Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Jesus
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Welcome once again to some focus.
Today we have our 15th program on Jesus, the beloved messenger of Allah. Our topic tonight will be our fifth on the Jesus claim within it. I'm your host Rashad Manish, and here with me once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Jamal Badawi.
Could you give us a summary of last week's program? Okay. Last week we continued with the discussion of some of the quotations usually referred to in the Bible, to support that Jesus claimed to be divine for equal with God. And more specifically, we began with a discussion of the very famous statement and the Gospel According to john, chapter three, verse 16. And it was noted that the term the Gotham has been dropped in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. And that means, of course, that it probably the word forgotten was not in the original column on authentic manuscripts.
And we also discussed other terms, such as Lord, which means actually teacher or master that has nothing to do with with divinity, the term Messiah and Savior. And we give numerous references to the Bible, in the Old Testament, the particular
word, the term Messiah and serve your word was used for other than Jesus peace be upon him, and in some instances used even in plural, like the term Savior,
and would affect also so one biblical scholar who compared how the title of Jesus seemed to have evolved over time, and how the simple term Jesus has been changed and later writings to you know, Son of God or Lord terms, which could possibly be used to argue that Jesus was, was divine. The last question was the some of the other issues and claims such as Jesus being perfect, that he was prophesied in the Old Testament that he was filled with the Holy Spirit. And he indicated that these things do not necessarily mean divinity. And there were other prophets like john the baptist, who had some descriptions of similar nature. So that's basically what we covered last time. Thank you,
as consumers similar similar issues. It's been argued that Jesus said that his words will not pass away, and that this may be a form of divinity. Would you care to comment on that? One, the reference usually, as I understand to the gospel, according to Mark, in chapter 13, verse 31, actually, it is attributed to us to have said that heavens and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
To begin with, I'd like to say that it is highly doubtful whether Jesus actually said this, but this is related to another topic that God will cover later. But even if we assume for the sake of understanding and discussion, that he said that this does not in itself constitutes a claim of divinity, because in many other places, as we have seen, and you will see, Jesus peace be upon him, continuously indicated that he does not do anything on his own. He does not say anything on his own, but what he hears he says that he communicates what has been revealed to him. It could have been that what he teaches or say, is essentially the Word of God not because he is God, or his divine,
but because he could indicate the Word of God.
So the words that does not pass away, he had actually are originally the Word of God communicated to him.
It is interesting also to notice that if that verse in that is Mark 1331, is taken into context, you might observe that in the very following verse, that is 1332. Jesus clearly indicate that he's not the one because he says that he does not know the hour. He does not know when the Day of Judgment, let's say
when you begin and This removes any doubt
That might be created from the previous verse, in terms of claiming divinity.
Now, I realize the gesture is actually quite significant to make the point. I was curious, however, about your initial comments, that it's doubtful that Jesus actually made the statement, in other words, that my words will not pass away. Maybe you can explain that a little further. Okay, well as a quick reference area, that this relates to a topic, which is a big topic by itself, the question of the authority and authenticity in terms of the Bible and the various versions and how these
words came to be recorded. But just to explain what I meant, at this juncture, one can only relate to the context
of the verses, in which Jesus said, My words will not pass away. And if you look into the section as a complete unit, you go to chapter 13, for example, especially, and verses 24. Through 33,
you find that Jesus peace be upon him, speaks about that they will judge, there's no question about that is talking about when the sun ceases to give light or become darkness, when the stars will fall from the sky, and the moon will not give any more light and so on. So definitely speaking about the Day of Judgment. And if you read that carefully, in the 13th, chapter of Mark, you will find that Jesus addresses his contemporary his disciples, and he indicates that this generation will not pass away before this things happen.
This generation, that means that the day of judgment was expected in the life, according to this verses in the life of the disciples of Jesus. And we all know that, of course, 2000 years nearly has already passed, since this statements attributed to Jesus was said, and the day of judgment has not taken place. yet. He said in this generation, people standing before him. And that leaves theoretically at least two possibilities, either that Jesus peace be upon him, God forbid, was not telling something which is correct, or that the statement itself actually to him is not correct. Obviously, with all the jus respect and love we have for Jesus peace be upon him. It is impossible
for me as a person to even entertain the possibility that he was not telling the truth online, it's impossible, as a great messenger of God, never say such incorrect information. So that leaves us with the only other alternative that is developed at least and they said humbly, without the grid that I have in mind that Jesus would have said something like that, which actually did not come to pass. But aside from this, this is another issue. The main point which I was trying to emphasize in the answers to the previous question, that even if we accept that Jesus, indeed said, that doesn't mean claim of divinity, one has to understand that in the context of the Bible itself. For example,
in the Gospel of john, in chapter 14, verse 24, Jesus said it clearly. And it says, and the world which you hear, is not mine, the word that you hear, or what you hear is not mine, but the father's who sent me. Well, if the word is not his, and the word is the father's, or God's word, and he says, My Word will not pass away, obviously, he means the Word of God will not pass away people around him could easily understand. Very good. Now how about what is attributed to Jesus? That is, when he said, for example, all authority was given to him. One, let us take first the reference to that, what does it say in the text and just look at the wording carefully. Usually, the references made to
the Gospel according to Matthew chapter 28, verse 18, in which Jesus again is said to have said, own authority, in heaven, and on earth, has been given to me.
Now, if we were to take this word or that statement in a very strict, literal sense, the question that should arise here is this. If all authority and heavens and earth has been given to the Son, Jesus, the Son of God, what is the role and status of the father?
That means then, that the Father has absolutely no authority because all has been given to the son. And if this is the case, he sees this to be God. He sees this even to be the father because he wouldn't have any divine attributes left, if it doesn't have any authority left in this universe. So definitely, that would be an impossible interpretation.
In addition to this, if we look at the
word word in itself, he says, All authority has been given, not coming from me, not originating from me, but given to me.
Obviously, we all know that one who gives is definitely superior to one who receives, which means then that whatever has been given to Jesus peace be upon him has been given to him by his creator, by God all the time used further. And we all know that, to be God, and to be divine, it means that you don't receive anything from anyone, not authority or no power from anyone, because you are the source of all power, you are Almighty, but to receive, that means you are the proof on one hand, that only God has the power to give. He did not claim that he gave himself he was given by God, which is also the one who received IE Jesus is only a humble and faithful servant of his creator.
is now sometimes claimed that some of the disciples of Jesus actually worshipped him.
And Jesus did not object to this. Now, what's the basis of this claim? And is it true? I think there's an apparent misunderstanding of a term which cannot be interpreted again, literally.
Just to get the differences first, and see which term really caused this confusion. For example, in the Gospel, according to Matthew in chapter 14, in verse 33.
It says that when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, it says they worshiped him.
Notice, he didn't say they prayed to him, or they, you know, they fight, he would simply say they worshipped him. We all know that the term worship does not necessarily mean the relationship between the human and the creator's relationship between disciples and gods. Okay.
You know, sometimes, in the English traditions when they use the term his worship for
worship, actually, in that context really means intense love, intense love. And this is not unusual. It's not a far fetched term.
Many times we hear people saying that this man worships money.
It doesn't mean that you consider money, God and bow down and neck sacraments or prayers before donors. It means simply that he loves money so intensely, that becomes his object of worship, or a person loves
his wife so much that he says, oh, he worships his wife. So this our terms that are in that context means simply intense love. A similar difference is made to the gospel according to john in chapter 20, verse 28, when it is attributed, that Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord, and my God, my Lord, and my God, and somebody say it is very calling Jesus God. And if Jesus really
objected to that he should have said something, but he didn't object to him. But again, leaving aside the
possibility, or the evidence, in fact, that we have seen in the previous program, of possible editing in some of the manuscripts, even if we assume that this was the original, one would wonder, however, whether
Thomas was really expressing
emotions, intense emotion by by saying, you see, my Lord, my God, which means that you are God like not that you are God, you are God. Like, again, this is not a far fetched interpretation, because in the Hebrew tradition, the term God was used to refer even to human beings. I think I mentioned that in a previous program just to refresh the memory, in the Psalms of David, Psalm 82, verse six, it says, ye are gods, some of the most high but it seems easy for humans are gods. In the book of Exodus, chapter seven, verse one, when God sent Moses to the Pharaoh, he said, I send you as God to the Pharaoh. He didn't mean of course, the creator of heavens and earth, but representing God or God
like it is quite conceivable also that Thomas was simply saying, my notes and then like when you have a some kind of explanation, oh my god, like, Oh, my lord, oh my god, similar to what you you know, say when you're really surprised, or there's something new that the choke you.
These are just two of various other possibilities, but none of which really seem to carry any conclusive evidence
that Jesus actually claimed to be God. In fact,
Not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament itself. In the Gospel, according to john in chapter 10, verse 34, when the Jews were accusing him of blasphemy, and you say this man is equating him self with God, or claiming to be the Son of God, and He says, Is it not written in your law? I said that you are God's. So he was apparently referring to the the Psalms or the Exodus.
If, if it were to actually add, that the disciple of Jesus peace be upon him, indeed, literally worship Him, as a God, or as the God
would have found the four gospels, at least full of information that they bow down to him all the time, and they worship them, and they pray to him. But in fact, it was Jesus Himself, peace be upon him, who taught them to pray. For example, in the very famous Lord's Prayer, in Matthew chapter six, special verses nine through 13, Jesus told the disciples to pray and say, our Father in heaven, obviously, a person who is himself an object of worship, who himself is divine would not say that, but he directs them, their devotion to the one who created him, and then the same time. So it's really inconceivable to say, that a humble servant of God like Jesus,
who actually even called himself son of moon, is an interesting term also, Jesus Himself called himself Son of Man, or was called the Son of Man, except that anyone would literally really call him God in the absolute sense, except, of course, in the metaphoric sense that you are God like, you are the messenger, nothing the very, you know,
I'm, I'm interested in financing, maybe you can use a few references from the Bible, where Jesus calls himself, the son of men. What this is quite significant because it has an implication. The references are too numerous to really make any comprehensive review, but I'll just give a few examples so that if some viewers wish to check that they of course, they're free to do so.
In the Gospel, according to Matthew, in chapter eight, verse 20.
The term son of manuals referred to referred or used to refer to Jesus, it says, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. And the Gospel of Matthew also chapter nine, verse six,
it says, The Son of Man has authority on Earth, to forgive sin. There is just a footnote here, it says, has authority on earth to forgive sin, if it is meant, of course, that he was divided into that said conclusively and clearly forgive sins on heavens and on earth. But that's just a side remark on the wording, and the gospel, according to Matthew, also, in chapter 16, verse 13, the same term is used of men.
In the Gospel, according to Matthew in chapter 18, verse 11, in older editions, it also uses the term Son of Man, I should come in to hear that,
at least in the copy I have of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, verse 11, to chapter 18, of Matthew has been dropped. And it's interesting to notice that if you go through the chapters, it can it shows verse 10. Next to that directly, verse one, verse 11, has been omitted.
So apparently, that was not more authentic on additions. But in any case, the evidence is quite clear that there's plenty of places. I just give you one more evidence, for example, in Matthew also chapter 19, in verse 21,
when it is attributed, and they say, attributed for a good reason to Jesus, that he prophesied that that was disciples standing before him, will actually sit as rulers of the 12 tribes of Israel,
the term son of men, also was used.
So this kind of term Son of Man, to me is quite clear,
obvious in showing the humanity of Jesus that he was a human being. But what really amazes me is that there are still some people who try to turn this turn this cave turn around to claim that it actually shows the Divinity or to prove the divinity of Jesus on the basis of that.
That sounds a little strange to me. Anyway.
What do you mean by that? Well, how can that be? Okay, the way they explain it, and I'm referring to, for example, some, what you might call born again, Christian type of literature. You know, there's one booklet that came from South Africa, for example, where
the term son of men, which like I said, is an obvious reference that Jesus was not divine, it
is humorous to say to say that Jesus actually was divine. The basic arguments is presented as follows. First of all, it says that
those some kind of uniqueness of the term Son of Man, as it refers to Jesus, peace be upon him.
But at the same time, we find in the very same publication
about the titans of Jesus, it's called passage of Jesus. And this is a very simple application.
There are references to several places in the Old Testament in the Bible itself.
Where the term Son of Man has been used to refer to Jesus so that it's not uniquely used to refer to Jesus with acknowledgement of the author himself.
In addition to what that booklet mentions, I did my little own research also parcher research because I didn't exhaust it. And there are numerous places where you can find the term some of my news before Jesus, referring to other than Jesus peace be upon him.
The book of Ezekiel, for example, you find the term used in the beginning of chapters 3334 3536, you find it in chapter 37, in verses nine and 11. It is found in the book of Daniel, chapter seven, verses 13 and 14, in the Psalms of David, son, number four, verse four, in the book of john,
Chapter 25, verse six, and this and many others, like I said, this is not exhaustive list, he innumerous other places.
It has been used to refer to other than Jesus, how could you say that this is a unique title, which means divinity. There is no evidence as some claim, that the term son of men when it was used, in the Old Testament was used in a lesser sense, there is no proof, there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
second argument that is presented is that it says that, while the term Son of Man was used before,
when it comes to Jesus, in the gospels, he is referred to as the Son of Man. So the definitive article, and this is in my humble understanding, the weakest of all arguments, because when you say the teacher came, the prophet was sent, the prophet said, This does not mean that there is no other teacher, but that teacher or there's no other Prophet, you're referring to one particular case. So that's, that's a very, very weak type of basis to say that this proves divinity, a serious matter, like that. Another argument that the author presents is that
he never was the term Son of man used in the New Testament, as the opposite or in contrast to the term Son of God. But the question here, why should they be contrasted? Because when you say it was not used as in contrast to Son of God, then the implicit assumption here is that it is either or that the Son of God means literally the Begotten Son of God. And again, we say that the term forgotten even has been dropped in recent editions of the Bible.
So they have to choose between divine and human. And we have already indicated with ample evidence in previous programs, that the Son of God as was understood by the contemporaries of Jesus, and as was used in the Bible itself, does not mean at all, divine, that we are all children of God. And we have given quotations upon quotation from the Bible itself. So why should the Son of Man and Son of God be in contrast, both of them refer to two human beings, it could be the Son of God and the son of men. At the same time. I'd like to make a footnote here that I do not wish to get into details because it might be a little bit outside of the topic.
The terms are the prophecies about the coming of the Son of Man has been believed. You know, he almost universally by many theologians to refer to Jesus peace be upon him. And this raises a number of questions. Because if we were to refer to something pertaining to Jesus, humanity, actually should say he is the son, not of a man, a son of Mary, because he doesn't have a physical father. And this is
A position taken by Christians as well as Muslim. So the term Son of man really does not seem to be appropriate except if you take it in a broad sense that he's a human being, in which case, of course, the point is proven. But otherwise, the term son of Mary seem to be more fitting to Jesus than saying, son of man, he doesn't have a physical father. And there have been some scholars who have
indicated that there is a viable interpretation of some of those prophecies to refer to another human being who would have a physical Father's will come after Jesus, but this is again, a different topic in itself. But in any case, suppose even we take it, that it all applies to Jesus.
Definitely, it is far from being a satisfactory
indication that he claimed divinity On the contrary, son of man is a human being nothing but
so far discussion has centered mainly around statements attributed to Jesus, which are attributed to mean that he was that he claimed to be divine or fine. But let's look at this from another point of view or another angle, Did Jesus or was Jesus ever quoted as denying that he was divine? Okay, this is very significance. And its significance lies in the fact that one meaning theologian have spent so many years and done lots of research to try and take evidence, which is definitely far from conclusive, like we have discussed in the last few programs, to show that Jesus claimed to be divine. And you have indicated that in the context of the Bible, it doesn't mean so at all. On the
contrary, we find that there are numerous verses in between in the New Testament, which are very clear, very clear, very straightforward, in which Jesus actually denies clearly, that he was a divine, the examples of numerous let me just begin with a few. And the gospel according to john, chapter five, verse 30, Jesus says very clearly, I can do nothing of my own authority, I can do nothing of my own authority, as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not my own will, but the will of Him who sent me couldn't what could be more obvious than obviously clear statement of his humility, and that he has nothing to do except to do what Allah or God ordered or
commanded to do?
In the same gospel, john, in chapter 14, verse 10, and I quote, I do not speak of my own authority, but the father who dwells in me, does his work. And again, we explained in a previous program, what does the term one really mean? The Gospel According to john chapter eight, verses 28 and 29. Again, I do nothing of my authority, but speak.
Thus, as the father taught me, He who sent me and he who sent me, is with him, he has not left me alone, and I always do what is pleasing to Him.
JOHN 1424, and the word which you hear is not mine, but the father's who sent me, john 1428, the father is greater than I knew that there is nobody who is greater than God, the Father is greater than I, john 1431. I do as the Father has commanded me, nobody commands the divine, the divine commands the humans, commanded me.
It is quite obvious that anyone who says that I'm doing only what I have been directed, I'm saying only what I've been taught and thought to say, is definitely indicating to us that is a human being is a faithful servant of the creator's one final remark that most of these references come from the non synoptic gospel of john, which is used mostly to support the divinity of Jesus is far from it's so clear to me. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, by the way, we seem to have run out of time. And thank you all for joining us here once again, this time and focus, any questions or any comments you may have you would appreciate them our phone number and address will be appearing on your
screen. A lot of us Assalamu alaikum. Hope to see you next week.