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.
And welcome once again to stem focus.
Our program today will be our twin, B arm sorry, our 36th on our series, Jesus to be our messenger of Allah. And in particular we have our third on Trinity, atonement and blood sacrifice. I'm your host Charlemagne. Here we are at once again from St. Mary's University to have Dr. Jamal better. So I
have a summary of last week's program before we continue. Okay, last week was a continuation of conclusion, you might say out of the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity. And we have given some additional explanation that are normally presented and indicated that these examples and explanations are not really correct analogies, and that they are not really consistent with the definition of the Trinity, especially the matching formula.
We also discuss some of the responses to those objections and indicated again, that they are totally unsatisfactory and answering the very legitimate objections to it.
Thirdly, we discussed also the claim that monotheism and Trinity are not contrary to each other, just one expression of it. And we indicated that this is totally irreconcilable, especially if we insist on to Trinity rather than allegorical spiritual union. We also discussed a common objection that the reason Muslims reject Trinity is that they don't understand. They don't understand via Trinity. And in our response, we have given two basic lines. One is that the objections to Trinity has also come through a large number of faithful Christian, not talk about atheist, very faithful Christian throughout history, and this will not Muslims, and it's basically the same or similar
objection to what Muslims have.
Secondly, the Koran corrects all aspects of departure from the true Christian monotheistic faith, which includes both what the Christian church classified as heretical sects, as well as the mainstream as well. So we ended up really by concluding that the only way to remove the confusion
is to go back to what all the prophets before Jesus, and Prophet Mohammed after Jesus, and Jesus Himself taught, that there is only one true God, Jesus and other prophets are the scriptures. It's very interesting and refreshing to read in john, gospel according to john chapter 17, verse three, that they may know, they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. So really talking about a human being a creature of God, Jesus, and God, and that the Holy Spirit really is a reference to the Gabrielle the engine of Revelation. Otherwise, there is not an insight to the confusion
of the doctrine which was not to the teachings of Jesus or any of the prophets for that matter.
Let's turn to the question of sin and atonement. First of all, what is the essence of this doctrine, and now I am referring to it in the Christian doctrine, the Christian, I'm trying my best. So it's very hard to be fully fair and impartial. And I stand corrected. But my humble understanding from reading both in the Bible and other Christian literature
is basically this that God created Adam, perfect and holy, that Adam was perfect and holy, and he ordained him not to eat from the tree of knowledge, as an disobeyed God, and eat from that tree, and as such, he lost his holiness and His perfection, he fell.
But when Adam fell, he did not fall by by himself or alone. The whole humanity also filled with him. Because in Adam See, the humanity also has been responsible, was created in him.
Now because the human being is innately sinners,
Not just sinner, when he make commits, the sin is sin, innately, from the moment of his birth is born sinful, then it is another which is inherited, that one cannot really escape from.
Now it goes on that
the sin of Adam, merited him, death, not only for him, but for all his posterity, because the sin or the wages of sin is death.
But the penalty for that original sin must be also eternal punishment.
To avoid that eternal punishment for human beings, there must be an absolute and eternal penalty, which must be paid, in order to satisfy the demands of justice, or divine justice.
Now, no human being, it says, can pay that penalty,
nor even to intercede on behalf of another human, because all humans are sinners, and the center is no good to intervene on behalf of others. And as such, there must be another Redeemer, who himself is divine. And that belief says that Jesus was that divine, sent by God in order to redeem us, or to reconcile the world to God.
This doctrine which I tried my sincere best, to be reasonably accurate and fair, and summarizing is very central in Christian theology. It may be said even that on the basis of that doctrine, the notion of the vacation of Jesus and the notion of Trinity, both were formulated.
But, like our previous discussions on the topic of deification of Jesus peace be upon him the questions that should be raised fairly, are this doctrine, or is that doctrine based on the Old Testament? Does it have clear foundation in the New Testament? Is it viable and reasonable in explaining the notion of sin, atonement and forgiveness, and this is another issue.
Now, let us follow the same methodology which was used in the discussion of deification of Jesus and vSphere. Five, to begin with, is this doctrine based on the Bible beginning with the Old Testament? Well, to answer that question, one has to look at it as we did also, as you suggested in the previous topic, on the deification, you have to look at it both from the positive and negative standpoint. By that, I mean that we should first of all, look at evidence that sometimes is offered as a support for that doctrine in the Old Testament, discuss it and see where there really isn't evidence a clear one. And then after that, we can also examine whether there's any counter evidence
that negate that this is actually the true doctrine as taught in the Bible. Now, since we're still in the Old Testament, I will begin by reference to the book of Genesis. And the famous story of Prophet Abraham, when he was prepared to sacrifice is only according to the Bible, not in reality, because the Bible said to his sacrifices on your son, Isaac, and you know, of course, in reality that Ishmael was already rich, in addition to Isaac, in case, the sacrifice of Abraham of his son, and the shedding of the blood for forgiveness. But the question here is this, what does that story has to do with the divine, sacrificing his blood or shedding his blood or the Son of God shedding
his blood for the salvation of humanity? We all know that that story was basically a test of the faith of Prophet Abraham, that God really did not intend to have him killed or sacrifice or slaughter his son. He was testing his obedience. And once he showed his trust, and obedience, then he was spirit he and his son and Ram was presented. In fact, if the ram here is a symbol, it is not a symbol of the Divine coming down to carry the sins of humanity, but a symbol of the mercy of God and the sanctity of human life, that no human can be slaughtered, to please God, not anymore.
A second evidence sometimes is presented from the book of Exodus in chapter 12, especially verses 12 and 13. The famous story also
of the instruction that God gave purportedly to the Israelites to kill
And then and to put some signs with his blood on their homes so that you will be spared when God comes to smile, the firstborn of the Egyptians. And the argument goes that the Jews every year celebrate this by slaughtering an unblemished lamb, the Pascal and
the blood is put on the altar. And the claim is made that when Jesus came, he came to solve that problem once for all, he is the Lamb of God, the claim says, The unblemished lamb of God. And as such that finishes that practice. The problem with this kind of logic is that this commemoration of that particular incident, the Passover,
has nothing to do again with atonement through the divine shedding his blood, I don't see the connection at all.
On the other hand, we must say also that the Jews never understood their sacrifice, to be
consistent or to be synonymous with the notion of atonement, that word was introduced much later, even after Jesus peace be upon him. And for 40 years after him, nearly the Jews continued that practice of spluttering this past column until the destruction of, of Jerusalem, the connection there is not really that, that clear. A third evidence is given sometimes by reference to the book of Exodus, also, in chapter 20, and verse four. And let me read the text. It says, For I am the Lord your God, and a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third, and fourth, the generation of those who hate me.
I wonder how could a text like that be presented as a proof of the absolute and endless inheritance of sin, and the need for the divine to die in order to atone for the sins, first of all, the text says, to the third or fourth generation, so if you were to look at Lipson he didn't say all generations from either mountain, the day of judgment. But that's not the important part. The important part is that this very verse, which is usually quoted, is qualified, because it says, to the third or fourth generations of those who hate me, who hates me, which means that those who do not hate God are excluded from this kind of punishment, even if their parents were sinners, are
Furthermore, what is more important also is to continue and read the following verse, verse five, just to find the one next to it. And we find that it definitely does not go with this kind of interpretation
of the Divine dime. Because it says, that God that is God's speaking, they're showing steadfast love to 1000s. That is, God is showing steadfast love to 1000s of those who love me and keep my commandments. So put in the proper context when it does not give an evidence of the doctrine of atonement, as we defined earlier. Of course, evidence
is given sometimes from the limitations of the prophet Jeremiah, and chapter five, verse seven, of lamentation, where he says, Our fathers sinned, and are no more and we bear their inequities. But if you read the verse following that, we find that he is not really speaking about original sin that is inherited from Adam because of eating from the tree. He is talking about the contemporary suffering of this right as his time. For example, verse eight reads, slaves ruled over us, there is none to deliver us from their hand.
Elsewhere in the Bible, we find that Jeremiah
indicate that the reason they are punished also that they also sinned. We find that in the book of Jeremiah, chapter 14, verse 20, Chapter 16, verses 10, to 13.
The fifth evidence given, attributing to David prophet David, that he said that he is sinful, that he was conceived in sin that even since verse is sinful, we find that in the 51st Psalm, in verse five, but again, if you read the verses before and after that, you find that it is quite different from the notion of the Divine dying to atone for sin because
It says that he can pray to God to wash him.
See, he's praying to God to wash him so that he will be whiter than snow. As you find in verse seven,
and the verses before that, also, he prays to God to wash him to cleanse him. He didn't say cleanse means through the blood of your son was going to come so many hundreds of years afterwards. So all of these differences, and others, I think that's typical, perhaps of these kinds of
proofs. It's not perfect. It doesn't provide any conclusive evidence, at least as defined in Christian theology. Well, this might be a good time then to get to the counter evidence, either raising in the Old Testament, which is not consistent with this document, or with this doctrine of atonement. Well, just like in our discussion of deification of Jesus, after we discussed the purported evidence, we find, we found that the counter evidence where Jesus shows his subordinates, the father is greater than I are very clear, more conclusive and more plentiful. And the same applies, in my humble understanding also to the notion of blood sacrifice, and atonement. Let me
give you a few examples going through the same order that the books appear in the Bible. It might take a little time, but hopefully I could clarify it. I'd rather code directly rather than
just make a general statement. Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 24, verse 16, the father is shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the father's, every man shall be put to this for his own sin. Even if we take that verse to apply just to guilt rather than sin. Again, in a given crime, the universal principle is there is not negated at all, that there is no notion there of automatic inheritance of sin, because we happen to be the children of Adam.
The first book of Samuel chapter 50, and verses 22, and three. And Samuel said, has the Lord
has great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord. Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, to obey is better than sacrifice and to Harkin than the fat of rams. That's so obvious, speaks very clearly. It's not the question of sacrifice that God is interested in, but in repentance and cleansing.
In the book of in the in the Psalms of David,
there are at least four or five references that one can point to, in Psalm 30, verse five, speaking about God, for his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Yes, God might have been angry with Adam, when he disobeyed him, but to speak about that anger being inherited, for us as humans, until the day of judgment, forgetting about the favor. I think that doesn't seem to go with that Psalm. Psalm 32, verse five, I acknowledged my sins to thee, and I did not hide my inequity. And then it goes on later and says, then there would this would give the gift of my sin. David, he didn't say that you will forgive me later, when Jesus come and die on the cross. It says,
You did Forgive me.
Psalm 51, verse 16, for thou hast no delight in sacrifice, David addition, God, you have no delight in sacrifice. Were I to give a burnt offering that would not or would not be pleased that it's not the offering that would please you some 69, verses 30 and 31. I praise Sorry, I will praise the name of God with a song. I will magnify him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hooves.
And some 106 verse 23.
We are told about Moses prayers to God interceding on behalf of the Israelites so that God will not destroy the Israelites when they made the golden calf. Again, it showed here that it was possible for a human being to intercede on behalf of other human beings no need for divine dying there. Even if we say that
this intercession applies to that particular case on the I think we have no evidence to say that the principle would not apply and swear
In the book of Jeremiah, chapter 31, verses 29 and 30. It emphasizes again that everybody dies because of his own inequity. I'm not I don't think they're talking about physical death. Here, of course, we talk about the death of the soul, the same concept that the concept of atonement deals with, in the book of Ezekiel, two important differences. The first is in chapter 18, verse 20, the soul that sins shall die, the son shall not suffer for the inequity of the Father. And later on says, The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. So even if we say that this applies to the guilt, because they stylized blame
the exile on their parents, again, the universal principle is nothing against it at all. The second one in Ezekiel is in the same chapter 18, verses 30 through 32. It says, Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, list in equity Be your own, cast away from you all the transgressions, which you have committed against me, and get yourself a new heart, and a new spirit that's
a new heart and a new spirit. And why will you die, or house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God, so turn and live. Of course, it doesn't say I have no pleasure in the physical death of anyone, every human will die, but of course, in the spiritual death of anyone. In the book of Hosea, chapter six, verse six, it says, For I desire, steadfast love, and not sacrifice, that is purportedly, God's speaking. That's clear, that's very clear the knowledge of God that says, rather than burnt offering. So it emphasizes again, this whole notion, in my humble understanding the evidence from the Old Testament, against the God incarnate time for
the Atonement of the sins of managing is simply overwhelming.
Now, let us examine the New Testament, Did Jesus peace be upon him himself, teach this doctrine, not at all. In fact, from the very beginning, the basic theme of the mission of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him was basically,
dependence for the kingdom of heaven, is
the same thing that john the baptist said before.
Let's take a couple of examples of his own statements, Jesus onstage.
First of all, in Matthew, chapter seven, verse 21, he clearly indicates that Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does or fulfills the will of my Father. So he didn't say the only qualification to get into the kingdom of heavens is to believe in me as God incarnate dying for your sins, no actual doing of the will of his father, and his gun for that method.
And the Gospel according to Luke and chapter seven, verse 47, when a sinner a woman was sinner, came to him, and she loved him so much again, he felt bad that she was forgiven. It didn't give any additional reason, not pending my death on the cross or anything of that nature.
As one theologian
by the name of brush dial, or a sh M.
once said it, he said that,
if you really look as to at the on statement of Jesus, you will find that none of which really supports this notion of atonement as we defined earlier, except for maybe a couple of expressions who, in turn even are not completely far from conclusive.
Well, maybe, maybe I'll ask you to shed some light on that.
Why? Why would you say it was considered to be inconclusive? Of course, it's rushed. And instead, it's not just my opinion on that, and he's a theologian himself. Well,
he refers specifically to the statement that Jesus gave to give his life as ransom for many, and also the language of the Last Supper, which some might feel conveys this notion of atonement, you know, my body that this bread is my body, eat it and this wine is my blood, drink it.
And then he inquires, that is Rushden. He says, Are these
statements are that kind of expression, really genuine, first of all, and if they are genuine, are they conclusive? About genuineness? He said that many scholars believe that these were ageless, yes, they can type of additions to start. But he says, even if we accept them, these statements are that kind of expression does not mention clearly, or openly the notion of sacrifice or substitutionary sacrifice, the blood of Jesus and the blood of the Divine.
On the other hand, he says that, how come if this were true,
that many of the disciples, all the disciples actually wondered how Jesus was crucified, they were dismayed and angry and sad when he was crucified, according to the Bible, said, in fact, they should have been very happy, you should have run around to tell the whole world that the good news have been fulfilled, and that the sins of humanity has been washed away through the blood of Jesus on the cross according to the Bible.
Let me just refer to some quotation from his work, he says, to understand these words as meaning that other than his death, the death of Jesus,
there would, there would be no forgiveness would be to make his teachings and this passage, wholly inconsistent with the rest of his teachings about the love of God, and his willingness, that the earnings of God to forgive the sinners on one condition on the one condition of penance.
So it is impossible
to imagine that this teaching about blood sacrifice of the Divine would have been easily forgotten, as he says, that's what he thought about that would have been easy to forgotten. The moment he was put on the cross. He says, it would be even amazing how come after a few days, maybe a few hours of Jesus teaching Beth in the Last Supper, that he himself is praying
for God, to move that cup away from him. That is to save him from crucifixion, as we find documented in the Gospel, according to Mark, in chapter 14, verses 34 through 36. Because to read that kind of prayer, it sounds as if Jesus really is praying to God, to defeat the very purpose for which he can.
It sounds rather inconsistent with the claims that Jesus voluntarily accepted to sacrifice himself and offered his life as ransom for many, How come he's praying, that this may not happen actually.
when as Rushden say that, this kind of statement or expression should only be understood as expression of service of humanity, self sacrifice for the sake of humanity, and that even apparently, that's that assumes even that Jesus was crucified. But he says, Even then, who would believe that the righteous God, the loving God, would be, would not be expected to forgive or pardon the sense if there is a true intention and a true repentance on the part of the person. And in that case, even the assumed death of Jesus on the cross is not only to take away those sins, but to produce such repentance, to magnify and dramatize the importance of repentance, but not to take away
the sense or can actually, Did Jesus peace be upon him? Say anything which may negate the doctrine of atonement? Yes, indeed. In fact, you can refer to
the Gospel according to Luke, for example, in chapter five, verse 32, where Jesus defines his mission quite clearly, I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners are but sinners, to repent. He didn't say substitutionary sacrifice. In another occasion in Luke chapter 16, verse three, he indicates that destruction is not because of rejection of the substitutionary theory of atonement, the but rather the failure to repent. It says, unless you repent, you will likewise perish. In the same Gospel chapter 15 verse seven, he emphasizes again on the importance of repentance, as a prerequisite for salvation. He says, there will be more joy in heaven over one
sinner repents, than over 99, righteous person who need no repentance. And when a person addressed to him and said, Good masters, what should they do to attain or arrive at life eternal. He did not say to believe in the substitution
The theory of bloodshed, but he says by doing the will of God and he started to quote him from the 10 commandments as has been documented in the Gospel, according to Matthew chapter 19, verses 16 to 19. There are a few more but perhaps, if there's no time, we have time and inshallah we'll continue on topic next week. Thank you all for joining us your focus. As always in your questions or any comments you may have would be most appreciated. Our phone number and address will be appearing on your screen. From all of us.