Answering Sami Zaatari on the Pharisaic Accusation that Christ Claimed Deity

By Keith Thompson

Introduction

Were the Pharisees correct to infer from Jesus’ bold statements that he was claiming to be God? According to sound exegesis of the 1st century texts, yes. According to a Muslim apologist whose 7^th century Arabian tradition does not allow for Christ’s deity, no. In his article, The Jewish Accusations, Sami Zaatari argues one should not appeal to New Testament texts where the Pharisees charge Jesus with claiming to be God as an argument for Christ’s deity. Zaatari briefly looked at John 10:29-33, but should have also included John 5:16-18 since there the Pharisees charge Jesus with making himself God as well.

Were the Pharisees too Incompetent and Deceptive to know what Jesus was Saying?

Instead of offering a deep a meaningful discussion on such texts in order to ascertain whether or not the context dictates the Pharisees were inferring correctly based on Christ’s words and deeds, Zaatari’s approach is to argue that since Jesus elsewhere calls the Pharisees liars, hypocrites, sons of the devil, murderers, those who do not follow God’s commands, and those who follow extra-biblical traditions instead of the Word of God (Mk 7:5-9; Jn 8:44), it therefore follows the Pharisees were unreliable and thus definitely incorrect in their assessment that Jesus was claiming deity. Zaatari asserts,

“Well as in any other case, whenever a witness makes a claim, the first thing you do is check if the witness is even competent enough to be trusted. So are these certain Jews even to be trusted in the first place? ... according to Jesus his accusers are hypocrites, they do not follow their Torah, rather they throw it away, and use their own man made traditions. So it is quite clear that these accusers are not competent enough to be trusted, nor is their speech to be taken as evidence”

Thus, this criticism needs to be addressed since there are biblical and logical problems with it. Then afterwards we will refute Zaatari’s sloppy handling of John 10:29-33 and also explain John 5:17-18.

Although Jesus correctly identifies the Pharisees as deceptive hypocrites who set aside God’s Word based on their conduct and discussions with Him, did that mean for Jesus that it was impossible for them to get anything right or to infer anything correctly in regard to Jesus’ words and deeds or connected theological issues? According to the same 1^st century material the answer must be given in the negative.

Jesus granted their general ability to explain and apply the Law of Moses correctly in Matthew 23:2-3 when he says “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (v. 2).” This is significant since Christ is speaking in light of the fact that “synagogues had a stone seat at the front where the authoritative teacher, usually a grammateus (‘teacher of the law’), sat.”(1) Jesus then told the people to “observe whatever they [Scribes and Pharisees] tell you (v. 3)” which presupposes their general ability to correctly teach the Law. Thus, according to Christ they were not always incorrect about everything theologically related, though it was said they did not practice what they preached (v. 3b). This refutes Zaatari since, with regard to the Pharisees’ charge that Jesus claimed deity, he asks, “And these are the people whom the Christians want us to believe?! I don't think so” as though the position of Christ comports with Zaatari’s refusal to admit they could be right about certain things.

On this same note, it should be made clear that although Jesus castigates the Scribes and Pharisees as liars in certain texts etc., he was not hesitant to say when they got something right. For example, in Mark 12:30-34 Jesus explains the two most important commands: loving God and loving your neighbour (vv. 30-31). Then v. 32 says “And the scribe said to him, ‘You are right, Teacher.” This demonstrates the Scribe was able to understand Jesus correctly and know his theological statements were true. Yet, Zaatari argues as though these people were completely untrustworthy as theological witnesses and could not have gotten anything right insofar as interpreting Jesus’ statements and deeds is concerned. Thus Zaatari claims, “it is quite clear that these accusers are not competent enough to be trusted.” However, v. 32 clearly shows this Scribe was competent enough to realize Jesus’ teaching was correct. This is why v. 34 says “when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” Not only was this Scribe not incompetent, he actually answered wisely or intelligently (NASB) according to Christ.

Moreover, although Nicodemus the Pharisee was not able to understand everything Jesus said to him in John 3:1-15, he did on the other hand correctly understand Jesus’ teachings to prove He was in union with God the Father and not working of his own accord: “This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him’” (John 3:2). Notice, Nicodemus said “we know” demonstrating other Pharisees were also able to infer correctly concerning Christ’s teachings that He was in union with God the Father and not a renegade false teacher, though many assumed the opposite.

Therefore, according to the same New Testament material Zaatari appealed to which shows the Pharisees and Scribes were inclined to lie and engage in error, we see it was in fact possible for them to infer correctly from Jesus’ statements and interpret him in a valid sense at times. Hence, Zaatari is not justified in arguing they could not have been correct in their observations as to what Jesus’ teachings about himself proved in regard to who exactly He was claiming to be in John 10:26-36.

Logical Problems with Zaatari’s Argument

Now, with respect to the logical problem with Zaatari’s approach, it needs to be stressed that just because someone is prone to lie or be inclined to error, that does not mean they can not be right about anything. It does not mean everything they say should be automatically discounted. Their claims should be judged based on evidence. It is the logical fallacy of the inappropriate generalization to argue that just because the Pharisees were prone to lie, therefore their statements about Jesus and their understandings of his words and deeds must all be wrong. That is an illogical position to take. I personally view Zaatari and his Muslim colleagues as liars but that does not mean I would say everything they say is wrong. If, by chance, Zaatari said something on doctrine or morals which comported with biblical revelation, then he would be right; though he is in error regularly and has repeatedly been exposed to deliberately lie in his attempts to discredit the Bible, as one can easily see from our many rebuttals to his argumentshere.

We demonstrated that according to Jesus and the New Testament witness, the Pharisees and Scribes were able to correctly infer things at times and were not completely incompetent. So now the decisive factor in determining the truth of this issue is whether or not exegesis of the relevant texts validates their charge that Jesus was claiming to be God, or if proper exegesis refutes their charge and shows they were wrong.

Exegesis of John 5:16-18; 10:26-36 Proves the Pharisees’ Correctness on this Matter

John 10:26-36

In his essay Zaatari only quoted and interacted with John 10:29-36. However, to really understand the text one must not start at v. 29, but must examine vv. 26-36:

²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. ²⁷My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. ³⁰I and the Father are one.” ³¹The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.³²Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” ³³The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” ³⁴Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ³⁵If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— ³⁶do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:26-36).

The first question is: Were the Pharisees correctly interpreting what Jesus said in vv. 26-30 which immediately led them to pick up stones in v. 31 and say Jesus was making Himself God in v. 33? If in vv. 26-30 Jesus said something indicating He was God, that means the Pharisees were right to say he was claiming deity in v. 33. Close examination of those verses shows Jesus was applying Old Testament texts about YHWH to Himself demonstrating He is the God of the Old Testament. Thus, in this case the Pharisees were correct in their assessment.

Themes in vv. 26-29 such as Jesus having sheep, sheep hearing Jesus’ voice, sheep following Christ, Jesus giving His sheep life, and no one snatching the sheep out of Jesus’ hand are lifted directly from Old Testament texts concerning YHWH and His sheep. Hence, Jesus was showing He is the God of the Old Testament. Such Old Testament texts include:

^“5The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. ⁶Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker! ⁷For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, ⁸do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness” (Psalm 95:5-8).

⁹ “‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39).

“²There is none holy like the Lord: for there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God.⁶The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up” (1 Samuel 2:2, 6)

¹³Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” ¹⁴Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “For your sake I send to Babylon and bring them all down as fugitives, even the Chaldeans, in the ships in which they rejoice” (Isaiah 43:13).

Hence, in vv. 31, 33 the Pharisees correctly realized Jesus was applying these Old Testament texts about YHWH to himself and rightfully stated He was making Himself God by doing so. Jesus adds to this Old Testament application by then declaring that He is one with the Father (v. 30). D. A. Carson’s comments are noteworthy:

“If ... Jesus’ will is exhaustively one with his Father’s will, some kind of metaphysical unity is presupposed, even if not articulated. Though the focus is on the common commitment of Father and Son to display protective power toward what they commonly own (17:10), John’s development of Christology to this point demands that some more essential unity be presupposed, quite in line with the first verse of the Gospel. Even from a structural point of view, this verse constitutes a ‘shattering statement’ (Lindards, BFG, p. 52), the climax to this part of the chapter, every bit as much as ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ forms a climax to ch. 8. The Jews had asked for a plain statement that would clarify whether or not he was the Messiah. He gave them far more, and the response was the same as in 5:18; 8:59.”(2)

Thus, according to the overall context and structural considerations, Jesus was claiming deity when saying He was one with the Father.

Now, the second question is: Is Zaatari correct in his assessment of vv. 33-36 that “Jesus does not accept their accusation [of claiming deity], rather he rejects their accusation”? He presents two arguments here. The first is Jesus allegedly corrects the Pharisees by identifying Himself as the Son of God in v. 36 which Zaatari claims “does not make you God, rather it made you a servant of God.” Hence, Zaatari posits Jesus denied their charge of claiming to be God and declared Himself a servant of God instead. Second, Zaatari argues Jesus’ quotation of Psalms 82:6 (“I said, you are gods”) shows Jesus rejected He was God Almighty.

However, he is reading things into the text when he asserts Jesus’ use of the title Son of God in v. 36 is a corrective to their accusation that He was claiming to be God. He also errs when claiming Jesus’ use of Psalms 82:6 somehow shows He did not believe He was YHWH. The actual meaning of this text leaves no room for Zaatari’s opinions as we will see.

Jesus’ point in vv. 34-36 is that if these Jews are going to fault Him for claiming to be the Son of God (as they did in 5:17-19 already), claiming to be one with the Father, and applying Old Testament YHWH texts to Himself, then they are inconsistent. Why? Because if it is blasphemous for Jesus to teach His divine sonship involving metaphysical unity with the Father, when Jesus was actually “consecrated and sent into the world” (presupposing pre-existence and unique unity with the Father), then surely these Jews are guilty of hypocrisy by this logic. For, men in Psalms 82:6 are called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” when they are neither metaphysically one with God the Father (deity), nor consecrated and sent into the world by the Father (pre-existent). Hence, Jesus was mocking them and their futile conclusion that He was a blasphemer when really He came from heaven and had the Father’s support. They, on the other hand, were hypocritical since they had no problem identifying mere mortal Israelite judges aselohim and sons of the Most High.

Far from denying deity, Jesus was simply showing their double standards and demonstrating how ignorant their charge of blasphemy really was. As noted, Jesus in v. 36 affirmed His pre-existence (by saying the Father set Him apart and sent Him into the world) and unique sonship (a divine Old Testament office different from your average “sons of God;” see Prov. 30:3-4; Isa. 9:6 cf. John 5:18); never rejecting their correct inference in v. 33 that He was making Himself God. Therefore, Zaatari is way off base when he claims, “he rejects their accusation.” There is nothing indicating that at all once the context is understood. That has to be read in. This is clear and so Merrill C. Tenney stated,

“Had Jesus not meant to convey a claim to deity, he undoubtedly would have protested the action of these Jews by declaring they had misunderstood him. On the contrary, Jesus introduced an a fortiori argument from the Psalms to strengthen his statement. Psalms 82:6 represents God as addressing a group of beings whom he calls ‘gods’ (Heb.Elohim) and ‘sons of the Most High.’ If, then, these terms could be applied to ordinary mortals or even angels, how could Jesus be accused of blasphemy when he applied them to himself whom the Father set apart and sent into the world on a special mission?”(3).

Confirming our point is A. W. Pink who noted:

“The meaning and force of our Lord’s argument is obvious. If, in a book which you admit to be of Divine authority, and all whose expressions are perfectly faultless, men which have received a Divine communication to administer justice to the people of God are called ‘gods’ and sons of the Highest; is it not absurd to bring against One who has a higher commission than they (One who had been sanctified and sent by the Father), and who presented far more evidence of His commission, a charge of blasphemy, because he calls Himself ‘the Son of God’?”(4).

Jesus was not saying that His title “Son of God” was on the same level as those in Psalms 82:6, he was simply showing that since they had a similar title they should likewise be condemned according to the faulty logic employed by the Pharisees. For more information on the uniqueness of Jesus’ title and position as Son of God see here.

Now, Zaatari’s concluding claim is that the Pharisees lied about Jesus asserting deity so that they could have Him executed. However, we refuted that by explaining Jesus never denied they were correct to infer He was claiming deity in John 10:26-36. He in fact affirms His deity very strongly in the context by applying Old Testament texts about YHWH directly to Himself and then affirming His oneness with the Father in a climactic way in v. 30, as well as His pre-existent sonship in v. 36.

Also, after applying those Old Testament texts to Himself and claiming to be one with the Father in vv. 26-30, the Pharisees immediately picked up stones in v. 31. This fits with our view which says they were genuinely offended and convinced He was blaspheming and claiming deity. This does not fit with Zaatari’s idea that “they began to create lies against Jesus, so they could use these lies as an excuse to murder him.” Their speedy grabbing of stones after Jesus’ bold claims is not the same thing as “creating lies against Jesus.” Again, their quick reaction shows they were not using lies as an excuse to Murder Him here, but were actually persuaded that He wasequating Himself with God, and they wanted to murder Him because of it.

John 5:16-18

Moreover, it is not the desire of John to convey the idea that the Jews were incorrect to think Jesus was claiming deity. We know this is the case because of John 5:16-18 which has a similar charge from the Jews. Zaatari failed to interact with this important text in his essay:

¹⁶And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. ¹⁷But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I am working.’ ¹⁸This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:16-18).

Notice when v. 18 says “he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” that this is John’s commentary on the situation. Why then did the Jews want to kill Jesus according to John? Was it not because they genuinely and correctly thought he was making Himself equal with God? John himself is affirming Jesus was, as a matter of fact, making Himself equal to God by identifying Himself as God’s Son; and that this is the reason the Jews wanted to kill him. He does not say they incorrectly or deceptively said he was making Himself equal with God as to get Jesus executed based on lies. So why would John in other places then switch his position and say the Pharisees lied by claiming Jesus was making Himself God, as Zaatari posits?

John affirms they were correct in their claim that He was asserting deity. This is because the Jewish persecution of Jesus for working on the Sabbath like His Father is recognition of the fact that Jesus was claiming to be on the level of God who alone sustains creation on the Sabbath (i.e., works on the Sabbath). As Andreas J. Köstenberger remarks,

“The consensus among Jewish rabbis was that God does indeed work constantly, but that this does not amount to him breaking the Sabbath. Since the entire universe is his domain, he cannot be charged with transporting an object from one domain to another; and God lifts nothing to a height greater than himself”(5).

By saying both He and the Father can work on the Sabbath, He was asserting that He is on the level with the One who constantly works due to upholding the universe. Christ’s deity was clearly affirmed and recognized by the Jews and John in regard to this point.

But, again, the question for Zaatari is: If John, as he argues, wished to convey the idea that the Jews were lying about Jesus claiming to be God so as to have him executed based on something they made up, why does this same author say, as a matter of fact, that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he really was making Himself equal with God (v. 18)? The reality is the Jews actually did believe Jesus was blaspheming and hence that is one of the reasons they wanted to have him executed. It is not the author’s intention for people to come away with the false opinion that the Pharisees deceptively and incorrectly charged Jesus with claiming to be God. Thus, Zaatari needs to rethink his specious argument.

Christ has risen, He is Lord!

Endnotes:

1.) D. A. Carson, Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, vol. 8, [Zondervan, 1984],  p. 471-472

2.) D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm B. Eerdmans, 1991], p. 395

3.) Merrill C. Tenney, John, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, [Zondervan, 1981], p. 113

4.) Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John: Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One, [Zondervan, 1975], pp. 556-557

5.) Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Academic, 2004], p. 185

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/rebuttals/zaatari/pharisee_liars.html

IHS

Christ’s Deity in Light of not Knowing the Day & Hour of His Return

By Keith Thompson

A very common text Muslims and other non-Trinitarian groups distort in order to attempt to undermine the deity of Jesus is Matthew 24:36:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only (Matthew 24:36 cf. Mark 13:32).

The argument is that Christ is a mere human/prophet because not knowing something is an immediate disqualification of deity, allegedly. For, they argue, it is impossible for God to not know something. However, there are at least five points which call this common approach into question. 

First, it is vital to note that contra the Islamic teaching on Jesus being a mere human/prophet, He is actually being exalted above all men (“no one”) and angelic beings (“not even the angels”) in this text. The necessary deduction due to Christ chronologically coming after these two classes of beings is that Christ is above them ontologically. Just like angels are ontologically greater than humans presently, Christ is ontologically greater and more exalted than both angels and humans. Hence, this verse actually demonstrates Christ’s deity when examined closely. He is not presented as some prophet equal to other prophets and humans (S. 5:75), which is the Islamic picture.

Second, His identification of himself as “the Son” in the context of differentiating Himself from humanity and the angels 1) refutes Islam’s denial of Jesus’ sonship and the Father’s fatherhood; and 2) shows His unique divine relationship with the Father. That is, Jesus stresses His Son-ship while contrasting himself with all creation then and so affirms that His Son-ship is utterly unique and reflective of His divine superiority to all creation. Thus, in light of that context, it will not work to say Jesus is a Son just like other creatures are God’s sons in the Bible (a common Islamic assertion). Jesus shows that His Son-ship transcends those kinds of identifications and separates Him from all creation.

Third, according to the standards of the biblical writers, Jesus not knowing the final day and hour no more disqualifies Him from deity than Revelation 19:12’s mention of only Jesus knowing the name written on Him disqualifies the deity of the Father and Holy Spirit. It says, “His [Jesus’] eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written on him that no one knows but himself” (Revelation 19:12). Those of the 7^th century Arabian tradition must, if they want to understand the biblical material, make it their task to understand the thought of the 1^st century Jewish tradition.

Fourth, Zechariah 14:1-7 shows Jesus did know, in His full divine consciousness, the final day, though temporarily relinquishing this knowledge in his waking human consciousness during his first advent:

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. ²For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. ³Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. ⁴In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. ⁵You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! ⁶In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. ⁷For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light (Zechariah 14:1-7).

In this text the day of the Lord is referenced (the second coming of Christ). We are told YHWH will stand on the Mount of Olives and split it upon His advent (v. 4), and that this Lord’s day is known to YHWH (v. 7). However, Acts 1:11-12 proves that it is Jesus who will come on the Lord’s Day and stand on the Mount of Olives:

¹¹They also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.’ ¹²Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away (Acts 1:11-12).

Since Jesus is the LORD mentioned in Zechariah 14:4 who stands on the Mount of Olives on the Lord’s Day as Acts 1:11-12 establishes, He is by implication likewise the LORD who knows the unique day in v. 7. Thus, Christ does know the day of His return in His full divine consciousness, contra the false understanding of the Muslims who misuse Matthew 24:36.

Fifth, Matthew’s witness to the omniscience of Christ renders the Muslim handling of 24:36 specious as well. One could raise examples such as Jesus knowing the thoughts of men (Matthew 9:4; 12:25) and knowing who was unrepentant in regards to entire villages (Matthew 11:21-23).

In conclusion, we see once again that although an objection against Christ’s deity can on the surface appear to undermine the Trinitarian position, once careful consideration is given to the totality of Scripture the problem dissolves. Christ, in his waking human consciousness chose not to exercise His omniscience on this issue, just as he chose not to exercise His omnipotence at times. But in his full divine consciousness the day was known to Him. As New Testament scholar Robert Gundry notes:

Theologically, we may say that just as Jesus did not exercise his omnipotence except to further the kingdom (cf. his refusal to make stones into bread), so he did not exercise his omniscience except to further the kingdom. To have known and made known the exact time of his coming would have damaged the work of the kingdom by encouraging carelessness during the interim. What Jesus could have done because he was divine did not predetermine what he did do as also a man. The incarnation did not destroy divine potencies, but it did limit actualities (Robert Horton Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994], p. 492).

Further discussion on this Bible passage is found in these articles:

Was Jesus Omniscient?
A Response to a Muslim Article titled Is Jesus Really God? 
A Series of Answers to Common Questions

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/not_knowing_day.html

Numbers 33:55-56 > Jeremiah 1:17 > Jonah > Acts 1:8

Roland Clarke

Introduction

During the last 10 days of September radical Muslims killed 250 people and injured 350 in three seemingly 'unrelated' attacks in Kenya, Pakistan and Nigeria. During the same week, it so 'happened' world leaders attended a Global Counter-Terrorism Forum – the fourth such high level forum in the last few years. Reflecting on these horrific events, Raymond Ibrahim, a leading researcher of persecution, connected the dots in a brilliant article, Nigeria: Where Jihad and Christian Persecution Run Rampant.

One week after these events the cover story of the Spectator highlighted anti-Christian persecution. Although this magazine is secular, it declared, “one doesn't need to be a Christian to see the defence of persecuted Christians as a towering priority.”

Six months earlier, three seasoned scholars published Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians affirming that, indeed, Christians are the single most persecuted group worldwide. Not only so, the writers say persecution is happening in Muslim majority nations on a scale that is “widespread, intense, and, ominously increasing."

What should we do?

First of all, we ought to pray and offer support to our suffering Christian brothers and sisters. There is, however, another question that weighs on my mind, “Is God trying to get our attention? Are these increasing terror attacks a wake up call?” I started glimpsing this a couple years ago and subsequent events have confirmed it. Please be patient as I connect the dots between the 5 passages in the title.

Connecting the dots

If you carefully read each passage you'll see what happens when God's people fail to obey him (fully). Obviously, in Jonah's case, it optimistic to say that he obeyed, even partially. At any rate, the main point is: Each story contains a warning (explicitly or implicitly) that there are dire consequences if we disobey.

In Numbers 33, Moses warned the Israelites, "But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides."

The dire consequence in Jeremiah chapter one involves terror. Look at verses 7,17 , "Do not be afraid of them... Do not be terrified by them or I will terrify you before them."

As for Jonah, the ship in which he stowed away was struck by a terrible storm. His disobedience brought him deep trouble, but it also imperilled the sailors who were with him! The storm was so severe that they were "terrified".

What about Acts 1:8 where Christ commanded us to take the Good News to the whole world? Does it mention any threat of dire consequence if his followers disobey? Not exactly, but if we look carefully, we see this principle is implicit as the story unfolds. For example, speaking of his responsibility to take the Gospel to the whole world, Paul said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:16) We see another hint of this in Acts 20:26-27, where Paul says, "I am innocent of the blood of all men for I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God." (compare Ezekiel chapter 3)

Furthermore, we gain another glimpse of a painful consequence in Acts 8:1 where we read, "a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem." Look at the wider context and you'll see that up to this point, the church had not taken the Gospel to Judea and Samaria – they had not fully obeyed the Lord. Interestingly, this persecution resulted in the Gospel being spread into the very two regions where Christ commanded them to go! It makes sense, therefore, to see this dire consequence – at least in part – as a disciplinary or corrective measure.*

Let us conclude with a thought provoking question, “Is the church, perhaps, experiencing "barbs" and "thorns" like the Israelites of long ago?” It is easy for us to criticize the Israelites for failing to fully obey the Lord. But what about ourselves? Will we humbly admit we've not shared the Good News as we ought, especially to the 1.6 billion Muslims -- the largest group of unreached people in our world?

This last year I have written several articles dealing (in one way or other) with terrorism and persecution. Most of them are written with Muslim readers in mind. They serve as appetizers or door openers to explore the Good News. And by God's grace, many people are reading them.

If you want to discuss this further or share a similar experience you may have had I'd love to here from you. You can email me here.

All Bible quotes are taken from the New International Version.

Endnote: Persecution & Divine Providence

* Isn't it amazing how God is able to work all things out for the good of his children? (Romans 8:28-29) This is illustrated in Acts 1:8 and 8:1 where God “great persecution” was a vital step in working out his good purpose, i.e. spreading the Gospel to Judea and Samaria. In modern times, we can also see a phenomenal spiritual harvest in spite of worsening persecution!

Dr David Garrison, reports in book, A Wind in the House of Islam, “Today, in more than 60 separate locations in at least 17 of the 49 countries where Islam holds sway, new communities of Muslim-background followers of Christ are emerging ... Each of these movements has seen at least 1,000 baptized believers and at least 100 new worshipping fellowships, all of whom have come to Christ over the past two decades. In some countries, the communities have grown to number tens of thousands of new Muslim-background followers of Christ."

Another article on persecution you may want to look at is entitled, Persecution: A Sign of the Times.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/clarke/persecution_correction.html

IHS

Wounds from a sincere friend are better ...

Roland Clarke

Let me tell you an amazing story about a friend, Ahmed, who is a devout Muslim. After 9 months of friendship a situation prompted me to step out of my comfort zone and show him 'tough love.' I gave him a loving reproof which was not easy to do. I felt prompted to do this because he confided in me a heartache involving a niece for whom he cared deeply. It so happened, a couple years earlier, he had been instrumental in arranging her marriage to a Muslim and now he was beating her. To make a long story short, she divorced him.

I prayed and struggled over whether to speak frankly knowing this would involve pointing a critical finger at Muhammad. I knew that Muslims hold Muhammad in highest esteem, believing him to be the most exemplary human who ever lived. They are very sensitive about him, as is evident from the worldwide outrage evoked by the Muhammad cartoons.

Eventually I plucked up courage and said, “It seems to me that Muhammad's teaching, as found in the Qur'an, gives Muslim husbands reason to excuse this kind of behaviour.” I pointed to a Qur'anic statement that endorses beating one's wife. (Surah 4:34) But nowhere did Jesus ever say anything remotely similar in the Injil, or elsewhere in the Bible.

I went on to recount two similar incidents in the life of Muhammad and Jesus, one involving a blind man and the other an adulteress. Both stories further exonerated (upheld) Christ as morally perfect, whereas, Muhammad fell short to put it mildly.*

How did Ahmed respond? To my amazement, the confrontation strengthened our friendship! As Solomon said, “Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.” (Proverbs 9:8, NIV)

Not only so, a week later, when I visited Ahmed he welcomed my suggestion to show the Jesus movie to his family! Several weeks after this, Ahmed and his family enjoyed a meal in my home. Once again, God's Word was vindicated, “Wisdom is shown to be right by her actions.”(Matthew 11:19)

If you want to read more details of this remarkable confrontation simply ask me and I will email you. You may also like to read my article, The Cornerstone: Muhammad or Jesus? which examines how Muhammad and Jesus both claimed to be the only cornerstone. Notice my aim is not to attack Muhammad or provoke Muslims, but simply to see who measures up and merits this title.

Some Christians may ask, “What exactly am I hoping to accomplish by telling this story?” Let me make it perfectly clear: my purpose is not to encourage Christians to go around hunting for opportunities to rebuke and refute Muslims (tactlessly). There is a place for refuting and reproving, but let's be sure we speak the truth in love.

Spur one another to love and good deeds

My experience of showing tough love to Ahmed calls to mind Proverbs 27:6, “Wounds from a sincere friend are better than many kisses from an enemy.”

I trust that Christians reading Ahmed's story will be spurred to go out of their comfort zone. For some this means overcoming timidity and actively befriending Muslims, perhaps in small ways, like giving a smile and warm greeting. (Matthew 5:46-47) Others will be challenged to show love by sharing a reason for our hope, as it is written, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he has redeemed from trouble.” (Psalm 107:2, ESV) 

Not only so, we all need to realize there is a place for a loving rebuke. In fact, we can actually be unloving if we withhold correction!

In closing, let me say that telling the truth – even gently – may require us to say something that hurts or wounds our friend. Two classic illustrations from Scripture are John 4:18, 22 and Acts 17. Notice that Paul's sermon didn't just use commonalities as a way of bridging to his audience, he also refuted their idolatry. In a similar way, Jesus not only showed a gracious attitude to the Samaritan woman by affirming certain commonalities, he also told her unpleasant truths, which in effect, wounded her feelings. It is important for us to empathize with her sense of ethnocentric, religious pride. We ought to ask, “How would this woman have felt when Jesus said, 'You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.'”? (NIV) We should also bear in mind that a few moments earlier Jesus had exposed the Samaritan woman's moral bankruptcy, albeit with gentleness. (cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-26)

If you have questions or comments please feel free to email me here. 

All Bible quotations are from the New Living Translation unless otherwise indicated.

Footnote

Jesus gave personal attention to a blind man, when others were trying to push him aside. (Mark 10:46-52) Muhammad spurned a blind man who approached him while he was talking with leaders of the community. (Surah 80:1-4)

The second incident compares how Jesus and Muhammad dealt with an adulteress. Muhammad had her stoned to death but Jesus showed grace and forbearance, saying "Go and sin no more." (see Sahih Muslim Book 17, Number 4206, compare with John 8:1-11)

Appendix

Not many days after my remarkable 'confrontation' with Ahmed, a Christian friend, who we'll call Andy, had a similar experience involving boldly correcting a Muslim. This encounter happened in the transit lounge of the Dubai airport where he was sitting next to an Arab (Osman) and struck up a conversation. After a few minutes talking about various things, such as careers etc, Osman shared how he works as a consulting engineer to oil companies. Andy said he was a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Osman commented that Islam is the best religion, although he admitted he wasn't a good practising Muslim. He believed that all Muslims are going to paradise and that the Bible has been recopied, changed etc, etc.

Would Andy allow this lost man to continue under this cloud of deception? Would he pluck up the courage to bring the light of God's Word, even if it meant correcting him and refuting his erroneous beliefs?

Many Christians in this situation would hesitate because they've not established a sufficiently strong relationship or they've not won the right to be heard. But for Andy this was a one shot opportunity to impact a man who he might never see again!

Prompted by the Spirit, Andy boldly refuted Osman point by point, especially driving home the fact that not even Muhammad knew whether he or his followers would make it to paradise. (Surah 46:8-9) This was in stark contrast to the claims and teachings of Jesus Christ who knew he was going to paradise and promised his followers the same. (Luke 23:43)

It was soon evident that Osman was out if his depth. Andy challenged Osman on many other things too! ...

Much to Andy's surprise, Osman warmed to him, reaching out and embracing him like a long lost brother – not once but twice. He said, "I've never met someone like you before. You are telling me things that nobody has told me before. I never talk to strangers at airports but something made me talk to you." I told him it was no coincidence but a divine appointment and he agreed.

Osman said he would love to continue the discussion and encouraged Andy to visit him in Spain where he lives with his family. In his excitement Osman even offered to pay for Andy's flights. Andy has since emailed Osman and is praying for more opportunities to explain God's Word.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/clarke/wounds_friend.html

IHS