Papal Fallibility: Pope Francis, Jews, Muslims, and God

I did not intend to follow Pope Francis' visit to Israel and Palestine, but something I read in an article regarding statements he had made caught my eye. I began to look for more detailed, original sources, and found them at the official Vatican website. The first quotation here comes from Pope Francis' meeting with the leaders of the Palestine, from May 25, 2014:

Mr President, you are known as a man of peace and a peacemaker. Our recent meeting in the Vatican and my presence today in Palestine attest to the good relations existing between the Holy See and the State of Palestine. I trust that these relations can further develop for the good of all. In this regard, I express my appreciation for the efforts being made to draft an agreement between the parties regarding various aspects of the life of the Catholic community in this country, with particular attention to religious freedom. Respect for this fundamental human right is, in fact, one of the essential conditions for peace, fraternity and harmony. It tells the world that it is possible and necessary to build harmony and understanding between different cultures and religions. It also testifies to the fact that, since the important things we share are so many, it is possible to find a means of serene, ordered and peaceful coexistence, accepting our differences and rejoicing that, as children of the one God, we are all brothers and sisters. [source; emphasis mine]

That same day, Pope Francis addressed Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, inviting them to pray together at the Vatican:

In this, the birthplace of the Prince of Peace, I wish to invite you, President Mahmoud Abbas, together with President Shimon Peres, to join me in heartfelt prayer to God for the gift of peace. I offer my home in the Vatican as a place for this encounter of prayer.

All of us want peace. Many people build it day by day through small gestures and acts; many of them are suffering, yet patiently persevere in their efforts to be peacemakers. All of us – especially those placed at the service of their respective peoples – have the duty to become instruments and artisans of peace, especially by our prayers.

Building peace is difficult, but living without peace is a constant torment. The men and women of these lands, and of the entire world, all of them, ask us to bring before God their fervent hopes for peace. [source; all emphases mine]

Let me make it clear I'm not against cooperation between various groups of people, be it religious, ethnic, racial, or national. I'm not against peace. I'm not against getting along. Do not misunderstand where my contention lies.

However, let's speak about the serious spiritual implications of this. Pope Francis has asked Peres and Abbas, neither of whom worship Christ, to come to the Vatican and join him in prayer to God. What God, however, do Peres and Abbas worship? Peres worships a unitarian god, and not Christ, who is the Son of God within the Trinity; Peres is a Jewish individual who denies Christ as his Lord and Messiah. Meanwhile, Abbas is a Muslim who worships Allah, a supposed deity that taught his followers a number of things that either contradict or outright condemn Christianity. Pope Francis desires to pray together with them to God...and yet neither of them worship God!

Let me make it clear here that I am not against people praying according to their faiths. That is, if a Jew desires to pray to peace, let him pray for peace; if a Muslim desires to pray for peace, let him pray for peace. I do not believe they should be forbidden from practicing their religion. However, when it comes to cooperation, it ends at religion because it then becomes a question of who God is. Pope Francis seems to believe that all three of them can pray to God together; no they cannot, for they do not all worship the same God. Pope Francis seems to believe that they are all children of God, and brothers and sisters in faith; scripture, however, teaches that the children of God are those regenerated by God the Father to worship Christ (John 1:12-13).

Scripture teaches that any worship not offered to the true God is offered to demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). Pope Francis has, in essence, asked two men to come to the Vatican and offer worship to demons. Some might protest that it is for a good cause (ie., peace), and yet scripture makes it clear such worship means nothing (1 Cor 10:19; Gal 4:8-9). A Jew or a Muslim can pray all day, but - unless they pray for repentance of their sins and confess Christ as their Lord, Savior, and King - it will ultimately mean absolutely nothing to God.

This form of syncretism (rather, the worship of various gods alongside the true God, or treating them all as one and the same) was the very thing that earned the people of ancient Israel continual condemnation throughout the days of the prophets. It was what earned so much condemnation by God against the people. It was likewise a problem which Christians have continually fought against since the days of the early believers...and yet Pope Francis (even if with good intentions) has invited this kind of syncretism to happen at the Vatican.

Last week, I wrote a post on how the Roman Catholicism's teachings regarding Islam have changed over the centuries (one proof of Luther's accusation that popes and councils have "frequently erred and contradicted themselves"). The bishops of the Council of Vienne (the Fifteenth Ecumenical Council to Roman Catholics, and therefore binding), who, in Decree 25, called Muhammad an "infidel" and ordered Christian princes "to remove this offence [of Islam] altogether from their territories," would be shocked to hear Pope Francis calling Muslims (let alone unbelieving Jews) "children of God" and "brothers and sisters," then inviting them to St. Peter's in order to pray together with him, the supposed Vicar of Christ. However, this is (as I showed in the aforementioned post) the fruit of the past century, when Rome began to soften its language towards Islam and Muslims, so that it not only decreased any unnecessary intolerance, but likewise began to eat away at religious discernment regarding true and false worship of God.

Again, peace is a noble endeavor; tolerance between two groups is likewise a noble endeavor. However, what Pope Francis is doing is not only unbiblical in its presupposition, but in its execution as well.

Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?

Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?

We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.

Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.

What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.

Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:

Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.

Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.

Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.

More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.

It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.

Isaiah 53 and Early Christian Apologetics

Many Jews argue that what Christians call "the suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is actually a metaphor for the entire nation. Here we have an early response to this in the works of Origen.

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, applied these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?” (Col_2:15) At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus. [Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 55]

White Horse Inn: Abrahamic Faiths

The gentlemen at White Horse Inn discuss the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and how they relate to God's plan of salvation according to scripture.

WHI-1036 | Abrahamic Faiths - White Horse Inn Blog

Ezra, the Son of God?

Did you know Jews worshiped Ezra as the Son of God? It seems they do...or at least, that seems to be the presentation given in much of Islam. Although most Muslims may not believe this, one of the most curious passages in the Quran is the one which states that Jews believe Ezra to be the Son of God. This statement is found in S. 9:30. Some translations of the verse are as follows (all emphasis is mine):

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [Yusuf Ali]

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! [M. Pickthall]

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [M.H. Shakir]

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them]. God assail them! How they are deviated! [Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute Translation]

The Jews say, ’Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ’The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted! [Arthur J. Arberry]

AND THE JEWS say, "Ezra is God’s son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God’s son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!" How perverted are their minds! [Muhammad Asad]

This is a curious passage because it is well known that Jews do not believe Ezra as the Son of God, especially in the same context as Christians with Jesus as the Son of God. Not even within the book of Ezra in the Bible do we find any such worship.

Ibn Kathir, famous 14th century Muslim scholar and commentary writer, doesn't seem to argue whether Jews believed Ezra was the Son of God or not - in fact, he seems to accept it as fact. As written in the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

As for the Jews, they claimed that `Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over `Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars [source; emphasis mine]

The same with Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, for which they have no support, nay, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them], from among their forefathers, mimicking them. God assail, curse, them! How they are deviated!, turned away from the truth, despite the proofs having been established. [source; emphasis mine]

Where did this idea that Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God come from? Some scholars and translators, such as E.H. Palmer and Rodwell, claim it to be Mohammad's imagination. However, this odd belief appears to be sourced to a small sect of Jews in Medina who accosted Mohammad for not believing that Ezra was a Son of God. The ahadith report on this:

According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās – quoted by Tabarī in his commentary on this verse – some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad, “How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our qiblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?” [From Muhammad Asad's commentary on S. 9:30, source]

I am aware that, because of this fact, many Muslims argue that this passage is not referring to all Jews, but a select few. Yet when we look at the original Arabic, and go to the specific parts regarding the Jews and Christians, we find no differentiation:

wa qalati al-yahoodu: The Jews say...

wa qalati al-nnasara: The Christians say... [source]

The grammar is practically the same for both. We know that the Quran consistently charges the Christians with false beliefs concerning Christ. Therefore just as this must refer to all Christians, so it must also refer to all Jews. The Quranic text itself (as well as the majority of translations) is very clear: the Jews and the Christians worship men as the Son of God. If it is indeed referring to only a small number of Jews, why the use of such language in this passage? Also, why is there no further differentiation between Judaism and its sects in the previous and following verses? The language of the Quran (just as in S. 9:30) is not specific but broad. S. 9:31, in fact, continues the charge against all Christians and keeps the same language.

Also problematic for this explanation is the fact that Mohammad himself said Jews (in a general, not specific, sense) worshiped Ezra as the Son of God, as found in valid ahadith discussing what will happen to unbelievers in hell:

"...Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son'..." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105; emphasis mine]

And again:

"...Then it will be said to the Jews, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son'..." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s; emphasis mine]

And again:

"...Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah. It would be said to them: You tell a lie; Allah had never had a spouse or a son..." [Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0352; emphasis mine]

Note the language. The Jews will be summoned (no specific language used), and they will be asked who they worshiped. They will say, "We worshiped Ezra, Son of God." Therefore, it will be said to them exactly what is said to the Christians: God has no spouse and no son. Therefore, according to Mohammad, Jews will be cursed in hell and called liars because they worshiped Ezra as the literal Son of God...again, something which Jews do not do.

We have several facts to deal with: 1) the Quran states that Jews believe Ezra is the Son of God in the same way that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God; 2) it is believed that only a certain amount of those, at least those that confronted Mohammad, believed Ezra was the Son of God; 3) Mohammad states regarding the Last Day that Jews will be condemned for worshiping Ezra as the Son of God; 4) even more horrifying, S. 9:30 wishes for Allah to "curse," "fight" or "destroy" the Jews for this belief, despite the fact that only a small number held it. If you look at the previous verse (S. 9:29), it becomes apparent that Muslims are even told to make war with Jews for it. This is not solely my exegesis, but that of classical Quranic commentary as well:

[In relation to S. 9:29] Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. [Continuing to S. 9:30] As for the Jews, they claimed that `Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over `Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, source]

One common argument is that the Jews of Medina referred to Ezra as a metaphorical Son of God - in other words, they venerated Ezra into a Jewish version of sainthood. Some Muslims have pointed me to Shia ahadith that verify this point of view with an exchange between Mohammad and the Medina Jews clarifying this manner. Of course, the first and most immediate problem with this argumentation is Islamic apologetics itself. Whenever Christ refers to Himself as "Son of God" in the New Testament, it is argued by many Muslims that it is used in simply a metaphorical sense. Yet if we are to believe that Mohammad (and indeed, Allah himself) condemned such a title for a man, then Jesus was at fault for using that very name for Himself. Therefore, Muslims cannot argue this in regards to S. 9:30 without becoming inconsistent in their apologetics.

Humorously enough, one finds the classic "Don't use ahadith/Use ahadith" fallacy so common in Islamic apologetics coming into play here as well. While in discussion with a Muslim, I brought forward the sahih ahadith by Bukhari which cited Mohammad saying that "the Jews" will say they worshiped Ezra as the Son of God. As per classic strategy, the Muslim gentleman said you couldn't trust all hadith sources. He then stated that the passage referred to only a small number of Jews in Medina. I pointed out that he could only come across such a conclusion by turning to the ahadith, as such clarification was not found in the Quran. I then asked him to present some common standard which could be used to verify what hadith source could be trusted and which could not. Either out of willful ignorance or lack of experience giving this point any serious thought, the gentleman proceeded to argue in a circle of, "You can't trust any hadith...oh no wait, trust the hadith I'm giving." My point in bringing this up is that, in trying to go to the ahadith to defend their understanding of S. 9:30, a Muslim is forced to address other strange passages in valid hadith sources which contradict their point or make it problematic. In denying one over the other, however, they merely present a double standards...and truth does not stand easy on double standards.

It would seem that Mohammad was guilty of either one of two things: 1) a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization, which seeks to draw an erroneous opinion on many because of a small sample; 2) a poor grasp on the differentiation between veneration and worship, as he seems to confuse the worship of Christ as God to the veneration of prophets as godly men. If either were true, it would still mean one thing: because of this fault, Muslims are today given a book which has a strange and imperfect theological statement about another faith which they are forced to defend.

Let me present an example that can be understand from the opposite mindset, so that any Muslim readers coming across this can understand how Jews and Christians feel. Suppose there exists a prophet after the time of Mohammad, and this prophet grows up in the India/Pakistan area where a lot of Ahmadi Muslims live. He has limited meeting with Muslims, and most of the ones he meets are the Ahmadi (who are not considered orthodox by most Muslim groups). From his experiences with them, he puts into his scripture: "The Muslims say that Jesus is not buried in India." Skip ahead 1400 years later: the followers of this prophet are forced to explain to orthodox Muslims why such a strange verse exists in their scripture. It would be a flawed belief based on a flawed theology - it would therefore make it a man-made scripture and religion.

If we were to believe that the Quran was simply God inspiring man, one could perhaps be somewhat forgiving - but we are told by Islam that the Quran is the literal word of God, as if God were there in the room speaking to us and telling us what to do. It is venerated by Muslims and treated with greater respect than any other item in the household or mosque. Yet this book is full of theological errors which could only come from man. I already touched on this blog regarding Mohammad's errors regarding the Trinity - so too did Mohammad err in the belief of orthodox Judaism. As I asked in that post for the thinking reader to ponder, so I ask it here: if Allah's word is flawed, and Allah has no understanding of a religion's basic doctrine, and cannot differentiate between veneration and worship, and condemns an entire group for the beliefs of a few...is that the God of Gods, or is that a man-made doctrine based on man-made understanding? Is the error of S. 9:30 an error on the part of Judaism, or is it an error on the part of Mohammad?