“Part of Gods plan”

While reading the Qur’an I came across a verse that reminded me of something Paul wrote, the verse in the Qur’an read:

We have put covers over their hearts, so they cannot understand the Qur’an, and We have put heaviness in their ears: although you call them to guidance they will never accept it. Sura 18:57b

The passage by Paul I was reminded of is:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Romans 11:25

When reading this I get the feeling that Paul is responding to the obvious question raised by his audience: “why did the majority of the Jewish people reject Jesus as the Messiah?” or something like “if its so evident that he is the Messiah, what happened to the endorsement?”

The Qur’an also seems to respond to a similar question, “if the Qur’an is the clear revelation from God then why do many people not accept it?”

But why is it answered in this way particular way? Why is it ascribed to God’s plan?

Im thinking a reason could be that a large part of the people that were rejecting it werent irrational or stubborn and that in some way that had to be accounted for to the respective audiences.

Thus by ascribing their rejection to part of the plan of God, the incomprehensible irrationality on the part of the people is solved, and the people no longer have to be considered deliberately stubborn.

Fear vs Love

Last night I was out with a good friend of mine. He is Iranian and has started to observe the Ramadan for the first time this year, as I knew this I took him late last night to a small Turkish restaurant to have a bite. We talked a bit about all kind of things and also a bit about religion. He is kind of new to Islam and has only recently started to read the Qur’an. He asked me what I thought about the Qur’an as I had just finished it, albeit for different reasons than him.

I told him I did not like the overall tone, and the heavy emphasis on hell, I mean nearly every page has a reference to the hellfire thats awaiting unbelievers, and while doing this it goes into great detail of what exactly they will face there.

Also I told him about the disconnect between the Bible, incl NT, and the Qur’an, how different these are from each other.

I said: most of the times the sura contains something like this: Muhammed is facing opposition by people who dont believe him, he then is reminded by G’d that this is only common, as Noah, Abraham and Moses were also rejected, G’d then reminds him that the unbelievers will anyways face hellfire and this is communicated to them as well. In great detail is heaven described and hell and those that believe in G’d and his messenger Muhammed will go to heaven, while those who dont will go to hell.

I told him I thought, based on reading this, that Islam was mainly based on fear of hell and he said, ”of course but isnt that good?” You know exactly what you get, if you choose the right path, you’ll go to heaven if not, to hell and after having read how the situation is overthere, (e.g. chains on your neck and alot of fire), you dont want to go there

He said: but in Christianity its all about love and theres little fear of G’d.

And he’s not alone in saying this, HaRav Kook cited by Prof. Rosenberg in In the footsteps of the Kuzari says concerning Christianity:

The essence of heresy is separating the idea of fear of Heaven and the element of closeness to G’d from the light of Torah and all its practical manifestations. As a result of that separation, maliciously achieved from within the Jewish nation, … the world became polluted. Pagan impurity found a foothold and a source of sustenance, until the end of days, “when the boughs thereof are withered, they shall be broken off” (Isa. 27:11) p.150-151

But is this also found in the Apostolic Writings i.e. NT?

I dont think so. It is definitely found in Christianity but let me show you an example on why I dont think it is representing the writings:

18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living G’d, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to G’d, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24) 

This text is most of the times interpreted as a contrast between the great and terrible G’d of the Old Testament as opposed to the sweet and nice G’d of the New Testament, however what those who interpret it in this way fail to realise is that this is actually קל וחומר also known as a fortiori reasoning, as can be seen in the verses following:

25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to G’d acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our G’d is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:25-29)

Obviously one should not choose between the fear of Heaven and closeness to Hashem, as these go together, and this is what I told him. The balance in Islam however is almost fully on the side of fear as I can hardly remember exhortations to fulfill religious obligations out of love, while a healthy balance is found in both the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings.

Priority in Scripture

The other day I was having a discussion with an Islamic friend of mine. It was a nice discussion albeit quite heated:) but what can you expect, both of us having roots in the Middle East, he being Morrocan and I half Turkish, this is the way we discuss, for outsiders it looks like we have a fight, and actually several people came up to us to ask whether everything was alright, but for us it was a normal discussion

I put forth the following challenge: how can you verify the Qur’an’s authencity? As in: how can you know its a revelation from the G’d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when its not in accordance with the earlier revelations.

I remember before having discovered the eternity of the Torah I once pondered on how I could pose this question to Muslims whilst I myself believed the Apostolic Writings had superseded the Tanach. After discovering that this was incorrect and that the AW was actually only affirming and not subtracting or adding to it, I saw how great an instrument of verification G’d has provided.

So my friend asked what of the Qur’an was in contradiction to the Torah and as I have only just started to read the Qur’an it was difficult to come up with a whole list. One thing that came to mind and perhaps the most important was the eternal covenant that G’d has with the Jewish people. So he replied “but that covenant was contingent on their part and as a result of the sin of the golden calf it was broken”.

At the moment of discussion I put forth the idea that it was renewed and that the Prophets spoke when speaking of the New Covenant that it would be an eternal covenant that was not contingent on their part but solely on G’d[1]. A couple of days ago I found a better explanation, it is the explanation of Rabbi Judah Halevi cited by Prof. Shalom Rosenberg in his In the Footsteps of the Kuzari[2]:

The manna did not stop raining down for the nation, and the cloud did not stop providing them with shade, and the pillar of fire did not cease to guide them. Prophecy remained constant and grew more powerful among them, and not one of the unique gifts that they received was repealed, except for the two tablets which Moses broke. But then, when he immediately prayed for their return, they received two new stone tablets, identical to the original ones, as they were forgiven for this sin. (I:97)

This is a very apt answer and it would have been interesting to hear the reply.

At the start of the discussion I pointed out that all his arguments would come back to our Bible being modified and corrupted troughout the ages and that as long as it agreed with the Qur’an it would be correct whereas if it would differ it would be an altered part. After some time of discussing we both saw that we didnt progress and made some final statements and wrapped up.

But while doing so I thought to myself, theres something familiar about this. As long as your theory agrees with ours, then its right, if not, youre wrong. Somehow as Christians we often look at the Bible in this way as well, even as Christians for Moses. The Apostolic Writings still in some ways supersede the Torah as it has the final say. Im trying to come up with an example but cannot really think of one (there goes my argument:P). Think of it, the Torah is not our sole authority, the AW is on the same level of authority as all the earlier revelations, and while this may be true of the Prophets wrt the Torah as well, we assume this from the outset and thus reason that there cannot be any contradiction to the Torah as that would by necessity entail our rejection.

A friend of mine said that this is one of the axioms of our faith; the AW not being in conflict or contradicting the Torah[3]. He may be right and I think this way is probably the only way to keep our faith in Messiah Yeshua, but I would like to make one point. I think when reading the Apostolic Writings we should approach them from the Torah’s perspective and if there be some seeming contradictions these should be harmonized with the Torah and if not possible, the way of the Torah should be chosen over against the way the AW seems to explain it.

Would this be a fair approach? I would say more so than to take the latter revelation and elevate it beyond the former. In this way we make sure the revelation stays consistent as we are used to throughout the Tanach.

So practically that leaves us with work to do, and this work, the harmonization of Scripture, is one of the greatest acts of ‘עבודת ה.

 

 

 

[1] See Jeremiah Ch.31, this may not have been a correct answer as the new covenant did not refer to the one made after the sin of the golden calf. Still this argument would hold as a general answer to the eternity of the covenant between the Jewish people and G’d. However I’d go with R. Halevi’s explanation:P

[2] Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, In the Footsteps of the Kuzari (New York: Yashar Books, 2008), p.147

[3] See article overhere: http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/the-inspiration-and-inerrancy-of-scripture/