CHRIST IN THE QUR' AN

Dilip Chetty

INTRODUCTION

At a time when the study of other religions are so common, it must be of interest to all Christians to know what 1.2 billion Muslims think of their Lord and Savior, and to compare His portrait taken from the Quran and later Muslim literature with that given in the Bible!

One must begin by taking note that Islam is the only one of the non-Christian religions which gives a place to Jesus Christ in it's sacred book, and yet it is also one of the great non-Christian religions which denies His deity, and His work of atonement, in it's sacred scriptures.

In none of the sacred books of the Ancient East is Christ ever mentioned. The Qu'ran alone gives Him a place, but does so by displacing Him. With regret it must be admitted that there is hardly an important fact concerning the life, person and work of our Savior which is not ignored, perverted, deviating or simply denied by Islam.

My reason for writing this book is to describe the different Muslim interpretations of Jesus Christ (nabi Isa) and his works, hence equipping Christians for dialogue and evangelism!

1. THE NAMES AND TITLES OF JESUS ( `ISA )

There are somewhat 20 names and titles given to Jesus in the Qu'ran and in Muslim tradition. Most of these names are also found in the Bible. Names and titles like Messiah, Prophet, Messenger, the Word and Servant of God. However the meanings given to these name and titles in the Muslim tradition differs vastly from what we as Christians understand.

Allow me, now to elaborate on this fact by briefly disc~ names and titles used for Jesus in Islam.

`ISA

`Isa is the most commonly used name for Jesus in the Muslim world. It is generally used with the prefix ` Nabi' (prophet), and often with the addition `son of Mary' .

It is believed that Nabi `Isa did not yet die a physical death. During his time on earth the Jews conspired to murder him. Allah therefore raised Nabi `Isa physically, while he was alive into heaven where he is today.

This is normally the explanation that accompanies the name `Isa. According to Muslim expositor , Allama ( 1990:36) the name `Isa is used 25 times in the Qu'ran, and is most probably derived from the Hebrew or Sama.ritan language. It is interesting to note that among the 25 places in the Qu'ran where the name `Isa is used, in 16 of them he is called the son of Mary, and in 5 passages his name is coupled with Moses (Musa), the great prophet of the Old Testament (Zwemer 1912:27).

The coupling of the name `Isa with that of Moses might be the reason for the form of the name, to correspond with the other rhymes of that character, e.g. Harut and Marut or Habil and Kabil etc....

Writing about the supremacy of the name of `Isa, Deedat ( 1983:4) states that "the Christian does not that the Muslim, does not take the holy name of Jesus in his own language without saying `Harat Eesa' (meaning revered Jesus), or `Eesa alai_hiss_salam' (Jesus, peace be upon him)."

Many Muslims confirm Deedat's view by saying that without these words `peace be upon him'(P.B.U.H), it is considered to be disrespectful, uncouth or barbaric.

In argument against the name `Isa, Dretke ( 1979:34) insist that the `Isa of Islam is only a distorted caricature of the true Jesus. "Isa", says Dretke , "is only a prophet in Islam; Jesus is the eternal Son of God. `Isa is only a great teacher, and a pattern for holy living in Islam, Jesus is really the real Teacher and the source of eternal salvation. `Isa is only a man in Islam, Jesus is the God_man, the Redeemer of humankind."

This I believe is an authentic difference to the `Isa of Islam and the Jesus of the Bible that is presently known be more than 3 billion Christians!

For further reference see the following Surahs in the Qu'ran - 2:81-87, 3:4045, 4:156-157, 5:112, 5:114, 6:85 & 9:31.

AL-MASIH (The Messiah)

This is also one the common titles for Jesus, both in the Bible and the Qu'ran. However, as usual, the meanings given to this title differs vastly between Muslim and Christian.

"Messiah, the title of Jesus" says Allama ( 1990:46), "is found 11 times in the Qu'ran, all in the Medinan surahs. Surah 3:40_45 relating the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, says: `his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary ." "While there is no Qu'ranic etymological explanation of the word `MASIH' says Parrinder ( 1995:31 ), it is not difficult for the commentators to find a number of meanings". The origin of course is ultimately Hebrew, through the Syriac, but it seems to have been well known in north and south Arabia in prehistoric times.

The Hebrew `Masiah' was used of kings and patriarchs, and especially of the coming `Deliverer'. The was translated in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament as `Christos'. Parrinder (1995:31-33) quotes three meanings of this title, given by Muslim commentators.

Firstly, Firozabadi comments that `Masih' was the surname of Jesus, a title of honour, like al-Siddiq `the truthful' a surname of Abu Baker the first Caliph.

Secondly, some commentators found the etymology of the word in the root `msh' -` to touch'. So Jesus was the one whose touch purified from all faults.

Thirdly, others like Razi suggested that a derivation of Masih from the verb meaning `to travel', for Jesus was said to have travelled much or gone on `pilgrimage'.

Later Amed Deedat (1983:13-14) goes further by adding his `piece to th puzzle' by stating , "the word Christ is derived from the Hebrew word `Messiah', Arabic `Masih'. The root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning `to rub to massage' or `to anoint'. Priest and kings were anointed when being consecrated in their office. But in its translated Grecian form, it seems unique: uplifting Jesus only."

In his usual mocking tone, Deedat continues, "the Christians has the knack of transmitting baser metals into shining gold. What he wants to do, is translate names into his own language" (1983:14).

While dusting the surface the above mentioned Muslim scholars, fail to see the deeper theological understanding of Christ as Messiah and Saviour of humankind. A deeper understanding is only revealed by the Holy Spirit, whom these Muslim theologians have never met!

(See Surah 3:40/45, 4:156-157, 5:19117, 5:72/76, 9:30-31).

NABI (Prophet)

Jesus is only once called Prophet in the Qu'ran (19:30-31), but he is always named in the company of other prophets and figures of old, most of whom are mentioned in the Bible. Zwemer (1912:30) states that "the number of prophets and apostles sent by God, according to Muslim teaching amounts to 124 000, others say 240 000, and others 100 000." Jesus is said to merely be one of the prophets among these thousands.

As in the Bible the prophets in the Qu'ran appears as messengers of a particular kind, chosen for a special purpose, with a message from God. The prophets brought the books of divine revelation: the Tawrah (law), the Zabul (Psalins), and the Injil (Gospel). "similarly" says Parrinder (1995:38) "Mohammed brought an Arabic Qu'ran to also make the Arabs a people of the book." He was the prophet of the community (al-nabi al-umma).

Parrinder ( 1995:40) gives the names of the six most respected and dignified prophets in the Islamic world - among which Jesus is highly esteemed. The first prophet is Adam, the `chosen of God' (Safi Allah). Than, Noah the `prophet of God' (Nabi Allah). Abraham, the `friend of God' (Khalil Allah).

Moses, the `converser with God' (Kalim Allah). Finally, JESUS, THE SPIRIT OF GOD ( Ruh Allah), and Mohammed, the `apostle of God' (Ra Allah). Mohammed is also seen as the `seal of all the past prophets' he is the last and final prophet that `sums up' the messages of all the other prophets. In the Bible, Jesus is also known as a prophet, but far above that , he is known as the Saviour of the world and the Son of God! Islam reduces the deity of God's Son to a mere `holy man'- a prophet. Islam has no full revelation of Jesus as the Son of God. Their limited knowledge of Jesus has led to their erroneous and inaccurate doctrine, that Jesus is merely a prophet and not the Son of God!

(see surahs 7:156/157, 2:73/78, 3:69/75, 2:130/136, 4:16/163, 5:48-50)

`ABD (Servant)

The word `Abd' means `a servant' - and in the Qu'ran, Jesus is called the `servant of Allah'. The word `abd is translated by Muslim expositors as ` man of Allah' or `the property of Allah' (Parrinder 1995:34). The term `servant' is closely connected to worship and submission. It is said in Islamic tradition that `abd' or `servant' does not imply the harsh bondage that is associated with slaver, but complety surrender to the worship of Allah.

To many Muslim scholars the title `abd' shows the humanity of Jesus as servant. This, they therefore argue, implies that there is no divine side in Jesus. He cannot be called the `God-man' .

The Muslim world fails to see that because Jesus was the perfect `Abd Allah' (servant of God), he was willing to die on calvary. Nobody forced Jesus to die on the cross - he surrendered his life in total submission to God - as a tme `Abd Allah!'

(see surahs 4:170-172; 19:30-31; 43:57-61).

RASUL (Messenger).

The title messenger, which is given to Jesus, is used at least ten times in the Qu'ran. "Messengers" says Parrinder ( 1995:43-44) "have been sent with suggestions from God, messengers bring good tidings and warnings, so that the people should have no a ume vs against God after the coming of the messengers."

Both Jesus and Muhammad are called `messengers of Allah'. This is all they are, states the Qu'ran (5:75_79, 5:19_20). Muhammad, the messenger was sent to warn people about future judgment, and to remind the people about past messengers like Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus.

Jesus was also sent as a mere messenger, in succession to the earlier messengers. In Islam Jesus is called `only or nothing' but a messenger (Parrinder 1995:44). Muhammad is exalted above Jesus, since Muhammad is the final messenger, the seal of all messengers.

While I agree that Jesus was a messenger, I disagree that this is all that He was. Even so, if there was another messenger to come after Jesus, He would have told us so! The fact that Jesus tells us of no such messenger, surely makes Muhammad a false, self - appointed messenger. However, Jesus did say that He will sent a `comforter'- which we Christians know for sure is the Holy Spirit. Surely, Muhammad is not the `comforter' that Jesus spoke about. (see: surah 2:81-87, 3:43-49, 4:156-157, 5:75-79 )

KALIMA (The Word)`

Kalimet Allah - `The W ord of God' . This title is used twice in the Qu'ran, in direct reference to Jesus. It occurs in other passages of the Qu'ran, but not as one of the titles or names of the Messiah. This reference to Christ is only made clear in surah 3:40 and surah 4:169.

In these two above passages, says Zwemer (1912:29) Jesus Christ is clearly referred to as the `word of God', and as the `word from God'. Modern Arabic usage clearly distinguishes between the `Word of God' in the sense of the Holy Writing, which is always referred to as `Kalima Allah' and the `word God' as His messenger which is `Kalimet Allah'.

Concerning the above two verses, Baidawi (Parrinder 1995:45) argues that "Jesus is called the `word of God', because he came into existence by God's command, without a father, so that he resembles the new creation." However, according to the Bible (John 1:1 ) " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD " The Qu'ranic interpretation of Jesus Christ as the Word, is sadly an unfortunate misinterpretation of `Isa Kalimet Allah' - Jesus the Word of God. the Bible states emphatically that Jesus ` the Word' was with God and WAS GOD!

Without any complications the Bible clearly states that JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD INCARNATE. Hence one is able to see that the Muslim interpretation of `the Word' (Kalimet Allah) is one of Islam's greatest errors!

RUH ALLAH (Spirit from God)

This title is used only once in the Qu'ran, in Surah 4:169. However, according to Zwemer (1912:30) most Muslims commentators are not in agreement as to the real significance of this verse, and whether this verse is a name that can be applied to Jesus or if the passage simply signifies that Jesus, with all other mortals, was partakers of the creative Spirit of God.

Parrinder (1995:49-50) comments that some Muslim scholars suggest that the term `spirit' means `mercy' while others suggest that the meaning of the word `spirit' can either be interpreted as `inspiration', `divine' or even `revelation'. Unless Muslim scholars look at the Bible for their answers, the title or name of Jesus as the `Spirit from God' (Ruh Allah) will still remain a mystery in the Islamic world!

AYA (A Sign)

This title of Jesus is found six times in the Qu'ran. According to Parrinder ( 1995 :51 ) this word was probably borrowed from Syriac or Aramaic. When this title is applied to Jesus, it simply means that Jesus was `a sign' sent from God, to the whole world and not just for the Israelites.

(see: Surah 21:91, 23:50-52, 3:44-50).

The irony of this Qu'ranic title `Aya' for Jesus, is that this sign sent from God is misinterpreted by the very people that call Jesus `Aya'. They call Jesus `Aya', but deny the reality of the true meaning of `Aya'.

MATHAL (A Parable or Example).

This title appears four times in the Qu'ran, with reference to Jesus as a parable, example or analogy.

"The root word `mashal' is rendered parable" (Parrinder 1995:52). While in the Christian sphere, Jesus alone can be seen as the perfect analogy of who God the Father is. The Muslim world denies this fact while still referring to Jesus as example, parable and analogy!

(see: Surah 43:57, 43:59, 3:52, 3:59).

SHAHID (A Witness)

The Qu'ran teaches in nine Surahs, that at the judgment "each community v have a witness' (Parrinder 1995:52). As witness Jesus will be a witness against the Christians who deified him as God (when he was not God), and He will also be a witness for those who follow his teachings ( these apparently are the Muslims).

(Surah 4,157 / 159, 5,1 17; 4,45; 41,19/38; 28,75).

OTHER TITLES OF JESUS.

The other less popular titles for Jesus are `rahma' which means `a mercy' (surah 19,21).

`Wajih' which means the `eminent one' (surah 3,40 / 45), and in the same surahs another title is also found, that of `min al-mugarrabin' the `One brought near'. According to Baidawi (in Parrinder 1995:53) this title was intended to explain the `high place' that Jesus was given in Paradise, found in Surah (3,40/39).

`MUBARAK (Blessed) is also another of Jesus' titles which occurs nine times in the Quran.

(surah 19,32 /31; 43,59, 19,34/33; 19,35; 3,53 /60).

2. THE ISLAMIC VIEW OF JESUS

Again in the form of both interviews and academic material, I will examine the different interpretations of the life and the significance of Jesus in Islam. I will explore the birth, the miracles, the death, the resurrections and the deity Jesus Christ.

In the following pages one is able to see the erroneous doctrines accepted in Islam. I will only give a theological response to the Islamic view of Christ in section 4 of this book.

The annunciation and birth of Jesus

The annunciation and birth of Jesus can be found in Surah 3 and Surah 19 of the Quran. Surah 3 describes this birth and annunciation as follows:

45 Behold! The angels said: O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour. In this world and the hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God.

46 He shall speak to the people in childhood and mahirity and he sha be (o company) of the righteous.

47 She said "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said, "Even so God created what he willeth. When he hath decreed a plan, he but saith to it "Be" and it is.

Surah 3, 45-47 (Ali 1946)

While Surah 3, 45-47 is more in line with our canonical gospels the 19~'' Surah's account of the birth of Jesus is very obscure! For example Surah 19:23 says that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a palm tree in remote place.

Yusuf Ali (1946:772) Comments on this by explaining: The annunciation and the conception we may suppose, took place in Nazareth (of Galilee) say 65 miles north of Jerusalem. The delivery took place in Bethlehem about 6 miles south of Jerusalem. It was a remote place, not only with reference to the distance of 71 miles, but because in Bethlehem itself the birth was in an obscure corner under a palrn tree, from which perhaps the .babe was afterwards removed to a manger in a stable". Ali's use of the words "we may suppose" and "perhaps the babe was afterwards removed" shows his uncertainty in the Quranic scriptures!

In Surah 9:27-33 it is said while Jesus was in the cradle (only a few days old) he defended his mother from being accused of immorality. Yusuf Ali (1946:773) explains that the child Jesus spoke by a miracle, defended his mother, and preached to an unbelieving audience, and then he quotes the gospel saying that the child Jesus advanced in wisdom and in favour with God and men. Adding to Yusuf Ali, Baidawi (in Paminder 1995:78) goes on to say that Mary also when young spoke as Jesus did. Another tradition said that eleven children had spoken in their cradles, thought a contradictory comment was that Jesus was the only one to do this, since he was the "Mahdi" (the guided one). Finally in Surah 9:24-26 Jesus, sitting in Mary's lap, told the palm tree to bend down and give his mother some of its fruit, and the tree obeyed. Than he told it to raise up and give some water hidden under its roots.

One is clearly able to see that from the annunciation of the birth of Jesus in surah 3:45-47 above, to now, the Islamic thought has surely moved away from the true account of the nativity as seen in the canonical gospels.

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS

The miracles of Jesus are important to Jesus. To some extent these miracles point to the divinity of Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus went about healing the sick, casting out demons and raising the dead. In fact the canonical gospels record at least 35 miracles. Some of these miracles are unique to Jesus' ministry and never equalled in history by any other person. It was miracles like; calming the storm (Matt 8:23-27), feeding the 5000 (Matt 14:13-21), and turning water into wine (John 2:1-21 ) these are just a few examples.

The Qu'ran however, also recognize Jesus as a miracle worker in surah 3:49 "... and I healed those that are blind, and the lepers and I quicken the dead. This surah leaves out the other miracles of Jesus, but as usual, the Qu'ran moves away erroneously from the Bible by also adding that Jesus made birds of clay and than made them to fly. No account of flying clay birds is found in Biblical Christology.

When confronted with the miracles of Jesus, Muslim scholars like Al-Baji (in Gauduel 1984b: 184) and Faruq Sherif (1985:62) only have one thing to say: `the miracles of Jesus does not prove his deity.' Because other prophets like Moses, Elijah and even Mohammad himself operated in miracles, and they do not claim divinity. But what Muslim scholars do not realize is that among all these `miracle workers' it is only Jesus that claimed divinity, `I and my father are one' (Jn 8:19). `Whoever saw the father hath seen my' (John 6:46), `no man comes to the father but through me' (Matt 11:27).

The miracle of Jesus turning water into wine is even mocked by some Muslims. Speaking about this miracle the ever mocking Amed Deedat (1990:41-42) concludes that Jesus' first miracle is to be responsible for the 11 million alcoholics in the USA, the 300 000 alcoholics in South Africa and most probably the rest of the alcoholics in the whole wide world! He closes his argument by bluntly stating: "hence this alleged miracle wine continues to flow like a river in Christendom." (Deedat 1990:42)

The miracles of Jesus, I believe, have suffered much violence by the Moslem world, a world that "allegedly esteems "Isa Nabi " (the prophet Jesus), now degrades his works! To the Christian the greatest miracle of Jesus was his resurrection. This was not just a miracle but it is also the corner stone and foundation of the Christian faith. Yet it is this ONE greatest miracle that is denied by Moslems and enforced by the Qu'ran!

THE DENIAL OF JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD

The Qu'ran, says Faruq Sherif (1985:62) condemns any theory that derogates in any manner whatsoever, from its fundamental conception of the "oneness of Allah", is absolute. Surah 21:26 say "they (the Christians) say that God most gracious has begotten offspring. Glory be to Him: they (the prophets) are but servants raised to honour. "

Other passages in the same Surah (21,31) emphasise the rejection of the doctrine of Sonship.

Surah 43, 59 - 64 states that ` Jesus was no divine being, but just an Apostle of God. Responding to this verse, one of my dialogue partners declared: "The doctrine maintaining that Jesus is the Son of God, and the doctrine of the trinity are treated by the Quran as fabrications, sheer blasphemy and unpardonable polytheism".

Al_Boji (in Gauldeul 1984b: 180) supports Sheriff by starting that Jesus virgin birth does not prove his deity - since Adam also was without natural mother and father and he is not claimed to be God nor the son of God.

This support for the denial of Jesus as the Son of God is built up further by Kataregga's (1980:131-132) argument "Moslems are genuinely opposed to the belief by Christians that "Isa (P.B.U.H.) was divine or the "Son of God". The basis of Moslems objection is Quranic. Allah says, "it is not befitting to the majesty of Allah that He should beget a son" (Sarah 5:75)". This denial continues to thicken when yet another Moslem I interviewed argued strongly by stating: " The Christians view of the incarnation seems to compromise God's transcendence and sovereignty while at the same time exalting a mere man to God-like status. By denying the incarnation, Islarii is really affirming both the absolute transcendence of God and the rightful status of man as the servant and `khalifa' of God on earth."

All the Muslims I interviewed were strongly influenced by the teaching of Muslim propogationalist Amed Deedat.

His book `Chris in Islam' (1983) is written as an open attack on Jesus' deity as the Son of God. In his usual mocking tone Deedat declares "God has Sons by the tons... can't you (Christians) see that every righteous person, every Tom, Dick and Harry who followed the will and plan of God was a Son of God (pg 28)

However, there is no mocking that will ever erase the Biblical fact that Jesus Christ is God incarnate - the Son of God worthy of honour and worship! (More will be said on this fact in chapter 4 of this essay)

THE DENIAL OF JESUS AS GOD

Since Muslims deny the doctrine of incarnation (that Jesus is the Son of God) the next step will be to also deny that Jesus is God - part of the Trinity.

As quoted above, one of the Muslim interviewers stated that `the doctrine of the Trinity was a fabrication, sheer blasphemy . . . ". All other Muslims that I interviewed argued very emphatically that the doctrine of the Trinity proved that Christianity was a polytheistic religion, having 3 different `gods' - the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Amed Deedat goes at length to deny that Jesus is not God. He does this in His book ` The God that never was' (1983) In this book he argues that Jesus was not God, since Jesus had a birth (pg 3), Jesus had a family (pg 5), Jesus was tempted (pg 7) Jesus was hungry, thirsty and he slept (pg 10) and he was killed and buried. (Pg 12)

Amed Deedat's thinking, it seems was much influenced by the Muslim apologetic A1 Baji who affirms: ` Jesus is not God! He is a created man and a servant under authority, not exempt from the proofs of created_ness, such as movement, rest, cessation, passing from place to place, changing from one state to another, eating food, and death, which is appointed for all men."

Both Deedat and AI - Baji close off their argument by mentioning all the `humanistic' things that Jesus done, like walking, eating and sleeping etc. Both these writers conclude with the phrase `and he also died.' And I agree with them! But, where they close their argument (with the death of Jesus), this is were I open mine. Jesus was human because He experienced death, but He rose again on the third day, DEFEATING DEATH AND THE GRAVE, this is what makes Him Divine!


I think that the Muslims were too quick to place a `full-stop' after the death of Jesus. A ` Comma' should have been satisfactory, (because His death was just a little `pause' in God's plan for salvation).

WAS JESUS REALLY CRUCIFIED? IF NOT. WHO WAS CRUCIFIED ?

All Muslims deny the Biblical fact that Jesus was crucified or even died. Their defence in the Quran is found in Sarah 4,156

`They did not kill him or crucify him, but so it was made to appear to them. . . assuredly they did NOT kill him."

The Qu'ran becomes very contradictory on this subject, for two scripture references in the Quran says the very opposite -that Jesus DIED!

`O Jesus, I will cause you to die and will take you up to myself' (Sarah 3,48)


"Peace be upon me (`Isa) on the day I was born, peace be on me the day I DIE, and peace will be on me the day I shall be raised up again"

(Sarah 19,33-34).


Muslim scholars interpret these two verses as talking about Jesus' ascension - but they fail to explain the meaning of the word DIE!

Amed Deedat took time to write two books - "Who moved the stone?" (1978) and `The God that never was' (1983), trying to explain away the death of Jesus - with no effect. His two books are not only incomprehensive but also unscientific because it fails to produce any evidence for its case!

If Jesus was not crucified - then who was crucified? No Muslim scholar is certain on who was crucified in the place of Christ.

The words "so it was made to appear to them" (4,156) have been taken to mean that a person other then Christ was given his appearance by God and crucified in his stead.

"This mysterious person" says Sheriff Faruq (1985) "is probably Judas Iscariot." Where may I ask did Sheriff get such on obscured idea? From the non-canonical `Gospel of Barnabas' in paragraph 216 "And he, smiling, said: `now are ye foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot! And as he was saying this, soldiers entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way liken to Jesus" (in Gauleul, 1984:192). If one thinks this is absurd, think again, because A. Shafaat (in Gauleul 19846! 198) argues that Barabbas was crucified! "Now at that feast Pilate wanted to release one prisoner from among the Jews that he might be more popular with them, and he chose Jesus Barabbas, a notable prisoner who had made an insurrection.

And Pilate sent an order, that Jesus Barabbas be released. But the offices who received the order did make an error and released Jesus of Nazareth, and crucified Jesus Barabbas."

Other Muslim scholars go as far as to say that Simon of Cyrene (the black man that carried the cross of Jesus) was crucified, and Jesus escaped in between the crowd.

To most of the Muslim world ‘the mysterious man’ that was crucified will still remain a mystery. But then, without acknowledging the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ, life’s questions will always be a mystery!

IS THERE SALVATION FIUND IN JESUS CHRIST?

Because Muslims deny the death and crucifixion Jesus Christ, it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus would be meaningless to them. And if the resurrection has no meaning for them, then salvation in Jesus Christ makes no sense to Muslims.

Al Andalus (in Gaudel 1984: 188) for one, states this clearly in his article entitled: `The theology of redemption makes no sense.' Writing about the Christian theology of redemption, Al Andalus concludes: "this (redemption in Jesus) surely must be impossible (to believe) for the least of your pupils and the youngest of your followers, as it must be impossible (to believe) for the most ignorant of mankind and the least of them in understanding."

How AI' Andalus came to this solution, can be found in the writings of Islamic apologist A. Shafaat (in Gaudeul 1984: 198). Shafaat explains: "Islam holds man to be not in need of any salvation. Instead of assuming him to be religiously and ethically fallen, Islamic `da'wah' acclaims him as the `Khalifah' of Allah, perfect in form, and endowed with all this is necessary to fulfil the divine will in deed, even loaded with the grace of revelation! `Salvation' is hence not in the vocabulary of Islam. `Falah' or the positive achievement in space and time of the divine will, is the Islamic counterpart of Christian `deliverance' and `redemption"'.

Director of the Institute of Muslim Minority, S.Z. Abedin (in Anees 1991:59) in agreement with AI' Andalus, also concluded: "If we are truly to honour and respect the person of Jesus and live out the implications of his life, death and teaching, we can no longer make claims about the absolute uniqueness of Jesus, or the necessity of the encourager with the person of Jesus for salvation."

S.A. Abedin (in Anees 1991: 51) later concludes very openly that Christianity is a `cult of Jesus' - because of its theory (doctrine) of salvation. Muslim jokester, Amed Deedat (1983:43) takes advantage of Abedin's statement and he concludes also that the salvations story is just a `fairytale."

JESUS AND THE FUTURE:

A BRIEF LOOK AT ISLAMIC ESCHATOLOGY.

While driving on the M2 towards Johannesburg City Centre, I was surprised to see a very large bill board reading "Islam says: JESUS IS COMlNG AGAIN!" with contact telephone numbers at the bottom for any person wishing to know more about Islamic eschatology and the place of Christ in this final event. After phoning, I receive a book entitled: "How to recognize the promised Masih."

This book, which is written by the Mufti, A.H. Elias is a very comprehensive piece of work, describing Jesus as the coming Messiah, the description of his dissensions and his activities after his dissension. I will use this book to explain the place of Christ in Islamic eschatology!

THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘MASIH’

His name will be Essa (Jesus). His family name is Essa son of Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) His honourable name is Masih. His mother's name is Maryam, daughter Hanna. He was created by the power of `Allah Taala without a father he was born only of a mother.

He give life to the dead with the Command of Allah Taala, he cured the leper and those born blind. He put life into birds of clay. He received Divine protection when the `Bani Israel Juffa or' (Disbelievers) decided to kill him. And when the `Kuffaar' besieged him, Allah lifted him alive to the heavens. (Pg 1_3).

Some conditions at the time of His descent:

He will descend near Quiyamat , while descending he will be wearing two pieces of yellow cloth and be in full armour. As he descends his hands will be on the shoulders of two angels, and he will have a weapon in his hands with which he kills Dajjal (the devil), also at that time the Kaafirs (disbelievers) will die when his breath reaches them. (Pg4)

The promised Masih’s activities after dissention.

The Masih will break the cross (i.e. by removing worship of the cross). He will kill the swine (i.e. wipe out Christianity). He will wage Jihad (holy_war) against Dajjal and his friends. He will kill Dajjal (the devil) in Palestine near the Gate of Lud. After this the whole world will become Muslims and the remaining Jews will be picked out carefully and killed: than, Jihad (holy_war) will be suspended because there will be no Kufaar (disbeliever) left. (Pg5).

Apparent blessings during the era of the promised Masih:

Jealousy, hatred and malice will be removed from all hearts. A girl will be able to put her hand in the mouth of a snake without being effected. And a girl will chase a lion without being harmed. Wolves will stray amongst goats just a dogs protecting the flock.

The entire world will be filled with Muslims like a container gets filled with water. But these blessings will only last for seven years. (Pg 6)

While there are some similarities between Islamic eschatology and Christian eschatology, the vast difference that is between them are worlds apart! My response to this unbiblical Islamic eschatology will be given in chapter 4 of this article where I will separate fact from fiction!

3. THE SOURCES OF ISLAM.

In section two of this article we have dealt with the Islamic view of the birth, the life and the mysterious disappearance of Jesus. We have dealt with the facts that Islam denies the deity of Jesus, his death and crucifixion, and his resurrection. Hence, Islam has concluded that there is no salvation found in Jesus Christ, who we call, the Saviour of the World. The question that must be asked now is: "Where did these Muslims and Muhammad in particular get these weird ideas from?" Since the Quram has many traces of other religions and philosophies in it, like Judaism, Christianity, Arabian customs and Egyptian mythology (to name but a few) one is forced to conclude that Islam's theology of Christ is an inaccurate, unauthentic Arabian fabrication.

I therefore throw in my lot with Ritchie ( 1968:12) who states that: "Muhammad received all his knowledge of Christ form rather imperfect sources. It had to be secondhand mostly, since in Mecca there were only few Christians living. Further, the knowledge that they handed on was coloured by their own bias, and they evidently had no enthusiasm about passing on the actual source book in a language the Arabs could understand."

The result was that Muhammad speaks of the Gospel as a Book delivered to Jesus by God to be promulgated among His own community, just as he was publishing the Quran among the Arabs. The myth of the clay birds coming to life, for example goes to show that Muhammad had a very hazy knowledge of the New Testament, because he mixes the stories found in the Canonical Gospels with those found in the Apocryphal writings.

Now let us look at the main sources form where Muhammad draws his stories. The first of these sources are found in Jewish folklore.

JEWISH FOLKLORE:

"By far' says Gilchrist (19995:82) `the greatest number of portions of the Quran that can be shown to have pre-Islamic origins are those that relate to Jewish folklore and other fables that were woven around Biblical normatives in the Old Testament."

In the Islamic world, it is a well-known fact that their prophet Muhammad could not read. Hence, the only way that he came into contact with Jewish stories was by hearing some Jewish antiquity repeated in market - places and else where. In hearing these `interesting' stories, I must agree with Gilchirst (1995:82) that eventually Muhammad was unable to distinguish fact from fable" hence both appear side by side in the Quran!

There are many passage in the Quran that can be used to support the above statement made by Gilchrist, but allow me to just elaborate on one that I find interesting. It is the Old Testament story of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain. This story is found in the Quran in Surah 5,30-35.

"Then Allah sent a raven who scratched in the ground to show him (Cain) hide the shame of his brother' Surah 5.334

As usual half of this story is true and fact (biblical) and the latter half is false (fable). The true part is that Cain killed Abel because Abel's sacrifice was accepted by God º fact (Gen4: 4). The false part is that God sent a raven to show Cain how to bury Abel º fable.

According to Gilchrist, (1995:82) this Quranic account of the murder is a typical mixture of elements forms the Bible, the Midrash and the Mishnah. There is an analogy, say Gilchrist, to this statement in a rabbinical work of Jewish fables and myths known as the "Pirke Rabbi Eliezer' contained in the section of Talmudic writing known as the Midrash (which by the way predates the Quran by many centuries).

Borrowed Jewish folklore fables (found in the Quran) did not stop at the story of Cain and Abel however, it continued to destroy Biblical Christology and replaced it with myth and folklore!

CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AND SOURCES.

Muhatnmad gained some of his infonnation from authentic Christian source (e.g. The virgin birth of Jesus), and later added his own outfit to these stories. He also mixed authentic Christian material with legends and fables found from other heretical (or renegade) Christians. These legends and fables have been repeated in the Quran and are now accepted by almost 1.3 billion Muslims around the world! One such legend found in the Quran is where the disciples of Jesus are recorded as saying to him: `O Jesus son of Mary! Can your Lora (Surah 5,115)?

Allah takes heed to the prayer of Jesus and there after grants l equ Responding to this Islamic legend, Gilchrist (1995:93) writes:

`It is interesting to discover that the word used here for table `ma'idah' is drawen from a similar Ethiopic word used by the Abyssinian Christians for the `Lord's Table' the main sacrament of the Christian Church. The story is derived from a perversion of the story of the Last Supper.' By this one is able to conclude that what Muhammad wrote concerning Jesus Christ was not from the New Testament but form mythical records retained in apocryphal Christian works circulating around Arabia. I therefore agree with Gilchrist that:`Muhammad shows only too often that his materials were identical to those floating around Arabia at his time, a coincidence which shows that the Quran is not the composition of the omniscient God but rather of a man who was restricted to the limited sources of information available to him." (1995:94).

ARABIZN CUSTOMS.

In agreement with Gilchrist, C.W. Tisdal (1981:4-9) states that Mohammad did maintain ancient practices and beliefs of Arabia that he thought were good and reasonable.

It is interesting to note that some of Mohammad's quotations were taken from Arabian poets and orators. Tisdal, gives a classic example of this. It was the custom, says Tisdal, of the time for poets and orators to hang up their compositions upon the kaaba for everybody to read. One such poet, Imra' ul Cays whose poem `Sabaa Moallagat' spoke about the unity of God. Muhammad uses this to shoot down the Christians doctrine of the Trinity denying the deity of Jesus.

This incident just goes to show that the Quran is not the composition of the omniscient God. The connection between the poetry of Imra'ul Cays and the Quran is so obvious that the Muslim cannot deny the plagiarism! So they conclude that the poems of Imra'ul Cays and the Quran existed together in the Heavenly Tablet from all eternity!

BUDDHIST ORIGINS AND THE BIRTH OF JESUS.

The Quran contains a story about the birth of Christ, which has no parallel in the Canonical Gospels, but which is obviously drawn from Buddhist sources.

`So she conceived him and withdraw with him to a remote place. The pangs of childbirth came over her at the trunk of the palm-tree. She said: `would you that I had died before this and become something forgotten." One cried to her from below it: "Do not grieve, for your Lord has provided a stream below you. Speak also towards the palm-tree, it will let fresh ripe dates fall upon you. Eat, drink and be comforted." Surah 19.22-26.

According Gilchrist (1995:98-99) a duplicate theory; fc: e Buddhist Pali canon `Nidamakatha Jatakom' (Chapter 1, page 50-53). It is said here that when Maya, who was about to become the mother of Gautama Buddha, knew the time of her labour and delivery was near she obtained her husband's permission to visit her father's home in a remote place. Suddenly, on the day of child birth came upon her, while under a palm-tree. The palm tree offered its diets and a stream of water from under it, to the mother of Buddha.

In this case says Gilchrist (1995-99); the link with the Quranic narrative is confirmed by the fact that, unlike the nativity story on the road to Egypt, the actual birth of the child took place below the tree. In the Quran however, it is Jesus rather than Buddha who was delivered under the plans tree!

Mixed with Jewish Folklore, Arabians customs, poems and Buddhist legends, Quranic Christology can just not be taken serious! It is so far from the Biblical truth that it is almost impossible for a Christian to identify his / her Saviour in the Quran!

THE NESTORIANS AND THE DENIAL OF JESUS’ DIETY.

According to Hans Kung (in Watt 1991:6) the form of Christianity best known to the people of Mecca at that time was that of small groups of Christians from a Jewish background, who had never accepted the creedal formulation of the Great Church, but had managed to maintain their existence in relative isolation. Such groups would accept Jesus as Messiah but not as a divine hypostasis.

One such group says Watt (1991:6) was the Nestorians. The Meccan Arabs became closely associated with Nestorians and learned there Christology mainly forms this sect.

Nestorians believe that since God is eternal he cannot be a human infant. Nestorius and his followers emphasized the humanity of Jesus. Nestorius also had great difficulty in explaining how God's eternity and impassibility can be united with temporal humanity, since God cannot suffer.

Since the ties of Meccan Arabs and Nestorians were so close, it is no wonder than that there are parallels in both Islamic and Nestorians Christology.

OTHER INFLUENCIAL SOURCES.

There are many other foreign sources that influenced Muhammad's view of Jesus Christ. Watt (1991:5) mentions the influence of monophysites, Gilchrist (1995:78_79) mentions influence from both Syriac religions and Persians mythology, and Tisdall's (1981) entire book `Sources of Islam' mentions other sources from Greek to Egyptians influences.

May I than conclude this section of the article by stating that there is abundant evidence that the Quranic teachings of the birth, the life and ministry and the mysterious disappearance of Jesus before his crucifixion is dependent on a number of different legends. This fact seriously undermines its claim to have been a revelation form God as the final Scripture for all humankind!

A THEOLOGIAL RESPONSE TO THE ISLAMIC VIEW OF JESUS CHRIST

Having taken note in the previous section, about the heretical sources of Islam in its description of Jesus Christ, it is now easier to formulate a theological response to the Muslim world.

Firstly, it must be noted that what the Quran says about Jesus a NOT COMPLETELY heretical, there is some truth that can be found.

Secondly, and most importantly, one must realize that the Quran is saturated with HALF TRUTHS about Jesus Christ. For example, they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus but than couples it with heretical mythology about "bowing palm tree' that give water and fruits to Mary.

They believe that Jesus was on his way to be crucified, but then twist the story by crucifying Judas, Barrabas or Simon of Cyrene!

I hope to show much more of these half truth about Jesus Christ in Islam in the following pages.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS.

I agree with Watt (1983:101) that, Muslims are superficially in agreement with Christians about Jesus' birth, but it must be warned that this apparent agreement conceals important differences. The Quranic `narrative story' is not exactly the biblical story. The story in Surah 19, 16-23 says Parrinder (1975:80) is only partly parallel to the biblical account

The `remote' birthplace, under a palm tree (instead of in a stable in Bethlehem). And provision of water and fruit from the tree and Jesus speaking in the cradle are not accounts found in the Bible. Instead, similar accounts can be found in Buddhist tradition (SEE section 3) concerning the birth of Buddha! Fact and fable can clearly be distinguished in Surah 19, 16-23.

Finally, where in Christianity the virgin birth is associated with Jesus' divinity. In Islam, the virgin birth is reduced to a mere miracle, like any other miracle. Cragg (1985:258) concludes that though the Quran allows the virgin birth or Jesus, it is implacable in its oppositions to the belief that the one so born (Jesus) is divine.

THE WORKS OF JESUS (His Miracles)

That Jesus was a great healer of the sick, says Parrinder (1975:83 ) is confirmed by the Quran. The Quran however, only mentions certain Miracle stories from the Bible. Many miracles of Jesus are ignored in the Quran.

The miracle story of Jesus speaking form the cradle, Jesus making clay birds come to life and Jesus praying to God for a table of food from heaven are alien to the Bible but are found respectively in Buddhist tradition, apocryphal writing and Jewish folklore.

The miracle story of Jesus changing clay birds to life is not recorded in the Bible. Biblical Miracles always have a purpose, because every action of Jesus was for a certain purpose. For example he healed to blind, simply because they had no sight. He fed the 5000 simply because they were hungry.

For what than did he give life to clay birds? Because there were not enough birds in Israel? or because Jesus was in the entertainment business? No! the `clay birds' story is not an authentic miracle of Jesus, because all of Jesus' miracles were for a purpose, not for a show!

Certainly, Muhammad got this myth from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (in Parrinder 1975:84) - a non-canonical gospel. Similar to the myth about the `clay birds' is the myth about the `heavenly table', which is also found in the noncanonical apocryphal books (see sect 3 ). Muhammad confuses the story of the `last supper with the words of the Israelites during the Exodus "They spoke against God, saying, `Can God spread a table in the wilderness?" (Psalins 78:19. ) Whatever Mohammad did, he presented a perversion of the story of the last Supper!

Secondly, the `nature miracles' of Jesus - calming the storm (Mark 4:35-41), walking on the water (Mark 6:45-56) speaking to the Fig tree (Matt 21:18-22) and feeding the 5000 (Mark 8:1-21) are not mentioned in the Quran. These miracles, I believe were NOT left out by coincidence! Heaving left out these miracles was a deliberate plot by Muhammad to discard any miracles of Jesus that would cause his later reader to doubt if Jesus was really who he said he was - the Son of God!

These `nature miracles' showed the extend of the power that Jesus had. Surely a mere prophet could not have power over nature - for only God controls nature! Only God has power over nature. Realizing this, Muhammad had no choice, I think, but to discard these miracles from his writings. Finally, the one greatest difference between Islam and Christianity, is the Muslims denial of the Miracle of the RESURRECTION! This one miracle superseded all other miracles in Jesus' life, even the miracle of the virgin birth. This one miracle is the very foundation upon which the whole of Christendom is built. It is the greatest miracle the world will ever know!

Yet this is the miracle that is explicitly denied in the Quranic Scriptures! Islam denied the greatest miracle of all. The denial of this miracle is the saddest thing that ever happens in the Islamic world! Hence, once again we see that the Jesus of the Quran cannot be reconciled with the Christ of the Bible - they are two different people.

JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.

Islam openly denies that Jesus is the Son of God. The passage in Surah 3,35_60 gives details about the birth of Mary herself and of John, son of Zechariah repeating that Jesus is, like Adam, only man!

The fact that God has a son, cannot be grasped by Muslin,the Q an confinn~. this fact.

`Creator of the heaven and the earth! How an he have a son when he was no consort' (Surah 6,1 O 1 ).

The same statement is repeated in Surah 12,3. In fact the Muslims go : r as to say that `the greatest unpardonable sin' is to say that Allah has a Son:

`The Christians say that the Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah's curse be upon them' (Surah 9,30).

The parallel to this verse is also found in Surah 10,63

"Because Islam denies Jesus as the Christ", says Malan (1997;26) , "They cannot know the Father who revealed Himself to the world though His Son (John 3:16). To reject the son, therefore, implicitly means to reject the Father who made Himself known through His only begotten son (see John 5:23, John 8:19, l John 2:22)."

Supporting Malan's argument, Gilchrist (1999:90) adds, "What to the Christians is the foundation of their belief - that Jesus Christ is God's own Son who alone could redeem us from our sins and take us into heaven - is to the Muslim one of the greatest expressions of unbelief and the one which, more than any other, is likely to keep them out of heaven."

"The title `Son of God' was not invented by disciples" says Shenk (1981:128), "nor do I think was it a fabrication in the minds of the early church! Twice in Jesus' ministry this title is given to Him from God the Father. Once at his baptism (Lk 3:22) the voice of God from heaven was heard and another time on the "Mount of Transfiguration' from a cloud of Glory (Lk 9:35) the voice of God confirmed the sonship of Jesus Christ.Hence denying the sonship of Jesus Christ is calling God the Father a liar?"

I BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY.

I agree with Watt (1991; 22) that the denial of the DIVINITY OF JESUS is made in several passages in the Quran, and with it is a denial of the TRINITY. The chief Quranic passages for defence are found in Surah 4:171, 5,76f; 5,116f. It is in passages like the above and others like Surah 5,73 5,75 and 6,101 that the doctrine of the Trinity out-rightly denied!

But there is good reason for their denial - since the `Trinity' in the Muslim mind supposedly consist of Jesus Christ, Mary His mother, and Allah!

I therefore must agree with Gilchrist (1997;88) that the Quran has clearly mistaken the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and represented it as a `three-some' of Jesus, Mary and Allah. It is most significant to find Allah described only as the third person of these three. In the Christian doctrine of the Triune God the Father at least has first place!

The idea that Mary was one of the Trinity, says Watt (1991:23), may have come from an obscure set of Collgridians, heard of in Arabia more than two centuries before Muhammad. It is said that in some Semitic languages the word for Spirit is feminine. The Quran also seems to assume that Christians understood `son' in a purely physical sense _if so than Gilchrist is correct by stating that Muhammad confused the Christian doctrine of the Trinity with the Egyptians gods, Osiris (father), Isis (mother) and Horus (son) (1991 :80).

I must be honest _ it is not easy to understand or to explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. For me, the doctrine of the Trinity is not there to be explained rationally, it is there for us to accept and believe!

By accepting Jesus Christ as my Saviour and believing that He is the Son of God - it makes it easier to accept the Trinity. The Triune God cannot be explained RATIONALLY.

Muslims on the other hand are rational people. Hence they will seek for a rational explanation of the Trinity. And since there is no rational explanation, the Muslin mind will still be both unsatisfied and unbelieving.

JESUS DIED BY CRUCIFIXION AND ROSE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY!

'The death and crucifixion of Jesus is out rightly denied and reject in the Muslim world. By getting away with denying the crucifixion of Jesus, Muslims have avoided having to answer any questions concerning Jesus' resurrection! Yet, I will prove later in this article that the Quran itself has much evidence for both the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Muslins that were interviewed about the crucifixion and salvation gave some of the following answers:

1. The cross leads to impiety, because if this is the way salvation, then no matter how wicked a person is he finds deliverance through the cross and will never be punished for his / her sins

2. It is opposed to reason.

3. The cross is opposed to both the mercy and justice of God, to his mercy because He allowed Christ to suffer, being innocent, without delivering

Him, and to his justice in allowing those who crucified Him to go unpunished.

JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS.

Allow me now to do an exposition of some Quranic text to prove the death and crucifixion of Jesus.

The Muslin key text to deny the death of Jesus is found in Surah 4:15 7 "that they said in boast `We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, the apostle of God'.

But they killed him not! Nor crucified him..'

This passage is directed against the Jews, and asserts that they did not kill Jesus; In a sense this is true, since the crucifixions was the work of Roman soldiers' (Watt 1991:22). There are two places in the Quran that clearly shows that Jesus would die:

`Peace be on him the day he was born and the day he DIES." Surah 19,15

This Quranic verse proofs decisively the death of Jesus. Concerning this verse the Quran expositor Muhammad Asad (1980:458) remains silent! While expositor Yusuf Ali (1934:770) just comments: `Peace and God's blessings were on him when he was born and, they continue when he is ABOUT TO DIE an unjust death at the hands of a tyrant;

`About to die ` this is NOT what this verse says!

In another verse, Jesus speaks these words himself `So pea ~ is oI~ :c, the day I was born and the day that I DIE..' (19,33).

Again, Muhammad Asad (p.p. 461 ) is silenced by the Quran! Yusuf Ali (p.p.774) merely says `Christ was not crucified.' But those who believe that he never died should ponder over this verse."

I have pondered over this verse, and I came to Quran proves the death of Jesus.

THE SUBSTITUTION THEORY IN THE QURAN

This theory is based on one Quranic verse, yet accept by c billion Muslims!


` . . . They killed Him not, nor crucified him, BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM.." (Surah 4,157).

This theory concluded that Allah arrange a divine escape for Jesus and another person was crucified on the cross in the place of Jesus.

Was it Judas Iscariot, Barabas or Simon of Cyrene. Suffice to say here, the Quranic commentator Yusuf Ali (1934:230) has only this to say: "there is difference of opinions as to the exact interpretations of this verse."

Secondly, if it were any other person on that cross beside, Jesus, would it not be obvious that his own mother Mary, her sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and two of his closest disciples Mary Magdalene and John the son of Zebedee who were `standing by the cross of Jesus" (Joh 19:25) would notice the difference! What about those who buried him, washed his body with spices and layed it in the tomb! Would they have not seen the difference!

Thirdly, if this substitution theory is true, than God has just deceived billions of Christians! If the man crucified was made to look like Jesus (by Allah) can you blame his disciples for actually thinking it was him? Can Muslims blame us Christians for believing the disciples? I agree one hundred percent with Gilchrist ( 1991:121 ) that if this theory is true, than this theory makes God the source of the greatest deception in religious history!

The `substitution theory ` of Islams, I think, needs to really be substituted for the real biblical message of the cross!

THE TRUTH OF THE RESURRECTION.

While Muslims will deny the resurrection of Jesus, the Quran I believe, ironically affirms the resurrection of Jesus in the following Surahs: "Behold God said: O Jesus. I will take and RAISE THEE to Myself.." Surah 3,55

"May, God RAISED HIM UP to Himself. . . " Surah 4,158

While the Quran states clearly `I will RAISE YOU UP'

Muslim commentators very confidently overlook the literal meaning and as usual in a case like this seek for a more symbolic meaning to satisfy their own understanding!


The expositor Yusuf Ali (1934:230) states that the word `RAISE UP°' is the Arabic word `rafa' a' meaning to honor. Al-Tusi says the word means to `exalt' or `glorify' (rufia), while Umar (second Caliph) say `I will raise (rafi uka) you' means to `raise in ranks of paradise' (in Mc Auliffe 1991:140.145).


It seems as if Muslim scholar only give symbolic meanings to words when it suits them. For example in the Surah 19,33 `Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die and the day I shall be raised up'

The word `born' is interpreted literally, and so is the word `die' but the word `raised' suddenly has a symbolic meaning! Is there something that the Muslims are afraid we might see?

THE TIME LINE OF JESUS

Let us have another look at the above verse and its parallel, and interpret in the light of the `time line of Jesus.'

`Peace be on him, the day he was born, the day that he dies and the day that he will be raised up to life again" Surah 19,15

"So peace is on me, the day I was born, the day that I die the day that I shall be raised up to life again" Surah 19,33.

For a better understanding of these verses allow me to put it in a diagram:
_________________________________________________________________________ý

BORN DIED RAISED UP TO LIFE

Common sense will tell you that firstly Jesus was born,

Secondly Jesus died and finally Jesus was raised up Alive to heaven. The only way a person can be raised up (resurrection) is for that person to first die!

But if one wants to deny the resurrection, one can than change this` time line' to suit one's own understanding. This is exactly what Muslims have done. They read one thing in the Quran (Fig I) and interpret it to mean something completely different, like this:
_________________________________________________________________________ý

BIRTH RAISED UP DIED

Muslims argue that Jesus was first raised up to heaven - He will return again and thereafter die! This leads me to my next subject of discussion `Where does Jesus fit in Islamic Eschatology?

JESUS AND THE FUTURE.

"According to Muslim tradition", says Parrinder (1965:123) "it is thought that Jesus will come again to restore all things and reign as a just king, and it seems that it was affected by early Christian hopes of a second advent." Although this is no explicit Quranic proof of the exact event surrounding his second coming, the Mufti A. H. Flias, nevertheless writes extensively on this subject.

Much of the writings of A.H. Elias (1995) it seems are written from a compilation of various Muslim tradition. Islamic eschatology differs vastly from Biblical eschatology.

For starters I disagree with Elias (p.p. 5) that Jesus would reign for 40 years and during this time he will get married and have children. Elias (p.p. 5) also states that Jesus will remove all worship of the cross and wipe out Christianity _ this is not only unbiblical but also obscured, since Jesus is the founder and head of Christendom!

Elias (p.p.6) also accepts some biblical facts likes `the lamb and the lion that will live together' during the reign of God. However, the eschatology propagate by Elias makes no differentiation between fact and fable and He cannot back up anything he says with either Quranic Surahs or even Biblical verses!

The Islamic eschatological figure (Isa) cannot be the same as the Biblical eschatological figure (Jesus). Both the events surrounding the second coming and the activities of the Messiah differ vastly between Islam and Christianity!

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, allow me to use Kennth Cragg's (1985:235) masterful comparison between the Quran's Isa and the Christ of the New Testament.

"Consider the Quranic Jesus alongside the New Testament. How sadly attenuated is this Christians prophet as Islam knows him! Where are the stirring words, the deep insight, the gracious deeds, the compelling qualities of him who was called the Master? The mystery of his self - consciousness as the Messiah is unsuspected, the tender, searching intimacy of his relationship to the disciples undiscovered. Where is `the way the truth, and the life' in this abridgment? Where are the words from the cross in a Jesus for whom Judas suffered? Where is the triumph of the resurrection from an empty grave? There is in the Quran neither Galilee nor Gethsemane, neither Nazareth nor Olivet. Even Bethlehem is unknown by name and the story of its greatest night is remote and strange.

Is the Sermon on the Mount never to be heard in the Muslim world? Must the story of the Good Samaritan never be told there? Must the simple, human narrative of the prodical son never mirror the essence of waywardness and forgiveness?"

What all these pages prove is that there cannot be any reconciliation between Islam’s 'Isa' and Christianity's Jesus of Nazareth. However, our similarities about Jesus could become our doors for dialogue - But dialogue with the aim of presenting Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of the world! Anything less than this is nothing but sheer compromise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

l. AIi,A. Yusuf. 1934. The Hohr Qur'an Text, translation and commentary.. Lahor: Sh Muhamad Ashraf.

2. Allama, G. Amad 1990. Exposition of the Holy Qur' an. An English rendering of the famous Urdu presentation : Maflmm-Al Qur' an: Tolu-e Islamic Trust.

3. Annes, A. Amad. 1991. Christian - Muslim relations: Yesterday, today, tomorrow. London: Grey Seal Books.

4. Asad, M. 1980. The Message of the Qur' an. Gibraltar: Dar-al-Andalus Limited.

5. Butt, J. 1992. Apostles, prophets and warners. Pakistan: Qur'anic Injunction.

6. Cragg, K. 1986. The call to the Minaret ( 2nd edition). Maryknoll: Orbis.

7. Deedat, A. 1976. What the Bible says about Mohammad. Durban: I.P.C.I

8. 1978. Resurrection or resuscitation ? Durban: I.P.C.I

9. 1983. The God that never was ! Durban: I.P.C.I

10.1983. Christ in the Qur'an. Durban: I.P.C.I

11.1990. Mohammad the natural successor of Christ. Durban: I.P.C.I

12. Dretker, J.P. 1979. A Christian approach to Muslims. Reflections from West Africa. Pasadena: Wm. Carey Library.

13. Elias, A.H. 1995. How to recognize the promised Masih? Benoni: A.H. Elias

14. Gauduel, J. 1984. Encounters and clashes. Islam and Christianity in history Rome: Pontificio Instituto di Studi Arabi and Islamici.

15. Gilchrist, J. 1995. The Qur'an. The scripture of Islam. Benoni: Mercsa.

16 1999. Facing the Muslim challennge. Benoni: Mercsa.

17. Kateregga, D. & Shenk, D. 1981. Islam and Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Books.

l8. Malan, J . Islam. A determined march to world domination. Wingate Park: Henkos Press.

19. Mc Auliffe, J.1991. Qur'anic Christians. An analysis of classical and modern exegesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20. Nazir-Ali, M. 1987. Frontiers in Muslim - Christian encounters. Oxford: Regnum Books.

21. Parrinder, G. 1965. Jesus in the Qur'an. London: Faber and Faber.

22. Parshall, P. 1989. The cross and the crescent. Understanding the Muslin mind and heart. Manila: Tindale.

23. Ritchie, L. 1968. Christianity in the Qur''an. Aberden: University of Aberden.

24. Sherbok, C.B. 1991. Islam in the world of diverse faiths. Cantebury: Mac Millan.

25. Sherif, F. 1985. A guide to the contents of the Quran. London: Ithaca Press.

26. Tisdal, C.W. 1981. The sources of Islam. Delhi: New Taj Oi~ce.

27. Watt, M.C. 1983. Islam and Christianity today. London: Routledge.

28. Watt, M.C. 1991. Muslim - Christian encounters. Perceptions and
misperceptions: London: Routledge.

29. Young Men's Muslim Association. 1986. Kitaabul Imaam (The book of Islamic faith). Benoni: Y.M.M.A.

30. Zwemer, S.M. 1912. The Moslem Christ. London: Oliphants

THE CHALLENGE OF THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT

By Sam W. Price Attorney, Johnson City, Tenn. USA

THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT

The Restoration movement is not an attempt to reform an old church or to create a new one. It is not a protestant body, and is catholic only in the sense that it is universal. Its aim is the restoration of the church of Christ as it came from the hands of the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in name, doctrine, ordinance, spirit and life. It does not contemplate the reproduction of the weaknesses, the schisms, or dogmas that at an early date wormed their way into some congregations from Judaism, heathen practices, or pagan ideology. Such departures from the true faith the apostles denounced and corrected (Revelation 2; 3; 1 Corinthians 1: 10-17; Acts15:1-33).

THE ONE CHURCH

This movement occupies common ground. It accepts and practices openly what all followers of Christ privately believe; but fail correctly to value. The one church is an example. It is agreed that the New Testament presents only one church. The Lord and His apostles insist upon the union of all Christians in such terms and in such connections as make Christian union and church unity identical! Jesus Christ is a world-wide Savior, and His church is a universal church. It is for every nation, race, tongue, and tribe, and for all time. He speaks of it in the singular number as "my church," and with full assurance of its continued existence as such. The plural is used only of local congregations of the same great church (Matthew 16:18).
He gives its ministers and ambassadors universal and permanent authority and direction to make disciples of all who believe and are baptized (Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 16:16).

In every example of conversion in the New Testament one pattern is followed, to wit: Faith, repentance, confession, baptism, pardon, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. These steps are expressed or necessarily implied. This Restoration movement seeks their universal recognition.

In respect of fellowship, he indicates clearly that they are not His disciples who will not "hear" this one church.(Matthew 18:17, 18). All of His scattered disciples must be brought together into the one church. For there is one Shepherd and one fold(John 10:16). The absolute unity of Christ's followers in Him and with each other in the one church is beautifully set forth under the similitude of the vine and the branches (John 16:16).

On the eve of His crucifixion, the thought uppermost in the mind of Christ was the unity of His followers throughout all the ages to come. Standing within the shadow of the cross and before His open grave, the entire burden of His prayer is for His apostles and for all them that shall believe on Him through their teaching (John17:1-26).

Briefly outlined, the Lord prays: (1) For Himself;(2) for His apostles; and (3) for us. His prayer for Himself is incidental. He asks to be glorified in order that He may glorify His Father. And He reveals the Father, because to know Him and his Father's life eternal (John 17:1-6).

He prayed for His apostles. He loved them. He had two reasons for not taking them out of the world. He had yet a great work to do on them and after that He had a still greater work to do through them. He had yet to pour out the Holy Spirit upon them and, then through them to set up His long-promised church (John 17:6-19; Acts 2).

Then He gathered up all the strength of His soul in petition, thrice repeated, for the everlasting unity of all of them that should believe on Him through their teaching. This covers all space and all time and shall endure until time shall be no more. This is no truce. It is no mere agreement to disagree and reach thereby a sort of armed neutrality by which different denominations of Christians may live alongside each other in peace. Nothing short of the physical, spiritual, visible, and organic unity of Christ's church will satisfy this prayer. It must be one church, one body, one people, seeing eye to eye and speaking the same things (John 17:20, 26).

The purpose of this unity of all Christian people in the one church is, "That the world may believe that thou didst send me." A divided church hinders the Son's revelation of the Father, and delays the coming of that knowledge of God and Jesus Christ which is life eternal. A denominational church, rent by dissensions and torn by strife, can not save a lost world (John 17:21-23).

Without a single exception, the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, insist upon the absolute unity of Christ's followers in the one church. Paul says all baptized believers are members of the one body, the one church of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians4:5). This one church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:23; Colossians1:24). This one body is not divided. It has one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God, and one Father (Ephesians 4:4-6).

To this one church the Lord gave the power and the means of perfecting the saints, the maintaining of correct doctrine, and unlimited growth in love (Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:12-31).

The great apostle to the Gentiles administered astern rebuke to all those who would divide the church of Christ into rival camps or warring factions (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

An effort to split the early church into two divisions - a Jewish church and a Gentile church - was frustrated by a conference of the apostles and their helpers at Jerusalem. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles defined and declared the principle by which the unity of the church should be preserved, and established a precedent for dealing with threatened ruptures in the body of Christ in the future, to wit: In things essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity. Where the Lord has spoken no man has a right to have an opinion. Obedience is his plain duty (Acts 15:1-33).

After the death of the apostles, the early Christian fathers - Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage, and Irenaeus - from the year A.D. 95 to 150, wrote much of the unity of the church. Cyprian speaks of it as the "Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church." It was still one church in spite of the so-called "Apostles' Creed" which made its appearance about the year 150, and the Nicene Creed that threatened a serious rupture in 325.

Following the military roads and pouring itself into the forms of the Roman Government, the church, by the middle of the third century, had, geographically and territorially speaking, arranged itself naturally into five great divisions centering, respectively, in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The biggest and most ambitious preacher in each group had gravitated to the centre and become pastor of the big church and was called "bishop." He was frequently consulted by the ministers of the smaller churches in his division on matters of faith and practice. At a time when there were few copies of the books of the New Testament, and these, generally, in the hands of the "bishops," the power and influence of that "official" over the church became well-nigh unlimited.

THE FIRST GREAT PERMANENT DIVISION

Political circumstances gave Rome the advantage and Constantinople followed a close second. The bishops of these two great centers became bitter rivals. Frequent quarrels took place respecting their several claims to the primacy. They undertook at last to excommunicate each other, and the first great permanent division came in the year 1054. The eastern branch became the Greek Catholic church and the western the Roman Catholic.

Before this division - about the middle of the sixth century - the baptism of infants had been introduced into the church by the pope or bishop of Rome. This gradually spread to the whole church. After the division - about the beginning of the thirteenth century - sprinkling or pouring, allowed since the seventh century to the sick and weak, were substituted by the Roman church for baptism (Lagarde's "History of the Latin Church," pp. 30-57).

This accounts for the fact that, though the eastern or Greek Catholic church baptizes infants, it will not sprinkle or pour water on anybody. All its baptisms are by immersion.

THE RISE OF PROTESTANTISM

In the sixteenth century came the great protestant revolt which split off from the Roman Catholic and then subdivided into the nearly two hundred different denominations that now distress and vex the western world. Broadly speaking, this revolt took two general forms, to wit: (1) The Lutheran and Reformed, from which have developed the Presbyterian and Congregational bodies; and (2) the Anglican, from which have come all bodies having an episcopal form of government.

EFFORTS TO UNITE

All religious bodies now recognize the weaknesses and evils of a divided church and are making sincere efforts to find a remedy and offer a plan for union. The trouble is there are nearly as many plans and remedies as denominations.

The attempts of the Roman Catholic church to reunite the religious world are not profitable for study, for the reason they have amounted to little more than invitations to the Protestant bodies to return and become Catholics again.
The Episcopal church, however, within the last thirty years (in 1948), has made substantial progress toward the solution of the problem. It has succeeded in attracting the attention of all other religious bodies to its teaching on the subject of Christian unity and convinced them of its sincere desire for a reunited church.

THE EPISCOPAL PLAN

The plan proposed by the Episcopal church for the union of all followers of Christ embraces four principal propositions:(1) The acceptance of the Old Testament and the New Testament as containing all things necessary to salvation; (2) The acceptance of the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed; (3) the acceptance of the "two sacraments" - baptism and the Lord's Supper; (4) the acceptance of the "Historic Episcopate."

No religious body has yet accepted all four of the sepropositions, thought to be the limit of concession by the Episcopal church; and there is no probability of the adoption of this plan.

CAUSES OF DIVISION

Before undertaking to prescribe for his patient, the wise doctor always makes a diagnosis of the case. He finds out what ails his patient and the causes that have brought about his disorders.

It is not unreasonable to pursue a like course in determining what remedy to prescribe for the ills that afflict the religious body. What, then, are the causes of all this confusion among the followers of Christ that have split the Protestant world into denominations and sects? Prominent amongst these are the following:

THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL

One of the leading causes of division and confusion in the church is the failure to make proper distinction between the law and the gospel, between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The attempt to bind upon the church of Christ the ritualism and ceremonies of the Mosaic law and the Jewish temple service has given rise to many differences of doctrine, ordinances, and officers.

The law and the Old Testament institutions were local and limited both as to time and place. They were for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. They were fulfilled and passed away with the crucifixion of Christ (Colossians 2:14; 4:15).

In the New Testament alone are to be found the organization, the doctrines, and practices of the church of Christ. The church is a new institution. Those who undertake to clothe it in the forms and terms of the Old Testament are attempting to put new wine into old bottles. In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Savior unfolds and reveals His plan of salvation and the general principles that shall govern His church. His church was not organized during His personal ministry on the earth. This was done under His direction and authority, but by His apostles on the first Pentecost following His resurrection. The second chapter of Acts contains a detailed history of the beginning of the church of Christ at Jerusalem and the admission into it of the first converts. In fact, the Book of Acts is a history of conversions. If any person wants to know what to do to be saved and how to get into the church of Christ, he will find plain, clear, and certain answers in the Book of Acts given by men who spoke as the Holy Spirit guided them. He will find these answers no where else. The attempt to find the answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" in the Old Testament or some other part of the New Testament has led to great confusion on this subject.

Another source of confusion is the failure of people to see the distinction between the personal ministry of Christ while on earth and the ministry of the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit after His personal ministry ended. The Savior was bigger than any principle He taught or any rule which He laid down for the guidance of men. He did many things while here that He did not authorize His apostles to do after His death and which He did not leave as an example to, or make binding upon, His church that was to be organized, through and by which He proposed to save the world. The best illustration oft his is to be found in the law of wills. The New Testament is the last will of Christ. The testator makes his will; while he lives, he is the absolute owner of his property and may dispose of it in any way that pleases him. After his death, his estate must be administered in accordance with the terms of the will. The courts must carry out and enforce the will. The fact that the testator during his lifetime may have given with a liberal hand to all who asked, and may not have imposed upon the recipients of his bounty any terms or conditions is no assurance that after his death the executors of his will have the right to do likewise. They must distribute the estate to the persons named in the will and in the amount and quantities stipulated to each. For this reason, the fact that the Savior, while here in person, said to the paralytic let down through the roof into His presence, "Thy sins are forgiven thee, take up thy bed and walk," without requiring of him either faith, repentance, or baptism; or that He said to the thief on the cross, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise," without saying anything to him about church membership, furnishes no ground for teaching men today that they may spend a lifetime in sin and rebellion and then, at the end, by some sort of magic, look up to Christ and be saved forever. No man has a right to teach that salvation may be obtained in any other way than that laid down by the apostles of Jesus Christ who spoke as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance (Hebrews 9:16,17).

THE "FAITH ALONE" DOCTRINE

Perhaps the most fruitful source of confusion is the fact that certain groups of believers have seized upon single and particular statements of the Savior or of the apostles, with reference to salvation, and have taken them out of the setting or connection in which they were originally used and have disassociated them from the other statements from the same sources and equally important, and have insisted that salvation depended upon these particular statements alone. They have gathered about this one principle and have built up an organization around it and have thus formed a distinct denomination or church. For example, certain groups seize upon the statement, "The just shall live by faith," and upon that and other like statements have announced the doctrine that "salvation is by faith alone." Others have been attracted by that passage which says that, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and have proclaimed that "salvation is by confession alone." Others have taken that statement of the Savior, "Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish," and have proceeded to announce the doctrine that "salvation is by repentance alone." Still others have read the statement of Peter in which he compared Christian baptism to the ark in which eight persons were carried through the flood and preserved from its destruction and said, "The like figure whereby baptism doth now save us" and have announced the doctrine that "salvation is by baptism alone." This has produced untold confusion and strife in the religious world. From some of these doctrines great denominations, with their subdivisions, have come forth to try to convert the world. The trouble is that each contains some part of the truth, but none the whole truth. And a statement that puts only a part of the truth for the whole truth is an absolute falsehood. The most dangerous system in the world is the one that attempts to mix the truth with falsehood. It has just enough truth to allure the unsuspecting into the trap of falsehood which awaits his destruction.

MAN-MADE CREEDS

Another cause of division and strife in the religious world is the attempt of a group of persons to get together and write out their opinions of the terms and conditions of salvation and what the church ought to believe and practice. This began early. About one hundred years after the death of the apostles there appeared that is known as the "Apostles' Creed." Who wrote it or where it came from nobody knows; but it was never seen by an apostle. This did not cause any division, for the reason that it is a brief statement of what many people really believe and because it imposed no real obligations upon anybody. In 325 A.D., the first "Nicene Creed" was promulgated and caused considerable trouble, discussion, and disturbance in the religious world, but no real and permanent division. Other councils were held and other creeds promulgated, but they had to do largely with matters of theory, and the church could go on as a practical unit in spite of them. The first great permanent division came in the year 1054in the controversy between the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople, as has already been stated. The trouble grew out of the failure to recognize that the New Testament Scriptures present a full, complete, and perfect rule of faith and practice for the one church. If any creed that man makes contains more than the New Testament Scriptures it contains too much; if it contains less than the New Testament, it is too little; if it contains the same, then it is unnecessary. In no event is there any excuse for a man-made creed; and it serves only the purpose which it has accomplished, to wit: the division of the church.

IGNORING THE DIVINE PLAN OF SALVATION

The fundamental cause of division is the failure to recognize that the church is a divine institution and that no set of men has any authority to legislate for it or change it in any way. Instead of taking the four different principles or conditions of salvation set out by Christ and His apostles and separating them and making of them four different and contradictory plans of salvation, they should be treated as four different terms of the one great plan of salvation for all men. The first requirement is "faith." Christ said, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1). Paul said, "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:16).

The second step is "repentance." Christ said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3-5).

The third step is "confession." This is not a profession but a confession of faith. Christ said: "He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father and the holy angels." Paul said: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"(Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:10; Acts 8:37,38).

The fourth and last step of conversion is "baptism." Baptism in water, not spirit baptism. Jesus said: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark). On the day of Pentecost, when the apostle Peter was permitted to preach the first full Gospel sermon ever preached and the believing Jews enquired, "What must we do?" he made answer by direction of the Holy Spirit, "Repent, every one of you, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38).
In the days of the inspired apostles, men heard the gospel preached, believed it and believed on Jesus Christ and accepted Him as their Savior, repented of their sins, and made open and public confession of their faith, and were baptized. Upon these terms their sins were forgiven and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and became members of the church of Christ (Acts 2:38, 41-47; 8:12, 27-39;9:22-26; 10:25; 11:4-18; 16:14, 15-30, 34). The same procedure would produce the same results today.

BAPTISM

The question of the mode of baptism is in the way. All followers of Christ agree that immersion is good baptism. There is no reputable scholar in any church that denies this proposition. There are some, however, that insist that sprinkling and pouring are also good. A little examination of the history of the church will settle this question. Neither sprinkling nor pouring for baptism was ever practiced in the church until more than four hundred years after the death of the apostles. About the middle of the seventeenth century it was permitted to the sick by the bishops on the ground of necessity. It was first decided that if the candidate was sick and nigh unto death and unable to be baptized in the regular way, water might be poured over him as he lay upon his couch and that would be sufficient, if he died; but if he recovered it would not be sufficient and he would be required to be baptized in the regular way. But sprinkling or pouring as baptism for persons in good health was not permitted by the church and did not become recognized and allowable until the thirteenth century. At this time it was done by authority of the pope at Rome, who claimed then and claims now that he has the right to change the ordinances of the church. (Lagarde's "History of the Latin Church," pp. 30-57).

The word "baptize" means "to dip or immerse." The New Testament Scriptures make no mention of pouring or sprinkling for baptism. Upon the contrary, baptism is referred to as a burial. Paul says, "We are buried with him by baptism into death; so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3,4).

If we take the plain language of the Scriptures, there will be no question about that baptism is. In order to stimulate reading and search on this point, I will give one hundred dollars to any person, old or young, minister or layman, pointing out to me one verse of Scripture in the New Testament where Christ or His apostles expressly commanded or certainly practiced the sprinkling or pouring of water upon any person for Christian baptism.

THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT

Many devoted minds all over the world have reached the conclusion that the divided church can never unite on any man-made creed, upon any human name, or upon any Episcopal or Presbyterian form of government. They have almost abandoned all hope of reforming or remaking any old denominational church so as to attract the followers of the Master into one body. They are beginning to look at the original` "blueprint" and to enquire whether the accumulated rubbish of centuries can be cleared away and the ancient church of Christ restored on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.

Why not? If we go back to the preaching and the practice of the apostles, shall we not make the same sort of Christians they made, and have the same sort of church they had?

 A wide section of that ancient foundation has been cleared already and much of the primitive church restored. The people who call themselves Christians and wear no other name are standing on that foundation and are inviting all others to come and do likewise. They have already restored the divine name (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16; 1Corinthians 1:12,13; John 17:21), the divine creed (Matthew 16:16; Acts8:36,37; Romans 10:10), the divine baptism, the divine Book, and the divine head of the church (John 17:21; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Acts 2:38).We most certainly insist upon our plea to the alien sinners to come to Christ and upon our plea for the unity of Christian people, because we have found the Scriptural basis for both. We can put our finger on chapter and verse. We have for every step a "thus saith the Lord."
Sinners ought to be saved. Christ died for them. Christian people must be united. Christ prayed for it. His prayer will not remain unanswered always.

The religious body to which we belong presents the divine plan of salvation and the divine basis for Christian unity. Its superiority to all others appears in the following particulars:

IT ACCEPTS AND WEARS THE NAME DIVINELY GIVEN

It has the correct name. The church of Christ is a divine and not a human institution. Christ said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If a man makes a church after his own ideas, fashions a plan of salvation after his own fancy, and fixes his own terms of admission to it, he may, no doubt, give to it whatever name he pleases, but no man has the right to change the name of the church which Christ built or to modify the terms of admission into it divinely given. The church is the "bride" of Christ. By every law of property the bride bears the name of her husband. After His church was established on the first Pentecost following His resurrection, it is spoken of as the "church of Christ," the "bride of Christ," the "church of God," and the "kingdom of God." These are all divinely given names of the church; but "church of Christ" seems to be the name most frequently used by the Holy Spirit to designate the organized body of the followers of the Christ (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 11:16; Revelation 21:9; Hebrews3:6; Acts 2).

Christ is the head of His church. To name the church from the ordinance of baptism is to give undue prominence to an ordinance and, thereby, to dishonor the head of the church. It is overseers (the Episcopi), or from its "Congregationa" form of government, or from its "Methodistic" manner of worship.

IT HAS THE CORRECT OBJECT OF FAITH

Belief on and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind is its creed. Christians only do not believe in faith; they do not believe in repentance; they do not believe in confession; they do not believe in baptism. They believe in Jesus Christ. This faith in Christ leads them of necessity to repentance, to confession, and to baptism. To believe in Christ is to accept Him as prophet, priest and king. As prophet He teaches and we must hear and accept His teachings. As priest He made sacrifice of Himself for us and we must accept and appropriate that sacrifice. Asking He has power and authority over our lives and we must recognize His authority and obey His commands. Salvation does not consist in the belief and acceptance of a set of formulas about Christ, however much truth they may contain; but in the acceptance of the personal Christ which carries with it implicit and unquestioning obedience to all His commands. He becomes Lord of life as well as Savior of the soul. And He is Savior to none to whom He is not also Lord. He becomes the author of salvation to all them who obey Him (Matthew 16:16; Acts 2:39;4:12; 5:31; 8:37; Hebrews 5:8,9).

IT HAS THE WHOLE DIVINE PLAN OF SALVATION

The church of Christ is the only religious body that accepts and practices the whole of the plan of salvation as taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles. Christians only are the only people who accept and teach the whole of the Great Commission of the Son of God (Mark 16:16). They are the only people who dare to answer the inquiring sinner in the exact language used by the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). They are the only people who dare give the penitent sinner the exact instructions given to Saul of Tarsus by Ananias at Damascus (Acts 22:16).

The church of Christ teaches that God promises to the alien sinner the forgiveness of his past sins upon his compliance, in all sincerity and with an honest heart with four plain, simple, and certain conditions, to wit: Faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. He who does these things the Lord adds to His church (Mark 16:16; Acts2:38-47; 8:12, 27-29; 10:25-48; 16:30-34).

There is another law of pardon to the Christian who commits sin. The backslider has only to believe and to confess his sins, repent, and pray (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9).

IT RIGHTLY DIVIDES THE WORD OF GOD

The church of Christ presents the only theory ofsalvation that permits the whole of the Word of God to be true. It recognizes the essential difference between the Old Testament and theNew Testament. It sees the distinction between the law and the gospel.It is the only church in the world which accepts spiritually what everybusinessman knows legally - that the last will and testament revokesand makes void all former wills at any time made; and that no will iseffective until after the death of the testator. The Old Testament wasof binding force until the death of Christ; the New Testament since (2Corinthians 3:16,17; Hebrews 12:18-24; Colossians 2:14).

IT OFFERS ASSURANCE OF FORGIVENESS

The church of Christ gives full assurance of pardon. It is the only church that does. Other churches make the feelings the sole evidence of forgiveness. Feelings come and go. The church of Christ teaches that knowledge of pardon rests solely in the conscious obedience of faith to those commandments of God which are coupled with an express promise of forgiveness.

IT PRESERVES THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHRIST

The Lord's Day, not the Sabbath, is commemorative of His resurrection. The Lord's Supper is served on every Lord's Day as it was observed by the early church. Baptism, a burial in water, is commemorative of the burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3;Colossians 2:12).

IT STANDS FOR THE UNITY OF GOD'S PEOPLE

Christ established only one church. He is not the author of denominationalism, and is not pleased with it. There is one body and one spirit; one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (John 17:20-22; Ephesians 2:15-21; 3:6; 15:4; 1 Corinthians 12).

It presents the only basis upon which all Christian people can unite and thus answer the prayer of the Savior.

Where the Bible speaks, we speak, and in its language; where the Bible speaks not, we keep silent in all languages.

CONCLUSION

We recognize and respect the Christian character of all religious people - whether Protestant or Catholic. We ask them to lay aside the errors of doctrine and practice and embrace only the plain teachings of Christ and the apostles. We are really not divided on anything that is plainly taught in the Scriptures. The line of cleavage is on things not taught in the sacred Scriptures. It is not necessary for me to go to you or for you to come to me. If we will voluntarily drop and discard all un-Scriptural names, doctrines, and practices right where we are and speak only where the Bible speaks, and in its language, the thing is done. Immediately Christian unity has become an accomplished fact.

If all of us go to Christ, we shall meet each other at the cross and be together.
If I could assemble in one religious body and rightly compound the abiding faith of the Catholic, the consecrated wealth of the Episcopalian, the learning of the Presbyterian, the loyalty and zeal of the Baptist, the loving kindness of the Methodist, and the sound doctrine of our people, I should have restored the primitive apostolic Christian church in every item - a church that would evangelize and convert the whole world in one generation, a triumphant, glorious church, against which the very "gates of Hell" itself could not prevail!

An address delivered Friday night, April 23, 1948, at the North American Christian Convention, Springfield, Ill, U.S.A.