te textual support for Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is well atested and shows the reliability of this text contrary to Islamic charges of corruption and allegations that Jews removed Muhammad’s name from the Torah.13

Song of Solomon 5:16 If there was ever a text that has been so brutally contorted beyond the limits by Islamic apologists, it is Song of Solomon 5:16. Te unsound reasoning in the Muslim interpretation of this text is an example of the phonetic fallacy, confusing the sound of one word for another and assuming they are the same. If I were to say the words “sun” and “son,” or “blew” and “blue” even though they both sound the same, they are by no means the same by defnition and context.14 Song of Solomon 5:16 reads, “His mouth is most sweet, and he is altogether desirable. Tis is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” Muslim apologists point out that the phrase “altogether desirable” in Hebrew is the word machmadim. Tis Hebrew word machmadim is a masculine plural noun and it comes from the root noun machmad which means “desire,” “desirable thing.”15 Tey argue that the Hebrew word machmad actually refers to Muhammad! Te frst problem with this line of reasoning is that the word machmad is not a proper name like John, Tom, or even Muhammad. It rather functions in this case as a description of the lover in the Song of Solomon. It describes in the context of the Song of Solomon the love and desire that the Shulamite woman, in this case the wife, feels for her husband. Te Song of Solomon is a poetic literary love text addressing the delights of marital love between a husband and his wife. Te context is explicitly clear on this point. Te plural intensive form machmadim in Song of Solomon 5:16 is grammatically intended to heighten the sense of the word. Hebrew scholars refer to this as the “plural of intensity.” In other words, this passage

65 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

has to do with the description of the lover in the poem as being “altogether lovely” or “very desirable.” Muslims in this case engage in a form of eisegesis where they read into the text a foreign concept that was never part of the context. Te word machmad appears fourteen other times in the Hebrew Bible and again it denotes the idea of something precious and desirable. Tose passages would be awkward and nonsensical if we inserted the name “Muhamad” where machmad appears in the text.16 Islamic apologists are inconsistent in this case. Another problem and inconsistency with the concept that Muhammad is referred to in Song of Solomon 5:16 is the passage in Song of Solomon 5:1 where the husband or lover speaks the following words, “I ate my hon- eycomb with my honey, I drank my wine.” Te problem here is the fact that the drinking of wine is strictly forbidden in Islam, “O you who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divine arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside that you may succeed” (Q 5:90). If the lover in this poem is Muhammad this poses some serious problems. Te idea that Muhammad as a prophet would consume wine would be inconceivable as the drinking of wine is haram, forbidden in Islam. In the Qur’an, Muhammad is said to be the ideal role model that Allah commands humanity to emulate if they wish to be pleasing to Allah (Q 33:21) and he is said to have an exalted moral character (Q 68:4). Tus, whatever Muham- mad forbids (such as drinking wine and other alcoholic beverages) is to be unquestionable obeyed. However, drinking wine in Hebrew culture was wholly acceptable. What is surprising from an Islamic point of view, is that while wine is forbidden here on earth, it will be permited in abundance in paradise, “A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Terein are rivers of water unpolluted ... and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers” (Q 47:15). Another mitigating factor here is that according to the context of the Song of Solomon, this wedding takes place in Jerusalem, and not in Mecca or Medina. Jerusalem appears eight times in the Song of Solomon (1:5; 2:7; 3:5, 10; 5:8, 16; 6:4; 8:4) and this song is said to be Solomon’s own (1:1). All of these points considered, grammatical, cultural, and historical militate against the inconsistent interpretation that Muslim apologists impose on this text. Tis text says nothing about Muhammad at all.

66 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7 We now move to the New Testament. Te other principal passages to which Muslims appeal are from the Gospel of John. It is ironic that the Gospel of John is cited favorably in support of Muhammad’s place in the Bible because it typically receives scathing atacks from Muslim apologists due to its emphasis on the deity of Jesus and his identity as the Son of God. Te high Christology in John has been dismissed by Muslim apologists as a later development. Here again the inconsistent methodology used by Muslim apologists becomes apparent. Here we recall points (2) and (3) above on how Muslims view the Bible. Where they feel the gospel of John can be used to support the Qur’an, it is right, where it does not, it is wrong. Once again, the Qur’an becomes the measuring rod. In short, the reader will note that there is no concern for the biblical texts themselves or whether they can stand on their own merit. Tey are arbitrarily and selectively used by Muslim apologists to suit the Qur’an. Tis would be the same as Christians using the Qur’an to prove the Bible whenever it agrees with it, and rejecting it when it does not. Our Muslim friends would be quick to charge us with inconsistency and they would be justifed in doing so. Nevertheless, a double standard emerges here where there is one rule for the Bible and another one for the Qur’an. Unfortunately, this futile exercise is almost always practiced in Islamic dialogues with Christians. It should always be remembered that an inconsistent methodology and argument, are always signs of a failed argument because in the end they are contrived. Turning to the Gospel of John let us examine the passages that are employed by Muslim apologists to support their contention that Muham- mad is prophesied:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever1 the Spirit of truth. Te world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you (John 14:16-17; NIV).

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:26; NIV).

67 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me (John 15:26; NIV).

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7; NIV).

Te primary basis for using these passages in John is the prediction of Jesus in the Qur’an where he is reputed to have predicted the advent of Muhammad even to the point of using his name, or at least, one of the names by which he is known, Ahmad (Q 61:6) as we saw above. Te word “Counselor” in these passages in John comes from the Greek word parakletos and literally means “called to one’s side.” Tus one who is called to one’s side provides counsel, comfort, aid, help and thus this word has also been translated as “Comforter,” “Helper,” “Intercessor,” and “Advocate” as well as “Counselor” in other Bible translations, but they all convey the same idea. What is interesting is the Muslim claim that the “Counselor” or “Comforter” mentioned in these passages in John’s Gospel is really in fact Muhammad. Moreover, they make the claim that the original Greek word here is not parakletos but periklutos which means the “praised one,” and is the Greek equivalent of the Arabic name Ahmad, which as noted, Muslim apologists claim is the short form of the name Muhammad. Since Jesus predicted Muhammad’s coming, Muslims allege that the record of that prediction is found in John 14-16. Again this is the selective methodology that we see in Muslim apologetics. Te Bible is corrupted, except when they can use it to butress Islam. Te major problem with this approach is that all of the Greek manuscripts we have of John’s Gospel contain the word parakletos, which as we saw means “Counselor” or “Comforter.” No Greek manuscript of John has the reading periklutos. Tere are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament at present. Of the many thousands we possess, not one of them difers on this reading and use of parakletos in John 14-16. It should be noted that scores of these ancient manuscripts pre-date Islam by centuries. Kenneth Cragg comments,

Tere is not the slightest textual reason for reading [periklutos] instead of [parakletos] in the New Testament … Tis charge and the Muslim alteration have no basis exegetically. Nor does the sense of the passage bear the Muslim rendering.

68 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

But it is well to remember that the interpretation arises, in the end, not fom exegesis but fom presupposition.17

Yet notwithstanding this overwhelming textual evidence, Muslims accuse Christians, as they did the Jews with the Torah,18 of deliberately altering the word originally from periklutos to parakletos with no evidence to substantiate such a charge!19 It should also be remembered that parakletos is a noun whereas periklutos is an adjective, thus grammatically they are diferent words altogether. Te Comforter Jesus spoke of is not a human being, but as the text clearly states, it is the Holy Spirit.20 In Islam, the term “Holy Spirit” is usually associated with the angel Gabriel,21 although the Qur’an does not explicitly identify Gabriel as the Holy Spirit. Te standard lexicon on the New Testament BDAG clearly states that, “It is only the Holy Spirit that is expressly called [parakletos] =Helper in the Fourth [Gospel]: [John] 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7.”22 “Counselor,” “Holy Spirit,” and “Spirit of truth” are interchangeable terms speaking of the same Person. Te fact that Jesus uses the masculine pronouns “he” and “his” in reference to the Comforter, does not mean he is speaking of a human being. God is also spoken of in the Bible and Qur’an in the masculine gender, and yet God is Spirit (John 4:24). Similarly, Jesus speaks of the Comforter or Counselor as a Spirit, not as a man. Te text logically bears this out. Te irony in the Muslim use of John 14-16 is that these chapters are also heavily Trinitarian in nature. Islam categorically denies the Trinity. Tese texts in John speak of the economical Trinity and how the persons of the Godhead function and relate to one another. For instance, the Father sends the Holy Spirit in the name of the Son (John 14:26). Te Son also sends the Holy Spirit from the Father (John 15:26). Another major problematic issue arises with the Islamic interpretation of these texts in John. Jesus says twice about the Counselor that he would be the one “whom I will send to you” (John 15:26) and “I will send him to you” (John 16:7). In both of these passages the Counselor is sent by Jesus. Te question naturally arises, in Islam, who sent Muham- mad? Is Muhammad the messenger of Jesus or the messenger of Allah? Te Qur’an is very clear that “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (48:29). Allah states in the Qur’an, “Lo! We have sent thee (O Muhammad) with the truth, a bringer of glad tidings and a warner” (Q 2:119; italics mine). Te Muslim would never accept that Muhammad was the messenger of Jesus,

69 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

because all the prophets in Islam including Jesus, were messengers of Allah (Q 2:285), Muhammad being the last one as the “Seal of the Prophets” (Q 33:40). Jesus is the one who sends the Counselor, and the Counselor is the Holy Spirit. It would then follow that the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus as the Bible elsewhere atests (Acts 2:33). If this is the case, then Muhammad cannot possibly be the Counselor because he was not sent by Jesus. Let us further examine what Jesus said about the Counselor / Comforter in these passages and see if it fts the description of Muhammad:

1. “He [the Father] will give you another Counselor.” Jesus promised the disciples that the Father would give them another Coun- selor. During his earthly life, Jesus had been their Counselor or Comforter. Now that he was going to leave them, he promised them another Counselor in his absence, the Holy Spirit. Te Holy Spirit is “another Counselor” which implies more than one. In another New Testament passage Jesus is also called the parakletos (same word used of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16), because he is our Advocate, Helper, Comforter, or Counselor with the Father (1 John 2:1). Te other “Counselor” was as Jesus said, “the Spirit of truth.” If Jesus meant Muhammad by the word “Counselor,” would it not be absurd for Jesus to have said “he will give you another Muhammad”? Te disciples of Jesus did not have to wait 600 years for the Counselor to come. Te Holy Spirit came as promised by Jesus over a month afer the death and resurrection of Jesus on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4; cf. Acts 1:8).

2. “To be with you forever.” Jesus promised the Counselor would be with his disciples forever. Muhammad did not stay with his disciples forever, but died in A.D. 632. Te Counselor, the Holy Spirit has been with the Church since Pentecost.

3. “You know him.” Te disciples of Jesus knew the Counselor. Muhammad was not born until more than 500 years later afer Jesus said these words and therefore, was obviously not known by the disciples of Jesus.

4. “He dwells with you.” Te Counselor, the Holy Spirit, dwelled with the disciples of Jesus and thus

70 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad? this was something the disciples experienced in their lifetime. Muhammad was not even born yet.

5. “He will be in you.” Te Counselor, the Holy Spirit, would be in the disciples and by extension, all believers in Jesus. Tis shows that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a spiritual reality, not a physical one. Tis can never be said of Muhammad who was a mere man.

Conclusion

It is clear from a consistent and honest reading of all the texts which we surveyed above that the Muslim claim that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible is absolutely baseless. One can make the Bible or any book say anything one wishes if context is ignored. Te same is true of the Qur’an. If we are going to appreciate proper exegesis (“reading out”) of the Bible we have to be consistent with its context, its grammar, and its historical seting. Te three texts that are usually marshalled by Islamic apologists, Deuteron- omy 18:15-19; Song of Solomon 5:16, and John 14-16 do not support their contention that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible. When these texts are read carefully and in context it is clear that the Islamic interpretation regarding Muhammad cannot sustain the weight of scrutiny. Te prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 was to be a prophet like Moses. Tere are a number of character identity markers that set Moses apart such as knowing God “face to face” and the working of signs and wonders (Deut 34:10-11). Te prophet like Moses was to be raised from among “his brothers,” i.e., from the people of Israel. Te only suitable candidate to meet these requirements was Jesus. He knew God face to face and much more intimately than Moses, he performed signs and wonders during his ministry, and he was ethnically from the people of Israel. Te reference in Song of Solomon 5:16 to the one who is machmad “altogether desirable” as we saw, is a reference to the husband who is presumably Solomon. Tis text is a love poem, its seting is in Jerusalem, and the husband drinks wine. All of these factors taken together clearly indicate that Muham- mad is not the referent nor does his name appear in this text. A case for the phonetic fallacy can be made here as Muslim apologists take the phonetic

71 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

sound of machmad and assume it sounds like the name Muhammad. We saw how other places which have the noun machmad would be nonsensical if we interpreted it as a reference to Muhammad. Tis is unsound exegesis and does grave violence to the meaning of the text. In short, Song of Solomon 5:16 says absolutely nothing about Muhamad. When we surveyed John 14-16 we noted that if one allows the texts to speak for themselves it becomes extremely clear that the Counselor or Comforter mentioned by Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Te coming of the Holy Spirit was predicted by Jesus elsewhere (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8), and John the Baptist also made reference to Jesus being the baptizer in / with the Holy Spirit (Mat 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). We also saw that Jesus is the sender of the Counselor and thus the Counselor is sent by Jesus. Islam believes that Muhammad was the messenger of Allah and that he was sent by Allah. Muhammad cannot be the promised Counselor because he was not sent by Jesus. Te absurdity and inconsistency of such an interpretation as we have seen is a clear sign of eisegesis not exegesis. When all of these passages are considered it becomes clearly obvious that the advent of the Holy Spirit on the Church is the clear teaching of Scripture. To insert Muhammad into the ‘Counselor’ passages in John is eisegesis of the grossest kind. Since the earliest days of the Christian Church, believers have been aware of the prediction of Jesus that many false prophets and false messiahs would arise with some even claiming and naming the name of Jesus (Mat 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22). Tere were those who preaching “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:3-4), and “another gospel” (Gal 1:6-9). False prophets were also identifed by their denial of the Incarnation of the Son of God (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7; cf. John 1:14), and their denial of the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22-23) as designations for the Godhead. Islam resonates with these identity markers and for this reason historically and theologically, Christians never accepted or regarded Muhammad as a prophet of God. When the Bible is read in a coherent and consistent manner it will become quickly evident that it does not predict the coming of Muhammad at all in the passages cited above. Te Bible rather points to him who is the theme, the center piece, and the subject of its focus, the one of whom the disciples testifed about, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45).

72 Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

1 Ahmed Deedat, Te Choice: Islam and Christianity (Vol. 1; Durban: IPC, 1993), 2-100. 2 For a listing of some of these texts see Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: Te Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 146-54. 3 All references and citations of the Qur’an will be designated with the abbreviation Q and unless otherwise stated, the English translation of the Qur’an used in this article will be that of Marmaduke Pickthall, Te Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an (Delhi: Millat Book Centre, 1930). While the English in Pickthall’s translation appears archaic and appears to resemble King James ‘English’ I consider Pickthall’s translation to be the most faithful and accurate to the original Arabic text of the Qur’an. 4 Tis is an alternate name for Muhammad. 5 On a well-balanced refutation of this common Muslim claim see Gordon Nickel, Te Gentle Answer: To the Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsifcation (Calgary: Bruton Gate, 2015). 6 Tis is the exact same methodology that cults use in judging the Bible. If the Bible does not conform with their “new” revelation or scripture, it is in error. Mormons for instance will judge the Bible by their sacred texts, Te Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Te Pearl of Great Price. Te same methodology is employed by Islam with the Qur’an in its treatment of the Bible. On the selective use of the Bible by the cults see Walter Martin, Te Kingdom of the Cults (Ravi Zacharias, ed.: Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003); James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980). 7 Nickel, Te Gentle Answer, 77-78. Te accusation that the Jews removed Muhammad’s name from their Scriptures is demonstrated and argued by Nickel to be false in light of the manuscript evidence that predates Islam. Nickel, Te Gentle Answer, 89-107. 8 For a brief listing and treatment see Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 146-54. 9 Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical citations will be taken from the English Standard Version. 10 On this question see Alfred Guillaume, Islam (New York: Penguin Books, 1966), 61; Rene Dagron, La geste d’Ismaël: d’après l’onomastique et la tradition arabe [English translation: Te Ishmael Legend: Concerning the Onomasticon and the Tradition of the Arabs] (Paris: Meme, 1982); Kate Zebiri, Muslims and Christians Face to Face (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1997), 193. 11 Nickel, Te Gentle Answer, 447. 12 Ibid., 447-49. 13 Ibid., 445-46. 14 An example of the phonetic fallacy can be seen if we compare the common Islamic cry Allahu akbar / “Allah is greater”. Te Arabic comparative adjective akbar sounds like the Hebrew word achbar in Hebrew which means a “mouse” (Lev 11:29). Should one deduce from the phonetic similarity between akbar and achbar that Muslims believe Allah is a mouse? 15 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifin Company, 1906), 326. 16 For the other passages where machmad appears see 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chr 36:19; Isa 64:10; Lam 1:7,10-11; 2:4; Ezek 24:16, 21, 25; Hos 9:6,16 and Joel 3:5. 17 Kenneth Cragg, Te Call of the Minaret (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 285 (italics mine). 18 Nickel, Te Gentle Answer,77-78. 19 Cragg, Te Call of the Minaret, 285. 20 Nickel, Te Gentle Answer, 459-77. 21 F. S. Coplestone, Jesus Christ or Muhammad? (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2000), 20; Samuel M. Zwemer, Islam and the Cross: Selections fom ‘Te Apostle to Islam’ (Roger S. Greenway, ed.; P&R, 2002), 30. Zwemer also notes here that the words “Holy Spirit” occur on four times in the Qur’an and are of “very doubtful signifcance.” 22 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; revised and edited by Frederick William Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), no. 5591.

73 New from BAKER ACADEMIC

Intermediate Greek Grammar Syntax for Students of the New Testament David L. Mathewson and Elodie Ballantine Emig 978-0-8010-3072-7 • 336 pp. • $32.99c COMING AUGUST 2016 “This book should be on the shelf of every student who is eager to grow in understanding the New Testament in Greek.” —Roy E. Ciampa, Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship

Getting to Know the Church Fathers, 2nd Edition An Evangelical Introduction Bryan M. Litﬁ n 978-0-8010-9724-9 • 288 pp. • $24.99p “Litﬁ n’s book on this period of church history is an extremely lucid and reliable guide. A must-read.” —Michael A. G. Haykin, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Being Human in God’s World An Old Testament Theology of Humanity J. Gordon McConville 978-0-8010-4896-8 • 240 pp. • $27.99c COMING AUGUST 2016 “I recommend this book to all who want to understand themselves better and to grow as human beings created in the image of God.”—Tremper Longman III, Westmont College

bakeracademic.com u Available in bookstores or by calling 800.877.2665 Visit our blog: blog.bakeracademic.com

287370_SouthernBaptistJournal_BA_0716.indd 1 6/3/16 10:01 AM An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology: Te Jamā ‘at Al-Mu’manīn or “Assembly of the Believers” in the Tought of Mazhar Al-Mallouhi J. Scot Bridger

J. Scot Bridger is Associate Professor of Global Studies and World Religions at Criswell College, Dallas, Texas. He earned his PhD at Southeastern Baptist Teological Seminary and a MA in Arabic Language, Literature and Islamic Studies at the University of Haifa. Previously he taught at Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary where he served as the Director of the Jenkins Center for the Christian Understanding of Islam. Dr. Bridger has published extensively on Islam and Christianity and his most recent book is Christian Exegesis of the Qur’an: A Critical Analysis of the Apologetic Use of the Qur’an in Select Medieval and Contemporary Arabic Texts (Pickwick, 2015).

Introduction

Mazhar al-Mallouhi is a self-ascribed Arab Muslim follower of Christ. He has published a number of Arabic novels as well as contextualized Arabic renditions and commentaries on Genesis, the Gospels, and Acts. His aim in all of these works is to make Jesus and the message of the Bible understandable to Arab Muslims.1 He speaks of “naturalizing” Christ and presenting the Scriptures to Muslims in a manner they can fully understand and accept.2 Mallouhi sees a high degree of continuity between Arab-Islamic culture and

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 75-94 75 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

his faith in Christ. He argues that a follower of Christ need not separate from the Muslim community in order to obey the teachings of Christ. Mallouhi has been associated with Frontiers since at least the early 1990s and his Arabic books, commentaries, and articles are advocated by that organization in their church planting practices.3 Commenting on his infuence, Greg Livingstone, the founder of Frontiers, notes, “… Mazhar Mallouhi has been my primary mentor in the Arab world since 1968. Tis Syrian Muslim, my shepherd, has been more commited to seeing me demonstrate Christ among Muslims than anyone else.”4 In what follows, I begin by briefy surveying respected works of evangelical theology regarding the dual notions of the “localness” and “universalness” of the church. Expounding how these notions are understood in the New Testament and in evangelical theology is important for the analysis of Mal- louhi’s views on nature of the church or jamā‘at al-mu’manīn5 in the second section of the essay. It will be demonstrated that while Mallouhi sees a high degree of continuity between his Islamic culture and his faith in Christ, there are certain aspects of his views on cultural and religious identity, as well as his soteriology, that lend themselves towards a devaluation of the local church as a visible manifestation of the body of Christ. And while the focus here is solely on Mallouhi, this trend is apparent among many who advocate Insider Movements as a means of seeing the gospel spread among Muslim peoples. Te conclusion will discuss the implications of this tendency on church planting eforts among Arab Muslim people groups, whether by Westerners or others.

The Church Local and Universal: Biblical and Theological Parameters

In his examination of Baptist ecclesiology, John Hammet notes that the word ekklēsia appears 114 times in the New Testament, 109 of which refer to the church. Of these 109 occurrences, only three are in the Gospels. Addition- ally, there are primarily two senses in which the word ekklēsia is used in the New Testament––the local sense and the universal sense. Tough there are key references to the universal church by the New Testament authors, the overwhelming majority of the 109 occurrences of ekklēsia refer explicitly to a local church or a group of local churches.6 Indeed, the predominance of the

76 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology local church in New Testament usage warrants “assuming the local church meaning and then noting the exceptions when it has the universal meaning.”7 Local churches are ofentimes considered visible manifestations in the present of what is sometimes referred to as the invisible church (or the universal church if considered historically). Te invisible church is “the church as God sees it.”8 It is invisible in the sense that only God truly knows those who have trusted in Christ for their salvation––only he can see their hearts. Tis is contrasted with the visible church, which is “the church as Christians on earth see it. In this sense the visible church includes all those who profess faith in Christ and give evidence of that faith in their lives.”9 Granted, not all those in the visible church are true believers; however, this fact does not detract from the church’s unity which is rooted in her spiritual union with Christ and not in the church’s organizational unity. Tus, while only God truly knows the hearts of people, individual believers and local churches are wise to consider all those who profess Christ and live in accordance with his teaching as members of the true church. Te distinction between the visible and invisible church is important and has been understood in diferent ways by diferent groups. Te Reformers distinguished between the visible and invisible church largely due to their conception of the church’s unity as primarily “spiritual” over and against the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the church’s unity in institutional terms. Tis enabled them to afrm the existence of a true church apart from the visible institution. By contrast, the Roman Catholic Church gives priority to visible nature of the institutional church, thereby denying the existence of an “invisible church.” At the other end of the spectrum are those who hold to what Millard Erickson has termed a “pietistic approach” to the church. Tey emphasize one’s individual salvation experience and relationship with Christ as deter- minative of their “membership” in the church. Tis is the sole basis on which one is considered a true Christian or follower of Christ. Erickson explains that “those who are savingly related to Christ made up the church, whether or not they are assembled into any visible group. Membership in a visible group is no guarantee whatsoever of justifcation in God’s sight, so the visible organization is relatively unimportant. In fact, some deny the necessity of being a part of an organized body. Informal fellowship on a voluntary basis is all that is needed ... Church membership, as a permanent commitment to

77 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

a given group of believers, is minimized in this individualistic approach.”10 Erickson goes on to note that, “Parachurch organizations or house churches may take the place of the organized church” by those who espouse this view of salvation and ecclesiology.11 Proponents of this view have a very individualistic understanding of soteriology which feeds into their ecclesiology and emphasis on the universal church at the expense of the local church. A mediating position between the Roman Catholic view and the pietistic view is the “parish view.” Here the individual’s saving experience with Christ is emphasized as a prerequisite to their entry into the church; however, the church itself is marked by certain objective criteria that “are not merely qualities of the individuals making up the group, but of the local assembly quite apart from the spiritual condition of the individuals within it.”12 Te two that are commonly referred to are the true preaching of the Word and the proper administration of the sacraments; i.e., baptism and the Lord’s Supper.13 Tose holding to this view believe there is something about the local assembly that distinguishes it from a group of individual believers associating together in an informal manner. Faith is given the priority, nevertheless, one cannot “minimize the importance of the visible form of the church.” As Erickson notes, “It was apparently the standard procedure for the believer to become a part of the fellowship (see, e.g., Acts 2:47) ... We should therefore emphasize the importance of every believer’s becoming an integral part of a group of believers, and making a frm commitment to it. Christianity is a corporate mater, and the Christian life can be fully realized only in relationship to others.”14 Tus, the issue of the church’s visibleness has a direct bearing on one’s understanding of the church’s localness and universalness. Te local church is a present-time gathering of the invisible church (assuming those who assemble have a proper understanding of the gospel). And as noted, it is a visible manifestation of the invisible church. Terefore, the extent to which the visible church is composed of true believers, it is also part of the universal church––the redeemed of all ages, past, present, and future. Tis should not however detract from the fact that the New Testament is overwhelmingly preoccupied with the local church. Tis is the primary sense of ekklēsia found both in biblical usage as well as in personal experience. It is not possible for someone to experience the universal church as it is the local church. Tus, according to Hammet, this view has three practical implications worth quoting at length:

78 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology

First, Christians who belong to no local church but claim to belong to the body of Christ, referring to the church universal, are living contrary to the biblical patern, which gives priority to the local church. Second, those who work in or with parachurch groups are not thus exempted from their need to be involved in a local church, both to serve others and to be served by the fuller ministry of the church. Tird, we need to recognize the dignity and honor given to the local church. When Jesus says, “I will build my church” (Mat. 16:18), or when Paul says, “Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25), or prays, “To him [God] be glory in the church” (3:21), these passages may well refer to the universal church. But how is Christ’s building of the church seen in the world today? Where do we see Christ loving his church? Where is God being glorifed today? Te answer in each case is in local churches. Despite all their obvious faws, God loves real, local churches, not some invisible ideal.15

When the evidence is gathered it appears that the parish view best accounts for the two senses of the church as revealed in Scripture. But how does one go about encouraging the formation of this type of faith community within the complexities encountered in contexts like Arab Muslim ones where socio-cultural and religious identity are tightly intertwined?

Mallouhi’s View of the Church

Religious and Cultural Identity At the heart of high-end approaches to contextualization, or “C5” as it is sometimes referred to, is the view that one’s religious and cultural identity are nearly impossible to separate.16 Participation in the community necessitates participation in religious rites, rituals, and even prayer. It is argued that unlike in the West where religion is an individual choice, in the Middle East being a faithful member of one’s family means one must continue to identify with the umma (“nation,” “people,” or “community”).17 As Chandler notes, “Te foundation of Arab society is not the individual, but the community; frst, the family, then the extended family or clan, then the religious community, and sometimes then the nation. Arab society does not culturally function with the belief that the individual is free to make his or her choices. All important decisions are made within the family or community.”18 Tough somewhat of an oversimplifcation, Chandler’s point is valid. For this reason, he and

79 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Mallouhi argue that in order for Muslim background believers to maintain relationships with family, friends, and the broader community, they must be allowed to follow Christ from inside their socio-cultural and religious communities, hence the notion of an “Insider Movement.” At the beginning of Mallouhi’s personal faith pilgrimage he felt the need to separate wholly from his familial and religious connections. He associated himself with Arab Christian churches that were, according to him, very Western in their approach to the faith, even going so far as to atack Islam and support Israel.19 For years he struggled with reconciling his commitment to Christ with his cultural and religious past. He identifed himself as a “Chris- tian” and felt that it was dishonest for someone from a Muslim background to continue calling themselves a “Muslim” afer that person had decided to follow Christ. Chandler explains:

When Mazhar became a follower of Christ, Arab Christians told him that he needed to leave his cultural past behind, so he dislocated himself from his Islamic culture (family, community, etc.) and atempted to take on a “Christian culture.” Tey encouraged him to change his name (to take a “Christian” name), to stop socializing in cafés (the primary meeting place for Arab Muslim men), to stop atending his family’s religious celebrations, to keep his distance from mosques and Muslims, to cease fasting, to pray in a diferent posture (not bowing or prostrate), to use “Christian” as opposed to Islamic Arabic greetings and words when speaking (such as “good morning” instead of “peace be upon you”), and even to eat pork to prove he was converted.20

Chandler goes on to note that Mallouhi became a “churchian,” associating himself with westernized Arab Christian churches. Over time and under the infuence of a number of diferent individuals,21 Mallouhi came to the realization that he need not deny his past in order to follow Christ. His identity as an Arab and as a Muslim is a part of his true identity in Christ:

Mazhar believes the core issue is that we all too ofen confuse spiritual identity with cultural identity. Within the complexity of this cultural and religious tension, Mazhar and his life experience teaches us a great deal about how someone from a Muslim background may follow Christ without having to leave his Arab and Islamic

80 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology

culture and community. He is an example of someone who has kept his Islamic culture and Christ as his Lord, presenting us a distinctive example of a Muslim following Christ––remaining culturally fully “Arab” and not dislocating form his “birth” culture. As both a commited follower of Christ for four decades and also an insider in Islamic circles, Mazhar’s approach is not one of radical discontinuity from his Islamic Arab culture. Mazhar, who calls himself a “Muslim follower of Christ,” says, “Islam is my heritage. Christ is my inheritance.” As it is almost impossible to separate Islam and Arab culture, he is therefore instinctively Muslim.22

For Mallouhi, one’s spiritual identity in Christ is something that transcends cultural and even religious afliations. He “rediscovered his roots” and came to call himself “culturally” a Muslim and “spiritually” a follower of Christ.23 Since that time Mallouhi has been highly critical of Western missionaries and others who have sought to extract new believers from their context. “During the past thirty years Mazhar has been able to embody a new approach that encourages followers of Christ from Muslim backgrounds not to leave their families, people, or culture. Increasingly, he has difculty with the methodology of Western missionaries, and jealously protects Muslims who were following Christ from cultural ‘contamination’ by them. He has worked to help them become disciples of Christ without having to join the ‘Christian’ West.”24 Chandler summarizes his new approach:

Today Mazhar is very proud of his heritage and identifes himself as a Muslim according to his family, people, and culture, and enjoys breathing that air. Yet he also openly shares that he loves and follows Christ. He enjoys praying and meditating in the quiet reverent atmosphere of the mosque, where he sits on the carpeted foor and reads his Bible and loves to talk with people about his and their faith. While there, he ofen visits the sheiks and imams, who are his friends. He has kept a lot of the Muslim practices, from using “Muslim” greetings and prayers, to fngering his Islamic prayer beads, to reciting the character of God [i.e., the ninety-nine names of God in the Qur’an, which are ofentimes said to be representative of God’s atributes] ... to spending a lot of time in Arab cafés ... He leads most of his studies of the Gospels with others in the Arab cafés or in mosques. Mazhar, afer all these years of following Christ, still feels the pull of the culture when he hears the call to prayer or the Qur’an melodiously chanted.25

81 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Chandler goes on to say, “Some Westerners might incorrectly assume that Mazhar’s return to being an insider in Islamic circles is a means of becoming contextualized to more efectively share his faith in Christ with his fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. Yet for him it is not a means to an end, but rather a ‘coming to rest in his true identity,’ discovering who he really is, a fnding of his way home.”26 Mallouhi advocates a similar approach for all Muslims who desire to follow Christ. Chandler’s book provides numerous examples of Muslim religious leaders as well as common people who have had contact with Mallouhi and have adopted an approach similar to his.27 Part of the complex picture of human identity is not only how people defne themselves but also how others identify them. Commenting on Mallouhi, Jalal al-Mokh, a Tunisian author, says, “Mazhar is someone with Christian faith that is culturally Islamic.”28 Professor Ahmad Meshraqi of the Zeitouna University in Tunis, who participated in editing one of Mallouhi’s frst volumes on Genesis,29 states, “He is theologically Christian, but culturally Muslim.”30 Tese examples demonstrate the difculty some have in separating “Muslim,” with all its religious connotations, from its cultural connections. For Chandler, the word “Arab” is near synonym for “Muslim.” Te following excerpts from his book are illustrative:

Instead of trying to bring Muslims to Christianity, Mazhar tries to bring Christ to where Muslims are. And he looks for ways in which Arabs can stay culturally Muslim while following Jesus as their Lord.31

Te situation is made all the more complex because in the Muslim mind, to be an Arab means to be Muslim. Islam is not just a religious faith separate from ethnicity, cultural tradition, and social, economic, and political aspects of life ... In their thinking, to use the term “Arab Christian” is like speaking about an air-breathing fsh, or dehydrated water.32

As it is almost impossible to separate Islam and Arab culture, he [Mallouhi] is therefore instinctively Muslim.33 Despite these examples, there are questions surrounding how well Chan- dler has represented Mallouhi’s views. Tere is evidence that Mallouhi himself distinguishes between “Arab” culture and “Islam” as a religion. For example, Chandler writes, “Tere is a sense that Mazhar appeals to Arabs

82 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology more on the basis of Arab culture than on the basis of Islamic faith.”34 In another place he says, “While it is difcult or nearly impossible to separate Arab culture from Islamic culture, Mazhar would say that he atempts to put the emphasis more on his being Arab as opposed to Muslim. He sees Arab culture more as his bridge and cultural foundation then the Islamic religion.”35 On page 112, Chandler words it this way, “It is critical that the culture and heritage of new followers of Christ from Muslim backgrounds be honored and that they be assisted to fnd ways to stay rooted in their Arab society.” Part of the problem is Chandler’s (and probably Mallouhi’s) frequent interchanging of the terms “Muslim” and “Arab” when they discuss culture and contextualization. For most people, the term “Muslim” has a religious connotation, whereas “Arab” is a term more associated with a particular eth- no-linguistic cultural group. Tis is true not only in the West but throughout much of the Middle East where there are large populations of indigenous Arab Christians.36 Whatever the case may be, religious identity has been a key issue for Mal- louhi in determining how he has come to reconcile his faith in Christ with his Muslim upbringing. It is also the key issue between the proponents of C5, of which Chandler and Mallouhi are representative, and the proponents of C4. As Tennent summarizes:

Te crucial diference which separates C-4 and C-5 is that of identity. All of the major proponents of C-5 agree on this point ... Tere are, of course two sides to the question of identity. Tere is how others (in this case, Muslims) identify you and then there is your own self-identity. Admitedly, there is considerable contextual ambiguity about how Muslims may identify followers of Jesus in the Muslim world ... Te point is, all of the “foreign-type Christians,” (C-1 and C-2), the “contextually sensitive Christians” (C-3) and the “followers of Isa” (C-4) which form the spectrum of C-1 to C-4 are identifed by Muslims as not a part of their religious community ... [Tis] does not necessarily imply the positive corollary that they will always identify them as being part of some kind of Christian community ... Te crucial issue at stake is self-identity. C-5 believers are fully embedded in the cultural and religious life of Islam. Tat is why their presence in the Mosque is referred to as an “insider movement” ... Terefore, the real “botom-line” question before us is whether or not there is a solid case to be made for encouraging a C-5 “Muslim” to continue to identify himself or herself

83 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

as a Muslim, fully part and parcel of the religious and cultural life of Islam, even afer they have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.37

Part of the problem is semantics. For most Muslims, “Muslim” implies a person who believes in the fnality of Muḥammad’s prophetic career, the sufciency of the Qur’ān over all previous (corrupted) revelations, the denial of the Incarnation, Trinity, the atonement, human depravity, and other doctrines. Tose who like Chandler and Mallouhi seek to retain a believer’s religious identity (and afliation) with the Muslim community are only able to do so by reinterpreting this and other Islamic theological terms in order to accommodate faith in Christ within the Islamic religious system.38 Obviously, faith in Christ requires a separation from many of the particular tenets of Islam. Te question is whether a Muslim can remain a Muslim and still be a disciple of Christ with minimal ritual and doctrinal adjustments (e.g., by adjusting the shahāda by replacing “there is no God but Allah and Muḥammad is his prophet” with “‘Īsā is the Eternal Word of Allah,” by acknowledging the Bible as the only true Word of God, and by afrming the Trinity). Tennent’s assessment of this is apt:

Te answer is most certainly not. Tese three [doctrines] strike at the heart of Islamic religious identity; namely, the prophethood of Muhammad, the sacred perfection and superiority of the Qur’an and a rejection of Allah’s Triune nature. Te moment a Muslim discovers that someone claiming to be a Muslim has these particular beliefs in these three areas then they will automatically see that “Muslim” as someone with a religious identity in discontinuity with their own. Furthermore, the Muslim believer (MB) who is seeking to maintain his self-identity as a Muslim must also sense the profound ethical burden of living a life of integrity while knowing that his central core confession is in profound discontinuity with the core confession of Islam.39

Chandler and Mallouhi’s criticisms of the westernization of Christian faith are actually criticisms of poor contextualization––poor contextualization in the West as well as in the Arab world. Yet their solution in the area of ecclesiology leaves much to be desired. What is needed is to distinguish between the religious aspects of a culture and how they relate to human identity and those aspects which are more purely cultural. God has ordained that such

84 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology cultural exegesis and critical refection on one’s identity in Christ take place within the context of the local church. Tis is one of the primary roles for the community of faith. Te church is necessary in order to assist these Muslim background believers in developing a healthy identity. Obviously, Mallouhi’s use of the term “Muslim” as a self-ascription has been reinterpreted (in his mind) to refer to culture and, in a religious sense, as one submited to God. Te problem with this is that the sense of the word “Muslim” has been fxed by centuries of usage and has certain irre- ducible theological connotations associated with it. Clearly, Mallouhi’s desire to remain atached to his family and culture is understandable and commendable. However, the confation of religious and cultural identity has made maters complex. Te solution is to be found in the creation of a new religious identity rooted in Christ. Some would counter this argument by noting that Jews were not required to stop being Jews when they placed their faith in Christ––so why should Muslims be required to do so? Tey appeal to texts like Acts 15 and others in order to support these arguments. However, there are problems with those who seek to fnd an exact parallel between frst century Jews who became followers of Christ and Muslims who desire to follow Christ within Islam. Tennent explains:

[It] is difcult to fully compare the situation of Jews (who have the “Old” Testa- ment) hearing the gospel with Muslims (who have the Qur’an) hearing the gospel because of the more profound continuity between Judaism and Christianity. Nevertheless, ... if the vast majority of Muslims were to miraculously recognize the true deity of Jesus Christ, such that the Mosque became a place where Jesus was truly worshipped, then there would be no reason for a Muslim believer to seek a new religious identity, because the very religious identity of Islam would have changed. However, since this did not occur then there must inevitably be a separation at the level of religious identity, which is precisely what happened with the early Jewish believers. It should be noted that encouraging a separate religious identity (contra C-5) does not mean that there are not points of continuity between one’s former religious identity and their new religious identity ... Te point is simply that the unique person of Jesus creates a new identity.40

Te notion that this new identity can be created within the sphere of the mosque is very misguided. As Parshall notes, “Te mosque is pregnant with

85 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

Islamic theology. Tere, Muhammad is afrmed as prophet of God and the divinity of Christ is consistently denied.”41 Tus, (eventual) separation at some level is necessitated if believers are to form the type of community modeled in Scripture which can nurture their new identity in Christ. Unfortunately, it is the creation of this new identity in the church that Chandler and Mallouhi seemingly repudiate in the Muslim context. Underlying their approach is a particular view of soteriology that lends itself towards the devaluation of the church as the place where one’s new faith and identity are cultivated. Tis is undoubtedly due to the fact that Mallouhi and Chandler are batling against Western forms of ecclesiology which manifest themselves in particular religious and cultural rituals contrary to Arab Muslim culture. Many of their criticisms on this point are valid. Teir solution however does not give enough weight to how the church is conceived in the New Testament as a new, “called-out” community composed of individuals united by their faith in Christ.

Soteriology and Ecclesiology In an edited book distributed by al-Kalima, Mallouhi’s publishing house the authors ofer a new “reading” (i.e., translation) of all four Gospels and Acts. Te book, Te Meaning of the Gospel and Acts in Arabic,42 opens with thirty very helpful articles addressing a number of issues that have traditionally been misunderstood by Muslims. Additionally, each of the four Gospels and Acts opens with a book introduction. Tere are also numerous comments on the biblical text, which elucidate theological issues and provide cultural and religious background information for those unfamiliar with the New Testament. At the end of the book there is a glossary of terms in order to assist Muslim readers who might be unfamiliar with the biblical and theological terminology presented in Scripture. And while it is unclear who the exact authors of each article in this book are, clearly they represent positions advocated by Mallouhi and the works edited and published under his supervision by al-Kalima. One of the thirty articles at the beginning of the book is on jamā‘at al-mu’manīn, or the church.43 Te article does a solid job at clarifying the dif- ference between a “church” building, the institutional “church,” and the body of Christ. In commenting on the word ekklēsia in Greek, the article states:

86 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology

In the Greek language, which is the original language of the Noble Gospel, we fnd that the word ekklesia, which corresponds to the word kanīsa [“church”] in Arabic, was sometimes used to refer to any group of believers that met to worship God in the name of the Honorable Messiah. Aferwards it came to refer to anyone who associated themselves to God’s umma [“people” or “nation”], which is all people from diferent ethnicities, languages, and cultures who believe in the one Lord Creator who was manifest in majesty in the person of the lord Messiah.44

Te article goes on to describe the semantic range of the word as used prior to the time of Christ by Greek-speaking Jews to refer to an “assembly” Jews used this word to refer to the .(קהל) and to translate the Hebrew qahal whole of the people of God (i.e., the “sons of Jacob” as he labels them). Te article notes that in order to fully grasp the meaning and signifcance of the word ekklēsia, it is important to begin with the concept of the people of God. Only then “will we see how our lord Jesus brought to this word a new dimension developed later by his disciples.”45 Tus, there is a sense in which Mallouhi, as represented in the writings of al-Kalima, recognizes a correlation between the people of God in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament. He also reveals an understanding that what Jesus did in founding the “church” was new. Inter- estingly, when translating (or interpreting) Jesus’ statement in Mathew 16:18 about establishing the church, the article translates ekklēsia as umma (“community,” “people,” or “nation”) not jamā‘at al-mu’manīn (“assembly” or “gathering of the believers”). On the other hand, of the twenty-two uses of ekklēsia in Acts to refer to the church, the article never refers to it as the umma, only jamā‘a (singular) or jamā‘āt (plural). A possible conclusion that can be drawn from this is that when Mallouhi and al-Kalima use umma they are referring explicitly to the people of God in a universal sense (i.e., the universal church). Tis use of diferent terminology to translate the diferent senses of the word ekklēsia in the New Testament can be helpful in that it reveals how they understand and conceive of the church. Te question is, how consistent are they in diferentiating the two senses of the word, and which sense is dominant in their thinking? Te article moves on from discussing the terms used to refer to the church and the people of God to narrate some of the events from the Old Testament, such as the calling of Abraham and the choice of Israel. Tese two events are

87 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

shown to be foundational to God’s establishment of his covenant with his people. Summarizing this brief survey of the notion of the people of God in the Old Testament, the article states:

It is possible to summarize these ideas from the Torah in that God persisted in his relationship with the children of Jacob not because they were beter than other peoples, but because God wanted his blessings to reach all peoples through them. He chose them because of his love for all of humanity. Tus, when God sent our lord Jesus to be the connecting link, enabling humanity to return to the position of honor and closeness the sons of Adam had with him prior [to the fall], he allowed there to be development in the former notion of the “people of God” through the revelation of at least three new ideas.46

Te article’s second idea of the three is particularly pertinent in the current context. It states:

Te Lord Jesus called people to be his followers. He spoke about the establishment of a special gathering. And when he chose the twelve to be his disciples there was a clear connection to the twelve tribes of the sons of Jacob. When Peter the “Rock,” one of the disciples, expressed his faith that our lord Jesus is the awaited Messiah, he replied: “I give you the name “Rock” and on this rock I will establish my umma [“nation]. Its faith will be sure and the gates of death will not stand against it!” (Mat 16:18). Among the lord Messiah’s teaching which he explained to his followers was the way to build their mutual relationship upon a solid foundation. He presented to them the salient features of the life in the bosom of their new gathering. Tus, it is important to consider the gathering of the believers as an extension of the former umma (i.e., the sons of Jacob). Tis umma has entered into a new era through the lord Messiah. Her duty is to demonstrate her submission and obedience to the lord Messiah as her head, just as the disciples became the fathers to this new gathering.47

While this article’s description of the church is commendable, this is the closest it comes to advocating a separation into a new community for followers of Christ in order to live out their new identity with other like- minded believers. However, there is no mention in this entire article of the local church––its purpose in the life of the believer or God’s plan for it in

88 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology his redemptive purposes. Te only mention of the church being tied to a physical locality comes in the glossary of terms under the entry for “church.” Te third idea the article mentions ties the notion of the people of God directly to the kingdom of God without explaining how kingdom expansion and the nurturing of believers is to take place. By doing this it appears as if the article is providing biblical and theological justifcation for advocating a non-separationist approach to religious (or church) afliation. Te ideas found in this article correspond to those directly atributed to Mallouhi himself as recorded by Chandler: “As a Muslim follower of Christ, and therefore fee fom ecclesiastical afliations, Mazhar’s simple desire is that Muslims experience Christ. ‘In some ways, Islam is irrelevant to me,’ he says. ‘For me, there are only people experiencing the love of Jesus and seeking to follow his way and those who are not––whatever religion they belong to.’”48 Here it is possible to see a convergence of Mallouhi’s views about soteriology and how they impact his ecclesiology. He clearly advocates a “pietistic approach” to the visible church, thereby devaluing the role of the local church in the creation of community. And his emphasis on the kingdom of God and the universal church seemingly enable this. Howard’s comments on this phenomenon within the broader Insider Movement, of which Mallouhi is representative, are insightful:

Tis kingdom theme in IM literature begins with the basic assertion that Jesus did not come to found a new religion but to establish the kingdom. Terefore, the primary designation for those who express faith in Christ is citizen of the kingdom of God. For example, Rick Brown comments that both Messianic Jews and ‘Messianic Muslims’ belong to the kingdom, although the later maintains a Muslim identity in respect to religious culture. John Ridgway asserts that the kingdom lifestyle Jesus preached was independent of any religious system and would enable any individual or family to live out the gospel in its own society regardless of the religious framework. Jesus’ message, the good news of the kingdom, was essentially spiritual and created a spiritual community (the kingdom of God) that would extend beyond the confnes of the Jewish religious traditions and culture. Te spiritual wine of the new covenant ‘must be poured into a spiritual wineskin, the kingdom of God, and not into physical wineskins (religious systems).’ Terefore, the gospel does not require leaving one’s community to join an alien group. Te expression of the gospel is the kingdom in which the

89 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

wheat and tares grow together. One’s spiritual identity, which is a product of the second birth, is totally unrelated to cultural religious identity, which is a physical identity connected with the frst birth.”49

At the end of the article on the church, the following statement is found:

In this way, the phrase “assembly of the believers” [ekklēsia] as found in the teaching of the disciples means all the individuals of the people of God who believe in the lord Messiah as a savior throughout history, whether past, present or future. Te “assembly” includes all of humanity from diferent ethnicities, cultures, women and men, young and old––in short, those that respond positively to the good news about the love of God as revealed through the lord Messiah.50

It appears that Mallouhi and al-Kalima’s individualistic conception of salvation has merged with their emphasis on universal nature of the church in the New Testament to form a position that devalues the local church as a new, separate community of Christ-followers. Tis conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Mallouhi himself confesses his idealization of people like Sadhu Sundar Singh, a wandering Indian holy man from a Sikh background who professed faith in Christ,51 and Mahatma Gandhi, as representative of the most Christ-like fgures he has ever known. Refecting on Gandhi, Mallouhi states:

I believe Christ spoke of people such as Gandhi in this parable [parable of the father with the two sons whom he instructed to go and work in his vineyard]. I see Gandhi as the second son, who said ‘I will not’ and then aferward went––by demonstrating the spirit of Christ and following his teaching as few Christians have ever done. I believe Gandhi loved Christ but could not aford to be pub- licly associated with ‘Christianity’––being a Hindu by allegiance, but a Christ follower by afnity. And I fully expect to see Gandhi when we are privileged to enter God’s presence in eternity.52

Like other proponents of C5 contextualization, Mallouhi makes “community” afliation the core of his argument against separation from one’s religious and cultural afliations. Te (unintended?) consequence of the position he afrms is that he advocates a view of the Christian life in isolation from the very community that Christ died to redeem. Tis privatization of

90 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology the faith is something he and Chandler go to great lengths to criticize among “Western” Christians. Yet their solution is to advocate isolating individual believers away from the very community that God is establishing to assist believers like Mallouhi to form a new identity in Christ. Tis is the only God-ordained community that can sustain faith and witness to the very love that has transformed Mallouhi’s life. “Spiritual” unity implies unity within the “community” Christ came to establish'the church. Tennent’s conclusions about C5 proponents are applicable to Mallouhi and the ecclesiology advocated in his statements and al-Kalima’s writings:

First, C-5 writings tend towards theological reductionism by tacitly embracing a narrow, minimalistic view of salvation. If these new believers are not encouraged to unite their fedgling faith to the faith of the church, then it is unlikely these new believers will be able to properly reproduce the faith ... Second, the theological framework and analysis present in C-5 writings has been overly infuenced by Western individualism and the privatization of the faith, which tends to keep the doctrines of soteriology and ecclesiology at arm’s length ... [We] must not forget that we cannot have a Christ-centered theology of mission which does not place the church at the center of Christ’s redemptive plan. To encourage Muslim believers to retain their self-identity as Muslims and not to fnd practical ways to identify themselves with the larger community of those who worship Jesus Christ reveals a view of the church that is clearly sub-Christian. Finally, separation of the personal from the propositional in the Muslim world can only lead to a dangerous separation of the person of Christ from the church’s proclamation about Christ. Tis separation fails to atend to the proper connection between our personal testimony (however thrilling and exciting) and the Apostolic proclamation of the gospel ... Te unintended result of this view is that personal experience can be used to ignore the specifcs of the Apostolic proclamation. Or to put it in the popular terminology of post-modernism, the Apostolic ‘meta-narrative’ takes a back seat to the personal narratives of those who come to Christ.53

Conclusion

Mallouhi’s desire to remain among his people and infuence his culture for the cause of Christ is exactly what the church in the Middle East needs. Tere are

91 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

far too many cases of Muslims who have made professions of faith in Christ only to subsequently use their faith as an excuse to abandon their friends, families, and communities. Unfortunately, they have usually been encouraged and aided by well-meaning but very misguided churches and missionaries from Western countries. In order for the body of Christ to sustain its faith and nurture the next generation of believers from Muslim backgrounds, people like Mallouhi must be encouraged to commit themselves wholeheartedly to the local church. Tis is the community Jesus came to establish, and it is the means he has given his body to assist them to meet the challenges posed by their faith in Christ and their religious and cultural backgrounds. Jesus himself promised that when this community of faith commits itself to meet regularly and study his Word, to pray and to fellowship, the gates of death and hell itself will not overcome it.

1 For a more detailed description of his works with a bibliography, see J. Scot Bridger, Christian Exegesis of the Qur’ān: A Critical Analysis of the Apologetic Use of the Qur’ān in Select Medieval and Contemporary Arabic Texts (vol. 23. American Society of Missiology Monograph Series, Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), 46, 105–110. 2 For an explanation of how Mallouhi envisions this taking place see Paul-Gordon Chandler, Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road (Lanham, MD.: Cowley, 2007), 2. 3 Mallouhi is mentioned as the “traveling evangelist” for Frontiers teams in the Middle East and the “Fron- tiers team leader in Cairo” by Livingstone. See Greg Livingstone, Planting Churches in Muslim Cities: A Team Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 104, 143. 4 Ibid., iii. 5 Te Arabic word jamā‘ah is from the root jama‘a and simply means “to gather,” “to unite,” or “to assemble.” Tus, a jamā‘a refers to a group, gathering, congregation, or assembly. Tere is resistance among some Christians laboring in Arabic-speaking Muslim environments to using the standardized Arabic word for the church, kanīsa, due to its association with the institutional church (i.e., Protestant denominations or one of the traditional churches of the Middle East––the Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Church of the East, Coptic Church, etc.). Tus, some prefer to refer to the church using some variation of jamā‘at Allāh (“the assembly of God”) or jamā‘at al-mu’manīn (“the assembly of the believers”). Teir concern in this regard is similar to that of many Messianic Jews, particularly those in Israel, who .See the discussion below .(כנסיות) ”versus “churches (קהילות) ”describe their assemblies as “congregations 6 John S. Hammet, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2005), 24–28, 70. Hammet notes that at least ninety refer to the local church. 7 Ibid., 29. 8 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Teology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 855. 9 Ibid., 856. 10 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Teology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1055. 11 Ibid. It is not clear by Erickson’s statement here whether he considers “house churches” to be the equivalent of “organized churches.” However, his point is pertinent in that there is a devaluing of the local church by those who hold to this view. 12 Ibid., 1056–57. 13 Ultimately, it is the gospel which defnes whether or not a church is a true church. Commenting on the sine qua non of the church, Hammet notes, “If it [i.e. the church] loses the gospel message, a group of people

92 An Inside Look at Insider Ecclesiology

is no longer a true church. It may be a religious society or club, but it is not a church, for God’s called-out people are called out by the gospel and come in response to the gospel. Te power of the gospel is what reconciles them to God, unites them to Christ, and allows them to be indwelt by the Spirit. Tere can be no people of God, body of Christ, or temple of the Spirit without the gospel” (Hammet, Foundations, 63–64, italics added). 14 Erickson, Teology, 1057–58. 15 Ibid., 70–71. 16 For more on the C1 to C5 spectrum see John Travis, “Te C-1 to C-6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defning Six Types of Christ-Centered Communities (C) Found in the Muslim Context,” EMQ October (1998): 407–08 and, “Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look At C5 Believers and Congrega- tions,” IJFM 17:1 (2000): 53–59. Travis is the originator of the scale and a co-editor of a recent volume aimed at clarifying the nature of Insider Movements. However, afer close examination it is clear the work is an advocacy project for numerous aspects of Insider ecclesiology with an unfortunate lack of dissenting voices. See Harley Talman and John Travis, eds. Understanding Insider Movements: Disciples of Jesus Within Diverse Religious Cultures (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2015). One of the central issues in the discussion between proponents of C4 and C5 is the extent to which someone can continue to identify with their parent religious community afer confessing their faith in Christ. For a detailed theological analysis of C5 ecclesiology, an article which was lef out of Talman and Travis’s volume, see Timothy C. Tennent, “Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques: A Closer Examination of C-5 ‘High Spectrum’ Contextualization” IJFM 23:3 (2006): 101–15. For a criticism of the spectrum itself as a tool for gauging levels of contextualization see John Stringer, “Contextualization: Transformational Trialogue,” in Doing Mission in the Arab World (Grassroots Mission Publications, 2008), 119–39. 17 Te word ummah is used sixty-two times in the Qur’an and primarily has the sense of a “religious community” (i.e. the Muslim community), particularly in the later Medinan suras as Muslim identity became more defned. See F. M. Denny, “Umma,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, 10:859. 18 Chandler, Pilgrims, 102. 19 For a balanced examination of the Israeli-Palestinian confict and its impact on evangelical theology from a former Muslim turned evangelical, see Abdu H. Murray Apocalypse Later: Why the Gospel of Peace Must Trump the Politics of Prophecy in the Middle East (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2009). 20 Ibid., 105, 108. 21 Chandler records a number of diferent people who have infuenced Mallouhi’s thinking including Leo Tolstoy, E. Stanley Jones, Gandhi, Harold Vogelaar, and others. Further research needs to be done on how these people have infuenced Mallouhi’s theology and approach to contextualization. 22 Chandler, Pilgrims, 104. 23 Ibid., 107. 24 Ibid., 108. 25 Ibid., 107. 26 Ibid. 27 See e.g., ibid., 110, 115, 117–18. 28 Ibid., 107. 29 Mazhar al-Mallouhi et al., eds., Nash’āt al-‘Ālam wa al-Basharīya: Dirāsa Mu‘āira fī Sif al-Takwīn (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 2001). 30 Chandler, Pilgrims, 111. 31 Ibid., 81. 32 Ibid., 103. Tis statement ignores the fact that Arab Christianity is Middle Eastern in origin. It likely begins in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:11) and since that time Christianity has provided millions of Arabs with a viable religious identity in concert with their Arab culture. Indeed, there is a large population of indigenous Arab Christians in Mallouhi’s native Syria. Most of Chandler’s experience in the Middle East appears to be in Egypt, where the Coptic Christian population is much more sensitive to being identifed as “Arab.” Tis is not the case in most of the Middle East. Chandler and Mallouhi’s criticisms of past missionary practice and even of certain Arab Christian churches is apropos; however, they frequently resort to characterizations and lump all missionaries together who disagree with their approach. Much of what they criticize could be classifed as C1 or C2 approaches to contextualization, something most missionaries (western or otherwise) laboring among Arab Muslims would agree are inadequate approaches. Unfortunately, there are potential theological problems with the alternative as conceived by Chandler and Mallouhi. 33 Ibid., 104.

93 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

34 Ibid., 82. 35 Ibid., 119. 36 For more on the history of Middle Eastern Christianity under Islam, particularly Arabic-speaking Chris- tianity, see, Sidney H. Grifth, Te Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princeton, NJ: Princeton, 2008). 37 Tennent, “Followers,” 104. For a deeper analysis of this topic see, Fred Farrokh, “Indigenous Perspectives on Muslim Identity and Insider Movements,” Global Missiology 2:12 (2015). 38 Many of those within both the C4 and C5 camps advocate varying approaches to the reinterpretation of religious terminology and passages from the Qur’ān that speak about Jesus, and there are difering opinions on this issue. For more on this topic see Bridger, Christian Exegesis of the Qur’ān. 39 Tennent, “Followers,” 107. 40 Ibid., 106. 41 Phil Parshall, “Danger! New Directions in Contextualization,” EMQ (October 1998): 3. 42 Al-Hādī al-Jaṭlāwī et al, Al-Ma’anā al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-Injīl al-Masīḥ (Beirut: Dār al-Fārābī, 2008). In subsequent footnotes, this book will be referred to as “Meaning.” 43 Meaning, 105–09. All translations of this work are mine. 44 Ibid., 105. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid., 107. 47 Ibid., 109. 48 Chandler, Pilgrims, 114. Italics added. One question that this comment raises, and that will not be addressed here is, how has Mallouhi’s long afliation with Frontiers, a parachurch mission agency, impacted his ecclesiology? 49 Howard, “Insider Movement,” 6–7. 50 Meaning, 109. 51 Chandler, Pilgrims, 3–4. 52 Ibid., 123. 53 Tennent, “Followers,” 111–12.

94 SBJT Forum

Ayman S. Ibrahim is Bill and Connie Jenkins Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies, and Senior Fellow at the Jenkins Center for the Christian Understanding of Islam at Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary. He earned his PhD from Fuller Teological Seminary and he is currently working on his second PhD in the Department of Middle Eastern History at the University of Haifa, Mount Carmel. Dr. Ibrahim was born and raised in Egypt. Since 1991, he has taught in various countries in the Muslim world and in the West at undergraduate and graduate levels. His articles on Islam and Mus- lim-Christian Relations have appeared in a variety of places such as: Te Washington Post, Religion News Services, Colorado Springs Gazete, Louisville Courier-Journal, First Tings, Faith Street, Charisma News, Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue Journal, and Ethics Daily. Dr. Ibrahim has a forthcoming book entitled, Te Stated Motivations for the Early Islamic Expansion and a forthcoming co-edited volume on the Insider Movements among Muslims, both anticipated in 2017.

SBJT: Today there is a lot of discussion regarding the nature of jihad in Islam. Describe for us what jihad is in the Qur’an and Islam and compare it to the Bible and Christianity. Ayman S. Ibrahim: Te Arabic word “jihad” has become well-known as an English term afer its extensive usage by various media outlets to describe militant activities by terrorists. It is commonly used to refer to Islamic holy war waged against non-Muslims. Te word jihadi, which is also an Arabic noun, became a common word to identify a person who executes an act of jihad, usually terror atack, under the banner of his religion. With the rise of ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Shabaab, afer the Qaeda, words like jihad, jihadi, and jihadist found their way into the English dictionary, and for the most part they appear in connection with militant activities achieved by religious enthusiasts, particularly those self-identifed as Muslims. In Arabic, the noun jihad stems from the verb’s root leters j-h-d, which means “to strive, make every efort, struggle, and labor.” Te Qur’an treats this term extensively and seems to ofer various meanings to it. Surprisingly,

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 95-98 95 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

the Arabic Bible, too, particularly the New Testament, uses the term and its derivatives several times in translating the Greek verbs agōnizomai and athleō. A comparison between the references of the term in both of these Arabic texts, apart from later commentaries and interpretations, ofers a compelling contrast as to how jihad is treated, perceived, and portrayed in the two texts, and thus faiths, emphasizing the unique meaning found in Islam’s scripture in a way that does not emerge in the New Testament context. Jihad, as an Arabic term, appears some nine times in the Bible, whether in verbal or nominal forms; all in the New Testament, according to the Van Dyck Standard Translation. It refects the personal striving (in jihad, Gk. agōnizomai) to enter the narrow gate of God’s Kingdom (Luke 13:24). In connection with fghting in batles, Jesus afrms that since his Kingdom is not an earthly one his followers would not fght (Ar. Jihad, Gk., agōnizomai) for him to keep him from those who oppose him (John 18:36). Tis is echoed in Ephesians 6:12, where the Apostle Paul afrms that “we are not fghting (or wrestling) against fesh-and-blood enemies, but against ... evil spirits in the heavenly places.” Paul actually uses the same term in connection with his personal discipline and self-control in his spiritual training, as he emphasizes that believers need to make every efort (strive in jihad, and agōnizomai) at self-control, portraying a picture of a wrestler striking a blow to his body and making it his slave (1 Cor 9:24-27). He also uses a participle of jihad to depict his diligent endeavor (through jihad) to preach God’s Good News, to teach and warn every man using the Wisdom of God (Col 1:29). In the Arabic Bible, Jihad is also used in connection with spending much efort in praying earnestly and fervently. Epaphras, the bondservant of Christ, prays earnestly (in jihad, agōnizomai) for the church of the Colossians so that the believers would be strengthened and perfected by God (Col 4:12). Paul, in his last years as a prisoner because of his Gospel preaching and before his martyrdom, declared that he had kept the faith as he strived (in jihad, agōnizomai) to fnish the spiritual race, remaining faithful in and commited to preaching the Gospel of Christ (2 Tim 4:7). He, thus, instructs Timothy to endure sufering as a good soldier of Christ and as an athlete who strives (in jihad, Gk. athleō) to win the heavenly reward (2 Tim 2:5), calling him to strive (through jihad) for the good spiritual fght in keeping the authenticity of the true faith, holding tight to the eternal life, preaching and proclaiming the good confession of faith in the presence of many witnesses (1 Tim 6:12).

96 SBJT Forum

Tus, jihad in the New Testament signifes a personal efort to practice self-control, struggling and fghting against one’s own desires'it is a call to fght to overcome oneself. It also denotes striving to bring the Good News of Christ to everyone near and far, proclaiming and keeping the authenticity and purity of faith. Jihad is encouraged in prayer, as believers intercede fervently for the work of God in the life of His Church. It is never used in a direct reference to violence or physical warfare against enemies. Since Jesus Christ’s kingdom is not an earthly one, His followers do not need to resort to violence or physical fght as a form of jihad for Him. In the Qur’an, jihad occurs in diferent derivatives. Its imperative form, jāhidū (plural) or jāhid (singular), occurs more than twenty-eight times. Tis Quranic command instructs Muslims to strive in jihad. It does not necessarily mean to call them to fght others. It is diferent from the other Quranic term qitāl, of the root q-t-l, which refers explicitly to physical fghting in batles against non-Muslims. Jihad seems to be used in a variety of meanings in Islam’s scripture. According to the Qur’an, the Believers should struggle (in jihad) patiently to enter Paradise (Q 3:142). Tey should make every efort (in jihad) in the path of Allah and for his cause (Q 29:69). Tese verses, among others (such as Q 5:53; 6:109; 16:38; 22:78; and 24:53), use jihad to denote an efort by the faithful believer to strive to remain in Allah’s path with no explicit reference to violence or fghting in batles. Tey, unlike what media outlets may suggest, do not seem to instruct any notion of a holy war against non-Muslims. Other Quranic verses, however, appear to use jihad in connection with both struggling in wars and striving to fght against various groups of non-Mus- lims'groups such as al-kāfrūn (infdels) and al-munāfqūn (hypocrites). In Q 9:73, Allah appears to instruct Muhammad to struggle (through jihad) with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and “be thou harsh with them.” In another verse, Muhammad is commanded not to obey the unbelievers, but rather to wage against them a great jihad (Q 25:52). In Quranic terms, the believers are those who believe in Allah and his messenger with no doubts, and who have struggled (in jihad) with their possessions and “their selves,” by giving their lives, for the sake of Allah or in his path (Q 49:15). Striving by giving one’s own life seems to exhort seeking martyrdom for the sake of Allah. Te Quran distinguishes between two kinds of believers: those who practice jihad in Allah’s path striving with

97 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

their lives, and those siting at home avoiding batles, stating that Allah pre- fers the former (Q 4:95) granting them a higher rank and reward (Q 9:20). Te passage (Q 9:10-17) links jihad with fghting (hence, the term qitāl) in batles for the sake of Allah. In verse 14, the Quran instructs fghting (not jihad, but qitāl) the enemies while Allah chastises and degrades them at the believers’ hands. In verse 16, those believers who have fought are acknowledged and identifed by Allah to have struggled in jihad. Tis is most likely one of the reasons why jihad is linked, at least in one of its meanings, to fghting in batles for Allah’s cause, or ofered as a reason for those who want to give away their lives for Allah’s cause. While jihad in the Quran is not always linked with fghting in batles, there are some occurrences in which jihad and fghting are linked together. For instance, the Qur’an uses both of the phrases “fghting in Allah’s path” and “jihad in Allah’s path” interchangeable. It commands the believers to fght in Allah’s path (Q 2:190, 244, 246)'a command that matches the one of the jihad in Allah’s path with possessions and selves in (Q 8:72; 9:88; 49:15). Tus, to portray jihad as only a holy war against non-Muslims would be simplistic, but to deny any connection between jihad and fghting non-Mus- lims for Allah’s cause would also be inaccurate. Quranic jihad, it appears, is a term or concept used in Islam’s scripture not only to stir the hearts of the believers to struggle patiently in the path of Allah to enter Paradise, but also to denote fghting military batles in Allah’s path and for his cause. While the emphasis in this analysis is on the Qur’an alone, it should be noted that, centuries afer Muhammad’s death, later Muslim exegetes and jurists developed various creative notions on passive jihad, armed jihad, individual obligatory jihad, state obligatory jihad, lesser jihad, greater jihad, and so forth. Terefore, while the Arabic Bible uses jihad in connection with self-control, endure sufering, praying fervently for others, and serving God by proclaiming the Good News and witnessing for the faith, the Qur’an uses the term to refect the eforts one ought to make to enter paradise, as well as stirring the believers to go to physical batle against non-Muslims for the sake of Allah and for his cause.

98 Book Reviews

Te Epistle to the Romans. New International Greek Text Commentary. By Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016, 1208 pp., $50.00 hardback.

“No other leter in the NT is as important [for the church] as Romans,” says professor Emeritus of Wyclife College, Richard N. Longenecker (xv). He further contends, that whenever this leter is seriously studied, “there has occurred in the church some type of renewal, reformation, or revolution” (xiii). It is this legacy of Romans that has motivated Longenecker to ofer his interpretation of the leter in the latest volume of the New International Greek Testament Commentary series. As one of the leading NT scholars of our day, Longenecker exudes competent exegesis to provide a fresh analysis of Romans, while at the same time building upon the work of past commentators. In this way, Longenecker aims to impact the contemporary Christian community’s thoughts and actions through Paul’s gospel presented in Romans (1). Longenecker begins his commentary with a brief introduction, highlighting the challenges interpreters will face working through the leter. From the outset, Longenecker directs readers to his previous work, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Leter, for a more thorough treatment on maters related to authorship, dating, and seting (4). Tough one must refer to another publication for an extensive introduction to Romans, Lon- genecker nevertheless, states that he will delve into these topics as needed throughout the exegetical portions of the commentary. While readers may desire more from the introduction, they will likely appreciate the way Longenecker organizes the material into three main sections: (1) maters largely uncontested, (2) maters recently resolved, and (3) maters extensively debated today. Concerning the maters largely uncontested (i.e., authorship, occasion, and date), Longenecker afrms Pau- line authorship, stating that Paul likely wrote Romans from Corinth during the winter of A.D. 57–58 (5–6). Next, Longenecker moves on to maters recently resolved by frst addressing the presence of glosses and interpolations

SBJT 20.2 (2016): 99-114 99 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

in the manuscripts. He optimistically concludes, “it is always possible, of course, that minor glosses or extraneous interpolations have somehow become incorporated into a particular biblical text ... Sufce it to say that NT textual criticism has come a long way during the past few decades, with the result that a great many of the textual issues … have been resolved” (7). In a similar vein, Longenecker agrees with Hurtado and Marshall concerning the authenticity of the ending of Romans 16 (7–8). Longenecker gives the greatest atention to the maters most debated today. Te frst issue concerns the identity of the recipients. Longenecker concludes the Christian community consisted primarily of Gentiles, but also included some Jews, who were heavily infuenced by the “Jerusalem church.” However, this community is not to be characterized among the Judaizers (9). Second, he explores the purpose of the leter, seeing the primary purpose to be two-fold: frst, to impart a “spiritual gif,” namely his contextualized gospel for the Gentiles; and second, to seek missionary assistance to take the gospel to Spain. He, furthermore, detects a few sub-purposes: (1) to defend against criticism of his person and message; (2) to give counsel regarding relations between the weak and the strong; and (3) to provide guidance for submiting to the Roman authorities (10–11). A third issue debated is the genre of Romans. Longenecker categorizes the work as a “leter essay,” namely instructional material writen in the form of an epistle (14). Fourth, he provides a discussion on the rhetorical genre of Romans, noting that scholars disagree whether Romans is forensic, deliberative, or epideictic. In the end, Longenecker proposes that the leter is “protreptic,” namely a word of exhortation, mixed with the “then-current Jewish ‘remnant theology’ rhetoric” (15). Finally, he discusses the central focus of Paul’s presentation in Romans. Longenecker contends that Romans 5:1–8:39 is the central focus of the leter, where Paul desires to present “the message of the Christian gospel as he had contextualized it in his preaching to those who were ethnically Gentiles and without any preparatory religious knowledge gained from either Judaism or Jewish Christianity” (17). Te rest of the introduction identifes prominent thematic features to be found within the exegetical portions of the commentary. Tese include: (1) the structure of passages, (2) the use of OT quotations and allusions, (3) the use of pre-Pauline confessions, and (4) narrative substructures (20–27). Tese subjects are expounded upon at the beginning of each major section in

100 Book Reviews the commentary. Finally, Longenecker concludes by identifying the GNT4 and NA27 as his base text, and that for each passage, he will discuss every variant cited in the GNT4 along with notable other textual issues acknowledged in NA27 and major commentators (27). As readers continue into the main body of the commentary, they will notice that it is organized under six primary headings: (1) Translation, (2) Textual Notes, (3) Form/Structure/Seting, (4) Exegetical Comments, (5) Biblical Teology, and (6) Contextualization for Today. Readers will appreciate this layout and division of the material, which makes for a pleasant reading experience. Afer providing his own translation of the passage, along with a brief discussion of the textual maters, Longenecker examines the form, structure, and seting of that passage. Te purpose of this section is to assist the reader in placing the particular section of Scripture within the rhetorical argument and context of the leter. In doing so, he recognizes signifcant areas of debate regarding the structure, theological content, and exegesis. For example, in his treatment of Romans 5:12–21, Longenecker expounds upon how the church has wrestled with Paul’s understanding of Adam’s sin, its universal efect upon the world, and the relationship between human sin with Adam’s (577). Furthermore, he identifes key rhetorical features of the passage, important exegetical issues to be resolved, the relationship of this passage to all of 5:1–8:39, an argument for the main thesis of the passage, and fnally concludes with a structural outline (577–85). Tis unique way of introducing each passage – at least for the NIGTC series – highlights a genuine strength of Longenecker’s work. Readers will fnd these sections helpful in approaching each passage, keeping important maters at the forefront. Moving into the “Exegetical Comments,” Longenecker provides commentary on each verse by dividing them into consecutive phrases. Te bulk of Longenecker’s atention is given to the rhetorical features of the passage, seeking to understand the emphases of each text. Tough an exegetical commentary, readers will notice that he does not delve greatly into grammar and syntax. Furthermore, he keeps his interaction with other commentators to a minimum resulting in few footnotes on the page. Nevertheless, when he does interact with commentators he regularly invites early church and Reformation theologians into the discussion. Tis is a refreshing addition

101 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

to the 21st century commentary, which typically limits interaction to contemporary interpreters. Each exegetical treatment of a passage concludes with a section called “Biblical Teology” and another entitled “Contextualization for Today.” However, readers may be disappointed with both of these sections, for they aren’t exactly as one may expect. For instance, the “Biblical Teology” portions are more like overviews of the doctrinal content of the passage, rather than an exploration of redemptive historical themes. For instance, in the section covering Romans 2:17–29, Longenecker does not address the theological signifcance of the spirit/leter antithesis. Neither does he address the relationship this passage has with the new covenant (318–23). Tis notable absence illustrates how the “Biblical Teology” sections of the commentary fall short of exploring Pauline theology, and how Romans fts within God’s redemptive plan. In a similar way, the “Contextualization for Today” sections do not atempt to apply the text, at least not on a pastoral level. Rather, it seeks to “contextualize” the truths of the passage for a general Christian audience. Regretably, this section rarely adds anything beyond what was already said under the heading of “Biblical Teology.” It is worth noting that throughout crucial points of the commentary, Longenecker provides various excurses to further explore important topics in Romans. Tese include treatments on: “Te Righteousness of God” (168–76), “Works of the Law” (362–70), “Exegetical and Tematic Maters in Rom 3:25a” (425–32), “Paul’s Message of Reconciliation” (566–70), “Paul’s use of ‘in Christ Jesus’” (686–94), and “Terms for ‘Remnant’ in the OT” (803–10). Readers will fnd these excurses to be a welcome addition to the main body of the commentary, ofen addressing important maters debated within Pauline studies. Unfortunately, the excurses are not listed in the table of contents, and are therefore hard to fnd without tediously fipping through the pages of the commentary. Besides some minor quibbles with the sections on “Biblical Teology” and “Contextualization” this is a fne commentary that both scholars and pastors will want to consult in their study of Romans. Longenecker has brought a lifetime of research to bear on this commentary, and his contribution is certainly appreciated. As to whether Longenecker has achieved his goal to set the course for the future of the church in promoting “a beter understanding of this most famous of Paul’s leters and a more relevant contextualization

102 Book Reviews of its message,” only time will tell (xv). Notwithstanding, those who read this work will fnd their understanding of Romans enriched.

P. Chase Sears Ph.D. Candidate Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3rd edition. By Millard J. Erickson and Edited by L. Arnold Hustad. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015, xiii + 498 pp., $36.99.

Millard Erickson (b. 1932) is retired and previously taught at several schools, including Southwestern Baptist Teological Seminary, Western Seminary, and Baylor University. Although still a hefy 498-pages, Introducing Chris- tian Doctrine is an abridged version of Erickson’s 1200-page work, Christian Teology (Baker, 2013) and aims to be an undergraduate level introductory textbook in systematic theology. For classroom use, conservative evangelicals can choose among Erickson’s work and two other systematic theologies by Wayne Grudem and John Frame, both of whom also have larger and abridged versions of their textbooks: Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Teology (Zondervan, 1994) and abridged Bible Doctrine (Zondervan, 1999) and John Frame’s Systematic Teology (P&R, 2013) and abridged Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Teology (P&R, 2006). Rather than summarize Erickson’s work, I will touch upon his doctrinal positions on major topics of discussion and controversy. On the doctrine of Scripture, Erickson holds to verbal-plenary inspiration (50-57) and afrms full inerrancy, that is, “while the Bible does not primarily aim to give scientifc and historical data, such scientifc and historical assertions as it does make are fully true” (60). Erickson has helpful nuances in defning inerrancy and dealing with alleged errors in the Bible (63-66). Erickson is ambiguous about whether he holds to the classical Trinitarian- ism of the early church creeds. He seems to deny the classical Trinitarianism for two reasons: (1) he does not distinguish the persons within the Trinity according to the properties of being unbegoten, begoten, and spirated; and (2) he argues for equivalent authority within the Trinity as opposed to

103 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

gradational authority (115-16). Teologians have called into question such discussions about authority within the Trinity and warned against relating the Trinity to gender roles of male headship and female submission in the home and church (e.g., the numerous blog posts of Fred Sanders, Michael Bird, and Stephen Holmes). Also problematic is Erickson citing Augustine and Calvin as supporting his view of equivalent authority (116). Augustine and Calvin neither speculated on issues of gender and Trinity nor is it likely that they would support Erickson’s position. Erickson holds to classical Christology as afrmed at the Council of Chalcedon (264-67) and provides a very helpful diagram comparing the orthodox view of Christ against the six basic heresies of Ebionism, Arianism, Docetism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Eutychianism (266). Te diagram could be displayed in class lectures to give students the big picture regarding Christology and Christological heresies. Erickson holds to creation ex nihilo, although he believes that “God created in a series of acts that involved long periods, and that took place an indefnite time ago” (40), which implies that he holds to the day-age interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1, and that he believes in an old earth. Furthermore, he afrms what he calls “progressive creationism” (141), which seems very similar to theistic evolution. Erickson is Reformed in a Calvinistic sense (as opposed to a Lutheran or Anglican sense). However, Erickson advocates a “moderate Calvinism” (127): he afrms compatibilistic free will and denies libertarian free will (126-30). He afrms humanity’s total depravity and total inability (342-43). He afrms unconditional election (127-28; 346-48) but does not comment on double predestination; even in his larger work (Christian Teology, 841-59), Erick- son does not take a position concerning double predestination, although he seems to support sublapsarianism (851). Erickson does not comment on the extent of the atonement in this work, but in his larger work, he afrms a “limited-unlimited” atonement (Christian Teology, 753-63). Erickson seems to afrm irresistible grace, although he does not use the term (128-30; 348). Erickson afrms the perseverance of the saints and the hypothetical view of apostasy (381-84). Somewhat problematic is the fact that Erickson does not make clear to the uninformed reader what exactly “moderate” Calvinism is. An undergraduate student will surely be confused. Only the theologically informed reader will recognize that Erickson’s “moderate” Calvinism surfaces

104 Book Reviews through his afrmation of middle knowledge (130, n. 12), which is rejected by most Calvinists, through his support of “limited-unlimited” atonement, and through his ambiguous view of double predestination'and the later two issues are not even mentioned in this work, but only in his larger work. Erickson advocates the Reformed view of forensic justifcation by faith alone and briefy responds to the New Perspective on Paul and Roman Catholicism (363-69). Erickson also advocates the Reformed view of progressive sanctif- cation and briefy argues against Wesleyan notions of perfectionism (374-78). With regards to charismatic gifs (tongues and prophecy), Erickson seems to afrm an “open but cautious” view with regards to tongues, although he never explicitly states this position (309-314). Regarding prophecy, Erickson argues quite forcefully against modern-day prophecy (318-21). With regards to ecclesiology, Erickson advocates an elder-led congre- gational form of church governance (408-409). He argues for believers’ baptism, argues against baptismal regeneration (412-18), and seems to fuse the Reformed and Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper: Christ is spiritually present during the Lord’s Supper; yet the ordinance is primarily symbolic and commemorative (421-22). With regard to eschatology, Erickson seems to afrm historic premillennialism (460-61) in light of his rejection of dispensationalism (466), although he is not entirely clear what sort of premillennialism he supports. Erickson afrms postribulationism (466-67). Erickson also argues against univer- salism (475-77) and against annihilationism (477-78), thus representing Christian orthodoxy on the doctrine of hell. Erickson’s work will be useful for undergraduate courses because of its brevity and clear writing style. Erickson supplies review questions at the end of each chapter, which could be assigned as homework or become the basis of quizzes/exams. Perhaps the biggest weakness of Erickson’s work is the lack of bibliographic help. Even undergraduates are ofen assigned research papers and Erickson’s work would be greatly improved if he pointed readers to the best resources for further study. Erickson’s citation of sources in footnotes is sometimes plentiful and at other times sparse; a summary of helpful resources at the end of each chapter would greatly help students, especially students who are new to systematic theology. An evangelical conservative’s fnal choice in selecting a textbook for undergraduate studies will likely come down to Erickson, Grudem, and Frame (as

105 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

mentioned above). All three are excellent choices'although Frame is the weakest with regards to bibliographic helps. Perhaps the choice will come down to doctrinal and denominational preferences: Grudem’s support for charismatic gifs, modern-day prophecy, and complementarian gender roles contrasts sharply with Erickson’s rejection of modern-day prophecy and advocacy of egalitarian gender roles. Frame’s Presbyterianism and support of infant baptism contrasts sharply with Grudem and Erickson’s congrega- tionalism and support of believers’ baptism. While all three have writen excellent works, these doctrinal diferences may help instructors decide which text to use.

Nelson S. Hsieh Ph.D Candidate Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Inductive Bible Study: A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice of Hermeneutics. By David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011, xvi + 446 pp., $33.00 paper.

Inductive Bible Study is an update to Robert Traina’s Methodical Bible Study which was published in 1952. Te authors felt that a new book could more adequately address the hermeneutical developments since that time than a revision. Robert Traina was professor of English Bible at Te Biblical Sem- inary in New York and Asbury Teological Seminary. David Bauer is the Professor of Inductive Biblical Studies and Dean of the School of Biblical Interpretation and Proclamation at Asbury Teological Seminary. Inductive Bible Study gives a comprehensive introduction to practical hermeneutics. Bauer and Traina advocate for an inductive approach in which the meaning of a text is deduced from evidence “in and around the text” of Scripture. Inductive Bible Study is oriented towards a practical introduction rather than a theoretical introduction. It is mainly for readers who are looking for a “how-to” guide to biblical interpretation. Te authors do, however, include a short initial section dealing with recent theoretical discussions. Inductive Bible Study is divided into fve parts: 1) Teoretical Foundations, 2) Observing and Asking, 3) Answering or Interpreting, 4)

106 Book Reviews

Evaluating and Appropriating, and 5) Correlation. Most chapters conclude with a discussion of 2 Timothy 3:15–17 which illustrates the principles discussed in that chapter. Te initial three parts of Inductive Bible Study are the strength of the book. Te frst part (Teoretical Foundations) summarizes much complex material in relatively short space. Tough some of their conclusions warrant further thought (see below), students who want a quick orientation to theoretical maters such as critical-realism (Ben Meyer, N. T. Wright), canonical interpretation (Brevard Childs, Robert Wall), and implied-author will beneft from Bauer and Traina’s concise discussions. Te second (Observing and Asking) and third (Answering or Interpreting) parts form the core of the book and give a process of inductive Bible study. Bauer and Traina recognize the biblical books as the most basic literary unit of the Bible as opposed to shorter units, such as paragraphs or sentences. Only once a general grasp of an entire book is obtained do they recommend proceeding to smaller units within the book where most preaching and bible teaching is done. Unfortunately, when discussing appropriation (application) in part four, Bauer and Traina only discuss the appropriation of smaller sections of Scripture instead of how one may atempt to appropriate the message of whole books. When discussing observation and inquiry of the text, Bauer and Traina give a detailed list of observations, such as contrast, comparison, climax, etc., upon which interpreters may focus. Focusing on these specifc elements reinforces their emphasis on inductive study because these observations will reveal elements of the text which may indicate the author’s meaning. Tough focusing on these types of observations may seem restrictive at frst, narrowing the range of an interpreter’s focus should help them avoid making observations of the text which would be more deductive in nature. Despite the helpfulness of the frst three sections, Inductive Bible Study does contain some elements which diminish its usefulness. Te most perplexing issue within the book is the decision to discuss correlation, which is the term Bauer and Traina use for the formulation of biblical and systematic theology, in the last section and to suggest that evaluating and appropriating (how the text should be applied) should infuence correlation (337). Later, however, they say that “the goal of biblical study is the development of a biblical theology that may form the basis for Christian faith and life” (341). Here, it seems as

107 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

though they believe correlation should form the basis of appropriation, which would seem more fting for an inductive methodology. Tus, the section on correlation should precede the section on evaluation and appropriation. Bauer and Traina discuss theoretical maters in a short, initial section and then rarely refer back to these maters. Te one mater they continually keep before the reader’s atention is the notion of the implied author. Tis is unfortunate because most of the reasons for which they advocate appealing to the implied author instead of the historical author can be overcome by principles they discuss in their chapter on critical-realism. It is possible to speak of the meaning of a historical author as long as we recognize an acceptable measure of provisionality in our conclusions. Since this is the case, the concept of an implied author loses much of the signifcance that Bauer and Traina place upon it. For professors/teachers seeking a textbook in practical hermeneutics with a minimal amount of material spent discussing theoretical maters, Inductive Bible Study is worth consideration. With the frst section, it atempts to bridge the gap between practical and theoretical textbooks on hermeneutics, but it only introduces these theoretical issues. If a professor/teacher wants to focus exclusively on practical elements or wants a more in depth discussion of theoretical issues, it would be best to look elsewhere.

Casey Croy Ph.D. Candidate Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Toward a Canon-Conscious Reading of the Bible: Exploring the History and Hermeneutics of the Canon. New Testament Monographs 34. By Ched Spellman. Shefeld, UK: Phoenix Press, 2014, xiv + 278 pp., $110.00 hardback.

Ched Spellman is Assistant Professor of Biblical and Teological Studies at Cedarville University. One of his primary academic interests is the role of canon within biblical and theological studies, which is the focus of Toward a Canon-Con- scious Reading of the Bible. Spellman’s goal in this book is to demonstrate that the Christian canon is a legitimate hermeneutical control for biblical interpretation. Spellman’s book may be divided into two parts. Te frst part, consisting of chapters one and two, discuss the fact and formulation of the canon. Chapter

108 Book Reviews one focuses upon defning the term “canon” and how (or if) it difers from the term “Scripture.” Tose who are familiar with literature pertaining to canon will recognize that this is the central concern in what has become known as “the canon debate.” Some scholars argue that “canon” should be defned as an authoritative list of books whereas others argue that canon should be defned as a list of authoritative books. While noting that both defnitions have some merit, Spellman deems that those who deny that there was a growing collection of authoritative books even during the New Testament times are overly strict in their application of the term canon. In chapter two, Spellman develops the concept which is the name-sake of his book: the concept of canon-consciousness. Tis chapter discusses internal and external evidence which suggests that the biblical authors and communities were conscious of a growing body of canonical literature among them. Tough the physical unity of this body of literature was impossible due to the absence of the codex, these authors and communities where able to maintain the unity of this material through what he calls “canon as a mental construct.” In the second part of Toward a Canon-Conscious Reading of the Bible, Spell- man shifs his atention to the efect which the biblical canon may have on its readers. Chapter three discusses contextuality, which is the efect created when biblical books and/or groups of books are placed with each other within the canon. Spellman distinguishes between “mere contextuality” which is the unintentional yet unavoidable outcome of including books within the canon and “meant contextuality” which is the intentional shaping of a book to appear in conjunction with another canonical book or within a canonical grouping of books. Chapter four discusses intertextuality. Spellman notes that the concept of canon-consciousness provides obvious avenues for intertextual exploration. Te role of the canon within intertextual studies is to set the limits for the intertextual connections an interpreter may see. In the fnal chapter, Spellman discusses the identity of the implied reader of the biblical canon. Te implied reader of the Bible embraces the contextual world which the canon has developed and is able to recognize the thoughts and concepts developed within the canon. Essentially, the modern reader of the canon becomes the implied reader of the canon by becoming a more canon-conscious reader through continual engagement with the contents of the canon. Spellman has provided an excellent discussion of how the Christian canon may function within the feld of biblical interpretation. Te structure of his book was very well thought-out. Each chapter rests on the foundations

109 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

established by the previous chapter while forging ahead with new implications. His discussion of the “canon debate” summarizes an extensive amount of literature, and he comes to a reasonable conclusion, though I do wonder if some of those who represent a “narrow view” of the canon would fnd his argumentation somewhat dismissive. Distinguishing “mere contextuality” from “meant contextuality” will be an important step forward for those who are interested in the possibility of biblical contextuality. Although I am very appreciative of Spellman’s work, the one troublesome aspect of his book is that it leaves many questions concerning the hermeneutical infuence of the Christian canon unanswered. Undoubtedly, this is because Spellman is seeking to build a case for the hermeneutical function of the canon without being waylaid by some of the more difcult and speculative issues surrounding this topic. Eventually, however, these issues will surface. For instance, one question arising from Spellman’s discussion of canon-consciousness is “what should be made of instances where it appears that a biblical author’s canonical intentions were not followed during the development of the canon?” Te Christian canon contains numerous such instances. Te book of Ruth begins by seting itself within the time frame of the book of Judges and concludes with a strong Davidic focus, who is the main character within the book of Samuel. Te author seems to be doing everything possible to situate this book into the middle of what became the Later Prophets, but his wishes were not followed within the Hebrew traditions, which consistently place Ruth within the Writings. Or what about the Pentateuch, which is frequently referred to as one book but has traditionally been treated as a composite of fve books? Tere are obvious authorial afnities between Luke and Acts, so much so that a large strand of biblical scholarship approach these works as a two-part series, but if this was Luke’s intention, it was never followed within the reception history of these two texts. In Colosians 4:16, Paul indicates that he believed his leter to the Laodician church would be benefcial for the church of Colossae, perhaps even indicating that he believed this leter to have an equal status with Colossians. Paul’s leter to the Laodicians, however, has never been included, to our knowledge, within the collection of Paul’s leters. If Paul believed his leter to the Laodicians should have been canonical and it was not, what does this mean for the canon-consciousness of the biblical authors? Could their intentions be overridden by those who canonized their works?

110 Book Reviews

Another question arises from Spellman’s discussion of intertextuality: “what is the role of antecedent and contemporaneous literature for biblical interpretation?” Spellman believes the canon sets the limits for intertextual connections drawn from the biblical text. Yet, many of the connections made between the Bible and other ancient literature are essentially intertextual. For instance, many interpreters read Genesis 1 against the background of other ANE creation accounts, ofen resulting in a polemical aspect to their interpretation of the creation story. Tese are essentially intertextual correlations, but if one of the features of the canon is to limit the scope of intertextual possibilities, as Spellman claims, are these ANE creation stories rendered extra-textual and thus invalid for interpreting the Christian canon? Such background studies make up a large portion of modern biblical scholarship. Te prospects of Spellman’s approach, however, appear to necessitate rethinking how much of this ancient material can be used within biblical interpretation. In conclusion, Spellman’s work will challenge all readers to give a more thorough consideration to the hermeneutical implications of the canon. Tose who have already considered many of the canon’s hermeneutical implications will be exposed to new ways in which to consider many avenues of thought. Tough Spellman’s hesitance to address some of the more difcult issues of his approach will leave the reader to wade through these maters on their own, his reluctance to address these issues allows him to clearly express his opinion that the canon should be understood as a legitimate hermeneutical control.

Casey Croy Ph.D. Candidate Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Christian Teology and Its Institutions in the Early Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Teology. By Christoph Markschies. Baylor- Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Translated by Wayne Coppins. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015, xxv + 494 pp., $79.95 hardback.

Early Christianity is marked by the formation of Christian identity, the rise of heresy, and the clarifcation of orthodoxy. Walter Bauer’s thesis sought to overturn this binary narrative that pits orthodoxy and heresy against one

111 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

another in the development of early Christianity. In Christian Teology and Its Institutions in the Early Empire, early Christian scholars are aforded an opportunity to hear from European scholarship and from one who atempts to ofer a paradigmatic shif in how scholars think of earliest Christianity' distinct from and sympathetic with Bauer. Christoph Markschies’s primary aim is to revise a program of “understanding the history of Christian theology on the basis of the respective institutional contexts” (xiii). His thesis, moreover, considers the diferent institutional contexts of Christian theology so as to provide common and variegated diferences in 2nd and 3rd century ancient Christianity (xx). Tus, it is an atempt to fnd some commonality with the Walter Bauer thesis and with those in opposition to him. Tis atempt is sensitive to the historical critical norms of antiquity, while ofering a diferent historical paradigm that is typically given precedence. His thesis begins to move away from a binary narrative of scholarship'the Bauer thesis and his opponents. Methodological considerations refect upon the distinguishing elements of historical analysis and theological interpretation'“a ‘mixo-philogia-theologia’ that excessively mixes historical analysis and theological interpretation may correspond to the tradition of the discipline” (xiii). Tat is, a balance is found between a pure social scientifc study and the history of dogma. He merges the two features. Te development of Markschies’s thesis progresses through four saturated chapters. In chapter one, “Teology and Institution,” he recognizes the dif- fculty of standardized language in the study of antiquity. Defnitions and terms change, and so, his starting point is a clarifcation of “theology” and “institution” (1). Concepts of “theology” were developed and connected with other terms like φιλοσοφία and κανών or regula in early Christianity (5). In the third century, the term relates to “Trinitarian theology” by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the later Cappadocian theologians. “Institutions,” then, refers to a hierarchically structured majority that allows for stability and duration (26). Tese two elements permit, for Markschies, the subsequent discussions on the development of Christian theology within particular institutions in 2nd and 3rd century Christianity. Chapter two, “Tree Institutional Contexts,” tightly builds upon the lexical clarifcation of “Teology and Institution.” Markschies explores three diferent institutional features of early Christianity and their connection to “theology.” First, he investigates the concepts of free teachers and Christian schools. If

112 Book Reviews scholars desire to investigate Christian theology as articulated by Justin (“free teachers”) or Origen (organized education), then, as Markschies argues, “one must frst deal in somewhat greater detail with the ancient system of education” (31). Next, he notes how “Montanism” is a paradigm for explicit theology and not toward philosophical instruction. Last, Markschies navi- gates the history of Eucharistic worship services and prayers as an example of implicit theology. Te Eucharist and Christian worship helped stabilize Christian doctrine, thus serving as an “institution” for Christian doctrine. In chapter three, “Institution and Norm,” Markschies moves from a strict “institutional” discussion to an element that stabilizes an institution. In this way, he addresses the “connection between institution and norm” and “between institutionalization and norm-seting” (192). In a variety of institutions, Markschies asks if the “norming process” is the same among the variety of institutions, or if the norming process varies with each entity. For Christian theology, it is the canon'largely, the New Testament'as the “norming process” that Markschies seeks to inquire. In the fnal chapter, “Te Identity and Plurality of Ancient Christianity,” the ideological and historical concerns of Markschies merge together. I would suggest this to be, by far, the most important chapter as it brings all the previous fndings to a close. In what ways do the “institutions,” “norming” features, as well as the “theologies” permeate the theology of ancient Christianity? He assesses and comments on the critical reception of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1971; English trans.). In the end, Markschies concludes with a “complementary model” that features unity, identity formation, and plurality in earliest Christianity (335). “Christianity in antiquity,” as Markschies notes, “can be described as a very complex process in which identity and plurality diferentiate themselves in relation to each other in certain institutions, limits of a legitimate pluralism are probed, and the identity-forming center is interpreted in certain institutions of theological refection and disseminated in this way” (344). Terefore, as he concludes, the plural identity can concentrate around an “identity-forming center” of singleness and unity (344–45). In general, the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity is good for English speaking scholarship. Te previous volumes in this series devote themselves to the study of New Testament, the Gospel of Mathew, and Canon. Tis new volume by Markschies now afords English-speaking scholars to

113 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20.2 (2016)

garner quick access to a leading German fgure within early Christian scholarship. With the language barriers between the two continents, Anglophone scholars may quickly hear the voice of modern German critical scholarship. Another advantage in considering this book is noting the potential paradigmatic shif in critical early Christian scholarship. Markschies ofers a way forward in terms of methodology. He atempts to be sensitive to the Bauer thesis of Orthodoxy and Heresy as well as to modify his thesis with those in opposition to Bauer (xx). I wouldn’t call this, necessarily, a via-media position. It is helpful to note the shif'if Markschies is correct'in binary methodological options. Markschies has surely lef us with something further to consider. I do, however, have a few criticisms, only mentioning one shall sufce. I wonder if the history of dogma and social institutions is a complete way of viewing the formation of early Christianity. If Markschies’s position of uni- fed plurality is correct, why did he give no consideration to early Christian hermeneutics or Trinitarianism? Tese two features emerge as staple markers of Christian identity. For example, part of Origen’s hermeneutical paradigm is also set against Jewish readings of texts (see Peter Martens, Origen and Scripture: Te Contours of the Exegetical Life [OUP, 2012]). Furthermore, some Trinitarian constructs are central features Justin Martyr’s apologetic, and Tertullian’s and Origen’s anti-monarchian distinction. It is without reservation that early Christian scholars should consult and read Christian Teology and Its Institutions. Markschies’s “complementary model” is a critical feature to grasp for critical readings of early Christianity. Early Christian scholars can hear frst hand from European scholarship that is shaping the critical guild. Te target audience of this text is designed for graduate students and early Christian scholars. It is an advanced text that requires some knowledge of the early Christian historical paradigms and general awareness of methodological diversities.

Shawn J. Wilhite California Baptist University Riverside, CA

114