Some Misunderstood Verses of the Bible Now Put Back in Their Contexts : With the Necessary Corrections to Shabir's Misinterpretation of these Same Passages, Part 2
Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most misunderstood verses of the Bible. This passage in a defective
translation reads: "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
The word Immanuel means "God is with us" (see Good News Bible, p. 673). Now, because
Matthew (ch.1, v. 23) applies this prophecy to Jesus, it is mistakenly believed that this proves
Jesus is God.
Response:
Notice Shabir's assertions that are at play in his exegesis of this passage.
He claims that translations that render the Hebrew text of Isaiah as a virgin
that shall conceive and give birth to a son called Immanuel are "a defective
translation." He then assumes that Christians are mistaken for believing
that this passage teaches the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Shabir has
allowed his theological presuppositions to influence his exegesis of the
text, as opposed to allowing the text to determine his theology. This is
a classic case of eisegesis, not exegesis.
Shabir:
First, Matthew never meant to portray Jesus as God. The belief in Jesus divinity was formulated
long after Matthew's gospel was written. Matthew's gospel proves throughout that Jesus was
a servant of God (e.g. Mt. 12:18; 24:36; 27:46).
Response:
What Shabir should have actually said is that his presupposition will
not allow for Matthew to portray Jesus as God. Shabir assumes, without
any shred of fact, that the Deity of Christ was formulated long after
Matthew's Gospel was written. Shabir then assumes that the Matthean
portrayal of Jesus as God's servant somehow denies the Deity of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Inherent in Shabir's assumption is the belief that
God is unipersonal, as opposed to being tripersonal, i.e. that
since Jesus is the servant of God he cannot at the same time be that
God. Shabir's reasoning is therefore flawed from the outset.
First, Jesus can be both God and the servant of God at the same time
since the God of Scripture is a Triune Being. When Christians say that
Jesus is God, they mean that Jesus is fully God in nature. Jesus is all
that God is without being the only person who is fully God in nature.
The Father and the Holy Spirit are also fully God as well. The one Being
of God exists in three eternally distinct and inseparable Persons or
centers of consciousness.
Second, the entire intent of Matthew is to present Jesus as the divine
Messiah coming to fulfill the promises of the OT scriptures. A brief
sampling of passages should demonstrate that Matthew's intended point
is to present Jesus as God Incarnate:
Jesus acts and speak with unprecedented Divine Authority
One astonishing aspect of Jesus is his confidence to speak on his own
authority on matters pertaining to spirituality and the kingdom of God.
In fact, Christ overrides certain aspects of the Mosaic Law solely on
the basis of his own authority. Three examples will illustrate this
point more clearly:
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,
and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you
that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the
Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the
fire of hell." Matthew 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But
I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28
"It has been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate
of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress,
and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:31-32
After citing the Mosaic Law, Jesus proceeds to reinterpret it on the
basis of his own authority. Unlike the OT prophets who often began
their utterances with "Thus saith the Lord," Jesus simply exclaims
"But I tell you." Noted Christian Apologist William Lane Craig states:
"... The typical rabbinical style of teaching was to quote extensively from
learned teachers, who provided the basis of authority for one's own teaching. But Jesus
did exactly the opposite. He began, You have heard that it was said the men of old ...
and quoted the Mosaic Law; then he continued, But I say to you ... and gave his own
teaching. Jesus thus equated his own authority with that of the divinely given Torah.
It's no wonder that Matthew comments, When Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds
were astonished at his teaching, for he taught as one who had authority, and not as their
scribes (Matt 7:28-29).
"But it's not just that Jesus placed his personal authority on a par with that of
the divine Law. More than that, he adjusted the Law on his own authority. Although
Jewish scholars have attempted valiantly to assimilate Jesus' ethical teachings to the
tradition of Judaism, Jesus' opposition of his own personal authority to the divine
Torah given through Moses is the rock upon which all such attempts are finally broken.
Take, for example, Jesus' teaching on divorce in Matt 5:31-32 (cf. Mark 10:2-12). Here
Jesus explicitly quotes the teaching of the Law (Deut 24:1-4) and opposes to it, on
the basis of his own authority, his teaching on the matter. In the Markan passage,
he declares that Moses does not represent the perfect will of God on this matter and
presumes to correct the Law on his own authority as to what really is the will of God.
But no human being, no prophet or teacher or charismatic, has that kind of authority.
Jesus, observes Witherington, seems to assume an authority over the Torah
that no Pharisee or Old Testament prophet assumed the authority to set it aside.
"In his provocative dialogue A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, the eminent Jewish
scholar Jacob Neusner explains that it is precisely on this basis why he, as a Jew,
would not have followed Jesus had he lived in first-century Palestine. Explaining
that for a Jew the Torah is God's revelation to Moses, he asserts,
Jews believe in the Torah of Moses ... and that belief requires faithful Jews
to enter a dissent at the teachings of Jesus, on the grounds that those teachings
at important points contradict the Torah ...
And therefore, because that specific teaching was so broadly out of phase with
the Torah and the covenant at Sinai, I could not then follow him and do not
now either. That is not because I am stubborn or unbelieving. It is because
I believe God has given a different Torah from the one that Jesus teaches; and
that Torah, the one Moses got at Sinai, stands in judgment of the torah of Jesus,
as it dictates true and false for all other torahs that people want to teach
in God's name.
"Given the supremely authoritative status of the divinely revealed Torah
Jesus' teaching can only appear presumptuous and even blasphemous. In effect,
as Robert Hutchinson put it, Neusner wants to ask Jesus, "Who do you
think you are God?" Neusner himself recognizes that no
one can encounter Matthew's Jesus WITHOUT CONCURRING THAT BEFORE US IN THE EVANGELIST'S
MIND IS GOD INCARNATE. But if Jesus' opposition of his personal teaching to
the Torah is an authentic facet of the historical Jesus AS EVEN THE SKEPTICAL
SCHOLARS OF THE JESUS SEMINAR CONCEDE then it seems that Jesus did arrogate
to himself the authority of God. According to Robert Guelich, one must not
shy away from the startling antithesis between God has said to those of old /
But I say to you since here lies not only the key to the antithesis but to Jesus'
ministry."
(Craig, Reasonable Faith - Christian Truth and Apologetics
[Moody Press, Chicago 1984; revised edition 1994], pp. 246-247; bold and capital
emphasis ours)
Craig goes on to say in regard to Jesus "Truly, truly I say to you"
statements:
"Second, Jesus' use of amen expresses his authority. The expression
frequently attributed to Jesus, Truly, truly I say to you, is historically
unique and is recognized on all hands to have been used by Jesus to preface his teaching ...
Ben Witherington in his acclaimed study of the Christology of Jesus explains the significance
of Jesus' use of the phrase Amen, I say to you:
It is insufficient to compare it to thus says the Lord, although that is
the closest parallel. Jesus is not merely speaking for Yahweh, but for himself and
on his own authority.... This strongly suggests that he considered himself to be a person
of authority above and beyond what prophets claimed to be. He could attest to his own
truthfulness and speak on his own behalf, and yet his words were to be taken as having the
same or greater authority than the divine words of the prophet. Here was someone who
thought he possessed not only divine inspiration... but also divine authority and the
power of direct divine utterance. The use of amen followed by I say unto
you; must be given its full weight in light of its context early Judaism.
"That Witherington's analysis is correct is evident from the complaint of the
orthodox Jewish writer Ahad ha' Am: Israel cannot accept with religious enthusiasm,
as the Word of God, the utterances of a man who speak in his own name not
"thus saith the Lord," but "I say unto you." This "I"
is in itself sufficient to drive Judaism away from the Gentiles forever."
(Ibid., p. 248; bold emphasis ours)
Craig concludes with the words of Horst Georg Phlmann:
"Horst Georg Phlmann in his Abriss der Dogmatik reports, In summary,
one could say that today there is virtually a consensus concerning that wherein the
historical in Jesus is to be seen. It consists in the fact that Jesus came on the scene
with an unheard of authority, namely with the authority of God, with the claim
of the authority to stand in God's place and speak to us and bring us to salvation.
This involves, says Phlmann, an implicit Christology. He concludes:
This unheard of claim to authority, as it comes to expression in the antithesis
of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, is implicit Christology, since it presupposes
a unity of Jesus with God that is deeper than that of all men, namely a unity of essence.
This ... claim to authority is explicable only from the side of his deity. This authority
only God himself can claim. With regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of
behavior: either believe that in him God encounters us or nail him to the cross as a
blasphemer. Tertium non datur.
There is no third way."
(Ibid., p. 252; bold emphasis ours)
Amazingly, Shabir tries to deny what Neusner and the rest claim
is the obvious, namely that to Matthew Jesus is God in the flesh!
Jesus is the Lord of Judgment
Jesus claims to be the sovereign Lord that determines the eternal
destiny of every human being:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did
we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons
and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" Matthew 7:21-23
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,
he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be
gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another
as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep
on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to
those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take
your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of
the world'... Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart
from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the
devil and his angels'." Matthew 25:31-34, 41
"As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams
and goats." Ezekiel 34:17
"In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of
Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them
down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment
against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for
they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land...
Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of
Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on
every side." Joel 3:1-2, 12
Jesus is the Bridegroom
Matthew portrays Christ as the Bridegroom of God's people:
"Then John's disciples came and asked him, 'How is it that we and the Pharisees
fast, but your disciples do not fast?' Jesus answered, 'How can the guests of
the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the
bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.'" Matthew 9:14-15
Yet, according to the OT the Bridegroom is Yahweh Elohim:
"As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you;
as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you."
Isaiah 62:5
Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath
Jesus claims to be greater than the temple of God. Just how much greater becomes
evident from the following citation:
"I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what
these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned
the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Matthew 12:6-8
Jesus is greater than the temple because he himself is the Lord of the Sabbath, i.e.
Jesus is Yahweh God. Therefore, Jesus is the very Lord of the Temple who had come
to dwell visibly with his people. This point is brought out more clearly from Jesus'
own words:
"As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John:
'What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not,
what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear
fine clothes are in kings' palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet?
Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you."'"
Matthew 11:7-10
Jesus claims that John is the Messenger that Malachi had predicted would come
to prepare the way for the Messiah:
"'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then
suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger
of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty." Malachi 3:1
According to Malachi the one whom John was preparing for was actually the
very Lord of the Temple himself. Seeing that Jesus is the one whom John prepared
the way for, this makes Jesus Yahweh God the very One to whom the temple had
been erected!
Jesus is the Lord of the World, Angels and of God's Elect
Jesus likens the kingdom to a sown field:
"Jesus told them another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a man who
sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy
came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat
sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants
came to him and said, "Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then
did the weeds come from?" "An enemy did this," he replied. The servants asked
him, "Do you want us to go and pull them up?" "No," he answered, "because
while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both
grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect
the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring
it into my barn."'" Matthew 13:24-30
Jesus goes on to identify himself as the owner of the field, with the enemy
representing Satan:
"Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and
said, 'Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.' He answered, 'The
one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world,
and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons
of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest
is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up
and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will
send out HIS angels, and they will weed out of HIS kingdom everything that
causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace,
where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine
like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."
Matthew 13:36-43
Jesus again goes on to say:
"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes
of the earth will mourn, and they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF
THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels
with A GREAT TRUMPET, and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from
the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." Matthew 24:30-31
Jesus even identifies himself as the Lord of the harvest since he says:
"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were
harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples,
'The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord
of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.'" Matthew 9:36-38
After telling the disciples to pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers
Jesus proceeds to send out his disciples!
"And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over
unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity...
These twelve JESUS SENT OUT, charging them, 'Go nowhere
among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, "The kingdom of
heaven is at hand." Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.
You received without paying, give without pay... Behold, I SEND YOU
OUT as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents
and innocent as doves. Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils,
and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors
and kings FOR MY SAKE, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.
When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak
or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you
in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you. Brother will deliver up brother to death, and
the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them
put to death; and you will be hated by all FOR MY NAME'S SAKE. But he
who endures to the end will be saved.: When they persecute you in one town,
flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the
towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.'" Matthew 10:1, 5-8, 16-23
Thus, Jesus is essentially identifying himself as the Lord of the harvest
whom believers need to pray to so that he can send forth laborers!
Jesus claims that the world, the angels, the elect and the kingdom belong to him.
In light of Psalm 24 this makes Jesus Yahweh:
"The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;
for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters." Psalm 24:1-2
Jesus Forgives Sins
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because
he will save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21
"Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith,
he said to the paralytic, 'Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.' At this,
some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, 'This fellow is blaspheming!'
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, 'Why do you entertain evil thoughts in
your hearts? Which is easier: to say, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up
and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on
earth to forgive sins...' Then he said to the paralytic, 'Get up, take your mat
and go home.' And the man got up and went home. When the crowd
saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such
authority to men." Matthew 9:2-8.
Interestingly this passage shows that Jesus knew what the teachers of the law
were thinking within their hearts without them having to speak out loud. This
implicitly attests to Jesus' omniscience. Compare this with the following OT citations:
"Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits-who forgives all
your sins and heals all your diseases," Psalm 103:2-3
"O Israel, put your hope in the LORD, for with the LORD is unfailing love and with
him is full redemption. He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins."
Psalm 130:7-8.
The fact that in the NT it is Jesus that both redeems men from their sins and heals
people of their infirmities argues quite persuasively that Matthew's Jesus is none
other than Yahweh God!
Jesus is Omnipresent
According to Matthew, Jesus is omnipresent:
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Matthew 18:20
"and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely
I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:20
In order for Jesus to be omnipresent he must be God since God alone is present
everywhere, especially till the end of the age.
Jesus is Omnipotent
Christ claims to have sovereign authority over all creation:
"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,'"
Matthew 28:18-19
It is impossible for a finite creature to sustain the entire universe and preside over it
as its Sovereign ruler. God alone is able to sovereignly control the universe. Therefore,
in order for Christ to exercise sovereign authority over the entire universe implies that
Jesus is God Almighty. This is solidified by the fact that Jesus also shares the very
same Divine name of both God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Seeing that the term
"name" also signifies authority, Jesus is therefore claiming to have the same divine
authority that Yahweh God has. This again indicates that to Matthew Jesus was
Yahweh God Incarnate!
Jesus is also able to grant others the authority to perform miracles and wonders in his name:
"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the
Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As
you go, preach this message: "The kingdom of heaven is near." Heal the sick,
raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you
have received, freely give.'" Matthew 10:5-8
Jesus gives his followers the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the leprosy
and drive out demons. In order for Christ to grant such authority to others he must be
the Almighty God since God alone has such power and authority, especially to delegate
to others.
Finally,
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and
you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Matthew 11:28-30
In order for Jesus to grant rest to all who come to him Christ must be omnipotent. A finite
creature is unable to grant rest to all who draw near to him. Compare this with the claims
made by Yahweh in the OT:
"The LORD replied, 'My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.'" Exodus 33:14
"I will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint." Jeremiah 31:25
Hence, Jesus again claims to perform a function that the OT attributes to Yahweh God.
Jesus is Omniscient
"At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have
hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father,
for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No
one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those
to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Matthew 11:25-27
For a man to claim to have the same intimate knowledge of God that God has of him is either
blasphemous or makes that man God. Seeing that Matthew has no intention of presenting Christ
as a blasphemer only demonstrates once again that the Matthean Jesus is God Incarnate.
Jesus receives the praise of Yahweh
"But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did
and the children shouting in the temple area, Hosanna to the Son of David,' they were
indignant. 'Do you hear what these children are saying?' they asked him. 'Yes,' replied
Jesus, 'have you never read, "From the lips of children and infants you have ordained
praise?"'" Matthew 21:15-16
Amazingly, Jesus applies to himself Psalm 8:2 where Yahweh is seen as receiving the praise
of infants and children!:
"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your
glory above the heavens. From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise
because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger." Psalm 8:1-2
Jesus is therefore claiming that to praise him is to praise Yahweh God!
The only way for this quotation from Psalms to count as valid justification
for Jesus not to forbid, but to confirm and encourage the praise of his
own person from those children, is the assumption of his identity with
Yahweh God.
In light of the preceding lines of evidence there can be no doubt left
that to Matthew Jesus was indeed Yahweh God Incarnate.
Shabir:
Second, the name given to an individual in the Bible cannot prove that he is God. "Elijah"
means "Jehovah God." Does that prove that Elijah is Jehovah God? Absolutely Not.
Similarly, the name Immanuel does not prove that Jesus is God with us. Neither does the
name "Elihu" (meaning "God himself") prove that the name Elihu is God himself (see I Sam 1:1).
Response:
Here, Shabir fails to make a distinction between proper names and the
use of titles and/or names as descriptions of a person's nature or
character. Whereas Elijah and Elihu are the personal names of specific
individuals, the name Immanuel is not a personal name but rather
a description of the child's nature.
In our response to Shabir's assessment of his debate with Alan Storkey
as well as to the first part of this article, we had already noted that
the Holy Bible often uses names to describe certain characteristics,
qualities and/or functions of an individual. For instance, we had
commented on the Angel of Yahweh and the fact that God's name is
contained within him:
"In the Old Testament, the 'name' of someone revealed his character.
For example, the name 'Jacob' meant 'scoundrel' and so he was.
Thus, the statement that God's 'name' is in the Messenger can only
mean that this Messenger has the character of God..."
(Morey, Trinity - Evidence and Issues [Word Publishing; Grand Rapids, MI 1996], p. 152)
Hence, the personal name of the child would not be Immanuel. Rather, the name Immanuel
describes the child's nature and function. Edward J. Young in his commentary on Isaiah states:
"Who is this Child? In chapter 7 the mother named Him Immanuel. Here, the subject is
impersonal and the verb will be rendered in English by the passive, 'and his name will be
called.' The thought is that the Child is worthy to bear these names, and that they
are accurate descriptions and designations of His being and character. In the Bible the
name indicates the character, essence, or nature of a person or object."
(Young,
Commentary on the Book of Isaiah [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1974], p. 331)
Therefore, Shabir's entire argument crumbles since the passage in Isaiah is not predicting
the Messiah's personal name. Rather, Isaiah is indicating that the Messiah would be the
complete embodiment of what the name actually represents. Hence, Immanuel signifies
that the Messiah would be God himself coming to dwell with his people in visible form,
being the fullness of Deity in the flesh. (cf. Matthew 1:22-23, 28:20; John 1:18; Colossians 2:9)
Shabir:
Third, although the prophecy is taken, in Matthew 1:23 to refer indirectly to Jesus, the
prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 actually refers directly to a child born during the lifetime of the
prophet Isaiah. That child was called "Immanuel", meaning "God is with us," and he
was God's sign given to King Ahaz that God will help King Ahaz and his people. God's
promise to King Ahaz, in the 7th chapter of Isaiah, is that before the child is old enough
to distinguish right from wrong the enemy kings will be defeated by God's help. You have
to read the entire chapter to get the full meaning. It is not right to pull one verse out of
context and give it a different meaning. That child was indeed born, and God called him
Immanuel (Isaiah 8:8). If King Ahaz had to wait seven hundred years for Jesus to be born
before God's help comes, he and his people would be long dead before God's help comes.
What, then, will be the significance of such a promise? The promise had a timely fulfillment.
The prophecy referred not to Jesus who was to be born hundreds of years later, but to
a child who was born in the time of King Ahaz.
Response:
Shabir objects to the Messianic application of this passage since it was meant as a sign for
King Ahaz. Hence, the passage states that before the maiden's child would be old enough
to choose good and refuse evil, Syria and the Northern Kingdom would lose their kings,
and Assyria would attack Judah. This all took place in the eighth century BC. (vv. 10-17)
In reply to Shabir's assertion we must state that the context includes all of Isaiah 7,
a point that Shabir himself noted. When we take into consideration the entire context of Isaiah
we discover that the sign of v.14 was for the entire "House of David" since the term for "you"
in verses 13-14 is in the plural. Yet, the sign for King Ahaz in vv. 11 and 16-17 was for him
only since "you" is singular in these passages.
Therefore, Ahaz's sign was that before the child (Hebrew- na'ar meaning a toddler,
never a baby) should know how to choose good, refusing evil, the events of vv. 16b-17
would transpire. This child was Isaiah's son, Shear Jashub, who was with the prophet at
the time and at whom Isaiah directed this sign. (Cf. Isaiah 7:3)
Yet, the son (Hebrew- ben) of v.14 would be a sign to come for all of David's
descendants since he would be the long-awaited Messiah who was born approximately
700 years later to the young virgin maiden, Mary.
"In connection with Gen. 18:4, 5 it is noted (Ber. R. 48, ed. Warsh. P. 87b) that the
words of Abraham to his Angelic guests were to be returned in blessing to Abraham's
descendants, in the wilderness, in the land of Canaan, and in the latter (Messianic)
days. Referring only to this last point, the words 'let a little water be fetched,' is
paralleled with the 'living waters' in Zech. 14:8; 'wash your feet,' with Isa. 4:4 (the
washing away of the filth of the daughters of Zion); 'rest under the tree,' with
Isa. 4:6- 'there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat;' 'I will
fetch a morsel of bread,' with the provision, Ps. 72:16- 'there shall be a handful of corn
in the earth,' etc. So also the words: 'Abraham ran unto the herd,' are paralleled
with Isa. 7:21 (which is most significantly here applied to Messianic times); and lastly,
the words 'he stood by them,' with Mic. 2:!3- 'the breaker is come upon them.'
The same interpretation occurs in Bermid. R. 14 (ed. Warsh. p. 55a), the references
to the Messianic days there being to Isa. 14:2; 30:25; 41:18; 4:4; and 4:6."
(Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah- Complete and Abridged in One
Volume [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Fourth Printing 1993], pp. 981-982)
The point that sticks out from the preceding quotation is the constant reapplication
of OT passages to messianic times. Hence, Matthew was being thoroughly Jewish in his
application of Isaiah 7:14 to the Messiah seeing that this is precisely what the rabbis
did with Isaiah 7:21!
Finally, Shabir's argument against Matthew's alleged misapplication of Isaiah 7:14
backfires against him. In one of his articles, Shabir claims:
Now what remains is for us to specify where in the Bible to find mention of our prophet.
In the Old Testament there are many references. The most significant is Song of Solomon,
chapter 5, verse 16. This verse mentions our prophet by name. It says in the Hebrew language
Bibles "He is Muhammad." But English translation have "He is altogether lovely" instead of
the real truth. You need to insist that, since it says our prophet's name in the Hebrew,
the "altogether lovely" translation is nothing more than a camouflage hiding our prophet's
name. Tell every Bible reader whether Jew or Christian to ask any Hebrew scholar to read
the Hebrew word which appears as "altogether lovely" in the translation. You will hear that
word pronounced "Muhammad." Why then hide what you should believe?
(See the following link.)
Unlike Isaiah 7 where we find ancient rabbinic commentary applying specific portions of the
passage to the Messiah, Shabir cannot show us a single pre-Islamic source where either Jews
or Christians applied Song of Solomon 5:16 prophetically to an Ishmaelite prophet whose name
would be Muhammad. Yet this does not stop Shabir from misapplying this specific passage
by wrenching it out of its immediate context and forcing it to agree with his preconceived
notions. Shabir is guilty of the very thing he accuses Matthew of, namely misapplying OT
passages to suit his own theological presuppositions. The only difference is that whereas
Matthew was being thoroughly Jewish in his application of OT passages to the Messiah,
Shabir distorts the scriptures to his own destruction. (Cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16)
Therefore, we only need to remind Shabir of his own advice to Christians:
... It is not right to pull one verse out of context and give it a different meaning...
Shabir:
A further point to notice is that the child spoken of in Isaiah will at first not be able to
differentiate between good and evil. Those who say that Jesus was that child should not
turn around and say that Jesus is God, because there has never been (and will never be)
a time when God does not know the difference between good and evil.
Response:
Shabir attacks a straw man here. Shabir knows well enough that the historic Christian position
has always been that the one person of Christ is both God and man at the same time. As God,
Christ's knowledge was complete and immediate, not needing to conceptualize anything in
order to gain an accurate understand a thing or item. Yet as man, Christ grew in relation to
his human consciousness as the following citations prove:
"And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of
God was upon him." Luke 2:40
"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor before God and men." Luke 2:52
Therefore, Isaiah 7:14-16 actually proves the very point Shabir has unsuccessfully tried to
refute! Namely, that the Messiah is the God-child and the God-man, being both omniscient
in relation to his divine nature and finite in understanding in relation to his human nature.
Shabir:
Matthew mistakenly applied this prophecy to Jesus because Jesus was born of a virgin,
and the text speaks of a virgin giving birth. Matthew was relying on the Greek Septuagint
version of the Bible where in Isaiah 7:14 the Greek word "parthenos" meaning "virgin" is
used. But the book of Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew. To find Isaiah's meaning it is
necessary to go back to the original language than to refer to a translation alone. The Hebrew
manuscripts has instead of "virgin" the Hebrew word "almah" meaning "a young woman of
marriageable age." If the writer of Isaiah wanted to say "virgin" he would have used the
Hebrew word "bethulah" meaning "virgin". But he did not. This is why the Revised Standard
Version of the Bible (and many other versions) read "young woman" instead of "virgin".
Response:
Shabir's allegation is that the word translated virgin in the Christian Bibles is more
properly translated "young maiden" since this is the proper meaning of the word almah.
The Hebrew word for virgin is b'tulah.
Although it is true that almah refers to a young maiden, this maiden by necessity
would be a virgin since the Mosaic Law made it forbidden for women to engage in sexual
intercourse prior to marriage. (Cf. Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Furthermore, the Bible itself testifies that the word almah can be used in reference
to a virgin since Rebecca, Isaac's wife, is called an almah in Genesis 24:43. Yet in
Genesis 24:16 it states that "neither had any man known her," i.e., that she was a virgin.
The most famous medieval Jewish Bible commentator Rashi (AD. 1040-1105) explained that
alamot (plural of almah) in Song of Solomon 1:3 means b'tulot ("virgins")
as a metaphorical reference to the nations. Hence, we find at least one Rabbi agreeing that
almah and b'tulah are virtually synonymous terms.
In Exodus 2:8, almah is used to describe Moses' older sister Miriam who is an obvious
virgin from the context. Moreover, more than two centuries before the birth of Jesus, the Jewish
translators of the Greek Septuagint used parthenos for almah. Depending upon
the context parthenos can either mean young maiden or virgin, much like the term
almah. This indicates that even the Jews translating Isaiah into Greek knew that the
context of the passage demanded that a virgin be meant and used the proper Greek term to
signify this fact.
Shabir might argue that the Septuagint is not a Jewish document. The Septuagint is the
translation into Greek of the Hebrew Scriptures, made for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews
in Egypt. Shabir in his articles, like many others before him, has tried to discount the value
of the Septuagint. However, that is not the view of most scholars.
Suzanne Daniel, Associate Professor of Judeo-Hellenistic Literature, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem states:
On the Torah portion of the Septuagint:
It is assumed that the project was initiated by the Greek-speaking Jewish community itself,
which needed a version of the Pentateuch for worship and instruction.
On the Prophets and the Writings portions of the Septuagint:
It is... generally held that the versions of the Former and Latter Prophets must be placed
before the end of the third century B.C.E., and that at least some of the Hagiographa were
already translated at the beginning of the second century B.C.E., since the prologue to the
Greek Ben-Sira (132 B.C.E.) refers to an already existing version of "the Law, the Prophets,
and the other writings." It is therefore accepted that a complete version of the Hebrew Bible
existed at least at the beginning of the first century C.E. ("Bible," section "Greek:
The Septuagint," Encyclopedia Judaica)
(See the following link.)
Cyrus Gordon, a leading Jewish scholar who was formerly Professor of Assyriology
and Egyptology, Dropsie College, wrote:
The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman"
is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint,
which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes
'almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly the New Testament follows
Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14.
... From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage
of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the
goddess will bear a son... The terminology is remarkably close to
that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride
will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7
she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew 'almah
"young woman"; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart
of Hebrew betulah "virgin". Therefore, the New Testament rendering
of 'almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation,
which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by
a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that
we now have it on a clay tablet.
(Gordon, "Almah in Isaiah 7:14,"
Journal of Bible and Religion 21 (1953), p. 106)
Jewish sages have sometimes had something to say about the possibility
of a virgin birth:
Abraham Farissol, medieval Jewish sage:
We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed, could
create in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, for He created
everything out of nothing. - quoted by Daniel J. Lasker,
Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages
(New York: KTAV/ADL, 1977), p. 153.
The Nizzahon Vetus, medieval work of polemics:
Granted that the prophet said that a virgin would give birth to
a son. So what? There is, after all, no doubt that the Lord's
hand is not incapable of fulfilling his will and desire, and that
he is a ruler who can do whatever he wishes..."
(David Berger,
The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical
Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus [Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996,
1979], p. 103)
Contemporary scholar Adam Kamesar:
The doctrine of the virgin conception was not attacked per se.
The possibility that a woman might conceive with her virginity intact,
though by means of normal fertilization, is an occurrence which is
conceded in the Talmud.
(Adam Kamesar, "The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14:
The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century,"
Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., vol. 41 part 1 April 1990,
p. 51)
These citations again implicitly affirm that the Jews realized that
the context of Isaiah 7:14 demanded that a virgin be meant here.
This is further strengthened by the fact that Isaiah 7:14a states
that this was to be a "sign" (Hebrew- ot) from the Lord.
The word ot almost always means an extraordinary event
demonstrating God's power and direct involvement in human affairs.
There is nothing miraculous for a woman to conceive a child through
sexual intercourse since this is something common. Yet it is truly
amazing for a virgin to conceive a child as in the case of Mary
and Jesus.
Shabir:
Jesus was indeed born of a virgin; both the Bible and the Qur'an confirms that.
But Isaiah chapter 7, verse 14, does not speak of a virgin birth, and does not refer to
Jesus. Jesus is never called "Immanuel" in the Bible. The angel announced his name
as "Jesus" (Luke 1:31).
Response:
We have already addressed all of Shabir's points. The one thing we
would like to say is that although the Quran does in fact teach
the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, it fails to explain the reason
and the significance behind it. It is the Holy Bible that tells us
the reason for the virgin birth:
"'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'
The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the
power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to
be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your
relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was
said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible
with God.'" Luke 1:34-37
The reason for the virgin birth is that this was the only suitable
manner for the Son of God to take on actual flesh.
Shabir:
Whoever has seen me has seen the Father
In John 14:9 Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying: "Whoever has
seen me has seen the Father." This is often misunderstood to mean that Jesus is
God. But Jesus clearly said that no one has seen God at any time (John 5:37). Those
who say that Jesus is God, are disagreeing with what Jesus himself said. If Jesus
was God why would he say to the people looking at him that they never saw God?
And why would the author of the 1st Letter of John in the Bible, writing some
seventy years after Jesus was taken up, say that no one had ever seen God (1John 4:12)
although he knew that multitudes had already seen Jesus? The meaning of John 14:9 is
not that Jesus is God, but that by knowing Jesus, one gets to know God, since Jesus
teaches about God. This meaning is confirmed by John 1:18 where the writer says that
no one had ever seen God, but Jesus had made God known to the people. In the
17th Chapter of the same Gospel, Jesus declared that eternal life means knowing that
the Father whom Jesus worshipped is the only true God and that Jesus is the Messiah
who was sent by God.
Response:
Amazingly, Shabir manages to pull one of the greatest attempts of
scripture twisting we have ever read. Shabir again assumes what
he has yet to prove. He assumes that God is unipersonal and
therefore whenever the NT says that God has never been seen
this proves that Jesus is not God. Yet, had Shabir quoted the
passages accurately he would have realized that the NT teaches
that God the Father has never been seen. That is why God
the Son became flesh in order to reveal God to man:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,
who is at the FATHER'S side, has made HIM known." John 1:18
Interestingly Shabir quoted this passage to give the impression
that Jesus was not God. Yet, the whole point of this verse is
that the only way Jesus could reveal God to man is because he
himself is God in nature.
"And the FATHER who sent me has himself testified concerning
me. You have never heard HIS voice nor seen HIS
form," John 5:37
"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives
in us and his love is made complete in us. We know that we live
in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And
we have seen and testify that the FATHER has sent his Son
to be the Savior of the world." 1 John 4:12-14
These verses state that God the Father has never been seen.
That is why God the Son became man, in order to reveal the
nature and character of God to man. Interestingly, Christ claims
to be the only person who has seen the Father:
"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God;
only he has seen the Father." John 6:46
Shabir also assumes, albeit erroneously, that Jesus' worshiping
the Father as the only true God somehow diminishes Christ's Deity.
Yet, Shabir forgets to mention that Jesus also demanded that his
followers worship him as God in the same way that they worship
the Father:
"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment
to the Son, that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the
Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father,
who sent him." John 5:22-23
Jesus does not say to honor him as a prophet, but rather to honor him
just as one would honor the Father. This honor includes praying to
Christ directly:
"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son
may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my
name, and I will do it." John 14:13-14
In order for Christ to answer prayer he must be all-powerful and
all-knowing, which again proves that Jesus is God!
John also records Jesus making the following personal claims with
the Jewish crowds responding accordingly to such claims:
"Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to this very day,
and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the
harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was
even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 5:17-18
"'My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can
snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me,
is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones
to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many
great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?'
'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for
blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'." John 10:27-33
"Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him,
'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who
have not seen and yet have believed'." John 20:28-29
Jesus accepts and blesses Thomas's confession that he is both Lord and God.
Hence, far from proving Shabir's point that Jesus is not God, these
passages are quite emphatic in stating that Jesus is indeed God. John
goes out of his way to show that Christ is the only One to have seen
the Father's essential nature, having eternally coexisted with him
in intimate personal communion:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John 1:1-2
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had
with you before the world began." John 17:5
That is precisely why John says that Jesus is able to reveal God
perfectly, since he is the fullness of Deity in bodily form.
(Cf. John 1:1, 10, 14)
Shabir:
He was manifest in the flesh
1 Timothy 3:16 is often quoted to show that "God was manifest in the flesh." This
is how it appears in later manuscripts of the Bible. The earlier and more reliable
manuscripts (Notably Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) read "He was manifest in
the flesh," and "He" from the context clearly refers to Jesus. This passage does not
show that Jesus was God. It reflects Paul's doctrine that Jesus before he appeared in
the flesh was a being higher than men but lower than God. "The head of every man is
Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God,"
writes Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
Response:
Seeing that 1 Timothy 3:16 is not the only passage affirming the Deity
of Christ and seeing also that there is a textual dispute over the
original rendering, we have no major qualms with Shabir. We do however
recommend the following book which deals with the textual issues
surrounding 1 Timothy 3:16:
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
James R. White Paperback - 286 pages (March 1995) Bethany House; ISBN:
1556615752 specifically pp. 207-209
In regard to Paul's view of Jesus, whether he believed Christ was
God or an exalted heavenly creature please read the following rebuttal
located here.
Finally, as far as 1 Corinthians 11:3 is concerned this again demonstrates
Shabir's logical fallacies. Shabir commits a categorical fallacy by
confusing position with nature. He somehow thinks that just because
God the Father is superior in position this then makes Jesus inferior
in nature. Yet, you can have one Person who is superior in rank without
this implying superiority in nature.
For instance, the Holy Bible clearly teaches that both man and woman were
created in the Divine image, making them both equal in nature.
(Cf. Genesis 1:26-30; 5:1-2)
Therefore, Paul's teaching that man is the head of the woman relates to
position, that man holds a higher position over woman. Paul is not
claiming that men are essentially superior to women since elsewhere
Paul clearly states that all are one in Christ. (Cf. Galatians 3:28;
Colossians 3:11)
Likewise, God is the head of Jesus in that the Farther is greater
in position, not in nature. Both the Father and Son are equal in
nature and essence, yet not in position.
Shabir:
Mighty God, Everlasting Father
Isaiah 9:6 speaks of one whose name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. We are often told that this is
a prophecy about Jesus, and that it proves that Jesus is God. But the problem
this prophecy presents cannot be ignored by any honest person. If it is taken
literally then Jesus is the "Everlasting Father." But Jesus clearly taught that he
was not the Everlasting Father.
According to Matthew, while Jesus was on the earth he declared:
Do not call anyone on earth "father," for you have one father, and he is in heaven.
(Matthew 23:9, New International Version).
If Jesus was not the "Everlasting Father," neither was he "Mighty God." Either we
take the passage literally in which case it contradicts the clear teaching of Jesus,
or we take it figuratively, in which case "Everlasting Father" doesn't really mean
"Everlasting Father," and "Mighty God" doesn't really mean "Mighty God."
Response:
Shabir commits the fallacy of equivocation, assuming that the term
"Father" carries the same meaning at all times. Yet, "Father" can
carry a whole range of meanings as the following examples clearly
demonstrate:
"'I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you
do what you have heard from your father.' 'Abraham is our
father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's children,'
said Jesus, 'then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is,
you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth
that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are
doing the things your own father does.' 'We are not illegitimate
children,' they protested. 'The only Father we have is God
himself.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father,
you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have
not come on my own; but he sent me.'" John 8:38-42
In this passage, we find that both God and Abraham are said
to be the Father of the Jews. Therefore, applying Shabir's logic
we would be forced to conclude that Abraham is actually God the
Father!
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
So then, he is the father of all who believe but
have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be
credited to them. And he is also the father of the
circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in
the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had
before he was circumcised. It was not through law that
Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be
heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by
faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value
and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where
there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise
comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed
to all Abraham's offspring-not only to those who are of the law
but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is
the father of us all. As it is written: 'I have made you
a father of many nations.' He is our father in the sight
of God, in whom he believed - the God who gives life to
the dead and calls things that are not as though they were."
Romans 4:11-17
Again, if Shabir's logic were sound we would once more conclude
that Abraham is God the Father since he is said to be the father
of all believers.
"I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear
children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ,
you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your
father through the gospel." 1 Corinthians 4:14-15
This means that Paul is also God the Father as well.
In light of the preceding examples, the term "Father" means different
things in different contexts. For instance, the term can mean
Source, Creator and/or Author as the following citations demonstrate:
"But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us
or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our
Redeemer from of old is your name." Isaiah 63:16
Here, God is referred to as Father in his role as Israel's Redeemer.
Hence, the term in this context refers to God as the Source of
Israel's redemption from Egypt.
"Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are
the potter; we are all the work of your hand." Isaiah 64:8
"Have we not all one Father?Did not one God create us?
Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with
one another?" Malachi 2:10
The term is used in these passages to refer to God as Creator.
Jesus is called Everlasting Father in the sense that he is both
the source and giver of eternal life. This understanding bears out
in light of the fact that the literal Hebrew phrase in Isaiah 9:6
is not "Everlasting Father." Rather, it is "Father of Eternity"
(Hebrew- Avi Ad). Dr. Robert Morey notes:
"In the Hebrew the word 'Father is first and then follows the
word 'eternal.' How to translate these words is difficult. Some
translations are:
'Father of futurity' Rotherham
'Father of the world to come' Knox
'Father of eternity' Hengstenberg, Plumptre, Young
'the Father of the age' Calvin
'Eternal Father' Hengstenberg
'The Giver of eternal life' Alexander
"After a great deal of research on the many issues involved,
we have translated... as 'Father of eternal life.' Calvin
correctly pointed out, 'The name Father is put for Author.'
The word... 'father' thus does not mean the One who possesses
eternity but the One who gives it to others. The word...
'eternal' is not the normal word for absolute eternity. Thus, we
conclude that it means that the Son of God will be the Author
of eternal life for those who believe in Him."
(Morey, Trinity,
pp. 184-185 bold emphasis ours)
This is precisely the picture the NT gives of the Lord Jesus Christ,
namely that he is the source of eternal life:
"In him was life, and that life was the light of men." John 1:4
"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer
be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God
raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this." Acts 3:14-15
"who has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of
anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.
This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior,
Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel." 2 Timothy 1:9-10
Therefore, in light of the preceding factors we again find Shabir's
entire argumentation crumbling from under his feet. Even in his
attempted rebuttal to our criticism of his misuse of Bruce Metzger,
Shabir failed to offer anything of substance. This fact will become
evident in our rebuttal to his attempted rebuttal that is to appear
soon on Answering Islam, Lord willing.
In the service of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
who is Lord over all! Amen. Come Lord Jesus.
The Holy Bible sternly warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagan nations lest they end up worshiping their gods/goddesses:
“Be sure to keep what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite,
In this post I will show that the true God loves all nations equally, not just Israel. I will demonstrate that God commanded the Israelites to love the foreigner or non-Israelite as a fellow, native-born Israelite, and ordered that the same Law and commands equally apply to both Israelite and