Hamza Abdul Malik's Debate regarding
remnant
Was Christ Crucified?
Sam Shamoun
This paper will briefly examine some of the most common arguments presented
by Mr. Hamza Abdul Malik of the Islamic Research and Propagation Center of
Jamaica, NY against the New Testament witness to the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. The particular arguments that we will be
addressing were made by Mr. Malik in his debate with Pastor Bill Lockwood of
the Church of Christ, Marshall Texas. A videotape copy of the debate is
available from Malik's Islamic Propagation Center.
We will be presenting the gist of Mr. Malik's points and offer our responses
to them. Mr. Malik's presentation centered primarily on Paul's claims in 1
Corinthians 15:3-8. We will quote the passage in its entirety enabling the
reader to follow the arguments made by Mr. Malik:
3 For what I received I passed on to you as first importance: that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures 4 that he was buried, that he
was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he
appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to
more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are
still living, though some of have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also,
as to one abnormally born.
We now proceed to his arguments.
Mr. Malik's Arguments on 1 Corinthians 15:3
Assertion 1:
Paul's use of the term "received" indicates that he was passing on
secondhand information. It was not something which he knew from firsthand
experience.
Response 1:
The term Paul uses in no way assumes that Paul's information was secondhand.
In fact, the precise Greek term is used elsewhere by Paul when speaking of
receiving commands directly from the Lord Jesus Christ himself:
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you ..." 1
Corinthians 11:23
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something
that man made up. I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it;
rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11-12
Hence, if anything the term actually signifies that the information Paul
received regarding Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and his appearances
may have been taught to him by the risen Lord personally. Second, even if
Paul had not received this information directly from the Lord Jesus, this
still wouldn't make the information any less reliable. Paul could have
received this information from the very eyewitnesses of the Lord, such as
the Apostles. In fact, Paul alludes to this in verse 6:
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the
same time, MOST OF WHOM ARE STILL LIVING, though some of have fallen asleep.
Notice here that Paul says that the majority of these 500+ witnesses were
still alive at the time of his writing (i.e., approximately 55 AD.). This
means that Paul wasn't appealing to information that could not be verified,
but was actually appealing to living eyewitnesses who had seen and heard the
risen Lord firsthand. This allowed for Paul's readers to go and personally
interrogate the eyewitnesses, which in turn allowed them to either
personally verify Paul's claims or to expose him as a liar. Therefore, in
light of Paul's appeal to nearly 500+ living eyewitnesses, Paul's
information couldn't have been any more certain!
Finally, the most shocking thing about all this is that Malik believes the
testimony of the Quran regarding Christ, even though it was written nearly
600 years after the life of the historical Jesus. If Paul's appeal to living
eyewitnesses in 55 AD cannot be trusted, how much less the Quran which is
removed from the time these events took place by nearly 600 years! Malik may
claim that the Quran is a revelation from God and therefore the time factor
is irrelevant. We too would respond that Paul was an Apostle commissioned by
God personally, who received instructions from the risen Lord and from those
who were eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus. Therefore, the traditions
that Paul passed on can be completely trusted beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is quite unlike the Quran which is based on the testimony of a man who
didn't even live at the time these events took place.
Assertion 2:
Both Jesus Christ and his disciples, such as Peter, taught the necessity of
repentance. (Cf. Luke 13:3; Acts 3:19). Yet, Paul denied the necessity of
repentance in Romans 11:29:
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." KJV
Response 2:
Mr. Malik does not read carefully since Paul was not talking about an
individual's repentance before God, but rather of God's unchanging promises
to Israel:
"As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account: but
as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the
patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Romans 11:28-29
Paul is speaking about the irrevocable promises of God to the patriarchs.
Paul is emphasizing the immutable character of God in that he will not
relent or turn back on the promises he has made to his covenant people. This
passage has nothing to do with sinners' repenting.
In fact, had Mr. Malik read elsewhere in the New Testament he would have
found the following statements made by Paul:
"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people
everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with
justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men
by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31
"I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in
repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21
"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea,
and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God
and prove their repentance by their deeds. That is why the Jews seized me in
the temple courts and tried to kill me." Acts 26:20-21
"Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and
patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?"
Romans 2:4
Assertion 3:
There is no Scripture predicting the death and resurrection of the Messiah.
In fact, there isn't a single place where Jesus himself alludes to his death
on behalf of sinners since he believed that justification came from
observing the Law.
Response 3:
Actually there are several places where the Hebrew Scriptures predict that
the Messiah would die on behalf of sinners, be buried and then raised to
life again (cf. Psalm 16:10, Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Zechariah
12:10-13:1).
Secondly, it is simply wrong to say that the Lord Jesus never taught that he
came to die for sinners or that a person is justified by faith in him. The
Lord clearly stated that his death would be a ransom for many and that
forgiveness would come through faith in him as the following citations
clearly demonstrate:
"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink
from it, all of you, This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out
for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" Matthew 26:27-28
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." Luke 19:10
"He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you:
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses,
the Prophets and the Psalms.' Then he opened their minds so they could
understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The
Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance
and forgiveness of sins will be preached IN HIS NAME TO ALL NATIONS,
beginning at Jerusalem.'" Luke 24:44-47
"Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
sent.'" John 6:29
"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes
in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:40
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this
bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh which I will give for
the life of the world." John 6:51
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as
the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the
sheep." John 10:14-15
"As for the person who hears my words and does not keep them, I do not
judge them. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it." John
12:47
"I will rescue the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes
and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so
that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are
sanctified by faith in me." Acts 26:17-18
Mr. Malik's Arguments on 1 Corinthians 15:4
Assertion 1:
Paul incorrectly indicates that Jesus' resurrection took place on the third
day when according to the Gospels it was three days and three nights. (Cf.
Matthew 12:40)
Response 1:
Paul was not wrong since the phrase "three days and three nights" was a
Jewish expression indicating any period of time lasting till the third day.
The following biblical evidence supports the fact that the expression didn't
imply a literal (3 x 24 =) 72-hour period:
"From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go
to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief
priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and ON THE THIRD
DAY be raised to life." Matthew 16:21
"When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, 'The Son of Man is
going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and ON THE
THIRD DAY he will be raised to life.' And the disciples were filled with
grief." Matthew 17:22-23
"Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples
aside and said to them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man
will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will
condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and
flogged and crucified. ON THE THIRD DAY he will be raised to life!'" Matthew
20:17-19
"The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the
Pharisees went to Pilate. 'Sir,' they said, "we remember that WHILE HE WAS
STILL ALIVE that deceiver said, "AFTER THREE DAYS I will rise again." So
give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day.
Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people
that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse
than the first.' 'Take a guard,' Pilate answered. 'Go, make the tomb as
secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a
seal on the stone and posting the guard." Matthew 27:62-66
The expression "on the third day" did not originate with Paul, it was Jesus
who regularly used it in the prediction of his death and resurrection. As we
see, this is recorded in the very same gospel account that Mr. Malik
appealed to in order to attack the Apostle Paul. Notice that Matthew records
Jesus as using the expressions "three days and three nights" (12:40), "on
the third day" (16:21, 17:23, 20:19) and "after three days" (27:63) to
describe the period of time that Christ would be entombed.
"He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things
and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and
that he must be killed and AFTER THREE DAYS rise again." Mark 8:31
"Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus,
about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about
everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with
each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were
kept from recognizing him. He asked them, 'What are you discussing together
as you walk along?' They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them,
named Cleopas, asked him, 'Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not
know the things that have happened there in these days?' 'What things?' he
asked. 'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful
in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our
rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but
we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is
more, IT IS THE THIRD DAY SINCE ALL THIS TOOK PLACE. In addition, some of
our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early THIS MORNING but didn't
find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels,
who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and
found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.'" Luke
24:13-24
According to Cleopas and his companion the day they heard the reports of
Jesus' resurrection was "the third day" from the time of Christ's
entombment.
"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again IN
THREE DAYS.' The Jews replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this
temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had
spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples
recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words
that Jesus had spoken." John 2:19-22
"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in
Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from
the dead ON THE THIRD DAY and caused him to be seen." Acts 10:39-40
Peter addressing Cornelius says that God raised Jesus from the dead on the
third day and that he was an eyewitness of this. This conclusively
demonstrates that those following Jesus clearly understood that the
expression "three days and three nights" wasn't to be taken literally.
Rather, they were aware that the expression referred to a time period that
covered approximately three days.
In light of the preceding evidence the expressions "three days and three
nights", "on the third day", "after three days", "in three days" are all
interchangeable terms signifying a period of time lasting until the third
day. Paul's statement is entirely consistent with the way the other apostles
and Jesus himself spoke about it.
Additional evidence supporting the preceding conclusions and the NT data
includes the following OT passages:
"Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt
offended their master, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two
officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, and put them in custody
in the house of the captain of the guard, in the same prison where Joseph
was confined. The captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, and he
attended them. After they had been in custody for some time, each of the two
men-the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held in
prison--had a dream the same night, and each dream had a meaning of its own.
When Joseph came to them the next morning, he saw that they were dejected.
So he asked Pharaoh's officials who were in custody with him in his master's
house, 'Why are your faces so sad today?' 'We both had dreams,' they
answered, 'but there is no one to interpret them.' Then Joseph said to them,
'Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me your dreams.' So the chief
cupbearer told Joseph his dream. He said to him, 'In my dream I saw a vine
in front of me, and on the vine were three branches. As soon as it budded,
it blossomed, and its clusters ripened into grapes. Pharaoh's cup was in my
hand, and I took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh's cup and put the
cup in his hand.' 'This is what it means,' Joseph said to him. 'The three
branches ARE THREE DAYS. WITHIN THREE DAYS Pharaoh will lift up your head
and restore you to your position, and you will put Pharaoh's cup in his
hand, just as you used to do when you were his cupbearer. But when all goes
well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and
get me out of this prison. For I was forcibly carried off from the land of
the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing to deserve being put in a
dungeon.' When the chief baker saw that Joseph had given a favorable
interpretation, he said to Joseph, 'I too had a dream: On my head were three
baskets of bread. In the top basket were all kinds of baked goods for
Pharaoh, but the birds were eating them out of the basket on my head.' 'This
is what it means,' Joseph said. 'The three baskets ARE THREE DAYS. WITHIN
THREE DAYS Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. And the
birds will eat away your flesh.' Now THE THIRD DAY was Pharaoh's birthday,
and he gave a feast for all his officials. He lifted up the heads of the
chief cupbearer and the chief baker in the presence of his officials: He
restored the chief cupbearer to his position, so that he once again put the
cup into Pharaoh's hand, but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had
said to them in his interpretation." Genesis 40:1-23
Joseph's three days equates to the third day. If three days were literal
this would imply that the fulfillment of these dreams should have occurred
on either the evening of the third day or sometime on the fourth day. Yet
the text demonstrates that the expressions "three days", "within three
days", "the third day" refer to the same time period. The same holds true
with the following passage:
"Rehoboam answered, 'Come back to me IN THREE DAYS.' So the people went
away ... THREE DAYS LATER Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam,
as the king had said, 'Come back to me IN THREE DAYS.'" 2 Chronicles 10:5,
12
If the expression "three days later" were taken literally this means that
the people had returned on the fourth day. Yet the text clearly shows that
the phrase is equivalent to saying "in three days."
"For SEVEN DAYS they camped opposite each other, and ON THE SEVENTH DAY
the battle was joined. The Israelites inflicted a hundred thousand
casualties on the Aramean foot soldiers in one day." 1 Kings 20:29
Again, the expressions "seven days" and "on the seventh day" are
interchangeable terms referring to a period of time covering approximately
seven days.
One final example:
"'Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do
not eat or drink FOR THREE DAYS, NIGHT OR DAY. I and my maids will fast as
you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against
the law. And if I perish, I perish.' ... ON THE THIRD DAY Esther put on her
royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the
king's hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne in the hall, facing
the entrance." Esther 4:16, 5:1
The expression "night or day" implies that they were to fast without ceasing
for three days. Yet, if three days were literal this would mean that Esther
would have entered into the presence of the king on the evening of the third
day, not on the third day. This once more proves that expressions such as
"three days" and "on the third day" refer to the same period of time.
We therefore see that the problem is not with Paul, but rather with Malik's
ignorance of biblical expressions and customs. Malik, as is often the case
with Muslim apologists, commits a chronological fallacy by imposing his own
modern understanding of these expressions upon an ancient document, as
opposed to allowing the historical and cultural context define what these
terms would have meant to those who first heard and read the biblical
narratives.
Finally, we repeat this important observation: Paul did not invent the
phrase "on the third day", but the Lord Jesus himself used it repeatedly,
both before his death and after his resurrection:
"Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples
aside and said to them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man
will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will
condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and
flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life." Matthew
20:17-19
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He
told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from
the dead on the third day and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be
preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'" Luke 24:45-47
Assertion 2:
Paul mistakenly says that it was the same Jews who had Jesus crucified that
had also taken him down from the cross and placed him in the tomb. (Cf. Acts
13:28-29) Yet, according to the Gospel writers, it was Joseph of Arimathea
that did this, not the Jews.
Response 2:
Actually, the error is not in Paul but in Mr. Malik's lack of understanding.
Paul gives us a hint as to what he actually meant in Acts 13:27:
"The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in
condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every
Sabbath."
The people Paul was alluding to was the Jewish ruling council since it was
at their instigation that Jesus was crucified. Paul was not wrong in saying
that they also had him buried since Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the
Jewish Ruling Council, and was there when they had Jesus condemned even
though he was not in agreement with their decision. In fact, Joseph was not
alone in burying Jesus, but was assisted by another member of the ruling
council, Nicodemus. (Cf. Luke 22:50-56; John 19:38-42)
Just as it was not Paul's point in trying to say that every member of the
council or all of Jerusalem wanted Jesus crucified, it was also not his
intention to suggest that all of the ruling council buried Jesus. Hence, the
error is in Mr. Malik's understanding not in Paul.
Assertion 3:
According to John 20:9, the disciples knew nothing of OT prophecies on the
death and resurrection of the Messiah:
"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the
dead." KJV
Response 3:
Actually, the passage is not denying that there are prophecies of the
Messiah's resurrection, but that up until the time of Jesus' death the
disciples were not aware of or did not understand these predictions. After
the resurrection, the Lord Jesus opened their minds to understand that this
was precisely what the scriptures have always taught:
"The he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the
prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to
enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke 24:25-27 KJV
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I
was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in
the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me ...
And he said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to
suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." Luke 24:44, 46 KJV
"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in
three days.' The Jews replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this
temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had
spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples
recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words
that Jesus had spoken." John 2:19-22
Mr Malik's Arguments on 1 Corinthians 15:5
Assertion 1:
There is no witness outside of Paul indicating that Jesus appeared to Peter
personally apart from the group.
Response 1:
We find one such witness in Luke:
"They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the
Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, 'It is true! The
Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.'" Luke 24:33-34
Furthermore, even if there were no witnesses outside of Paul that record
Jesus' appearance to Peter alone, this would simply be an argument from
silence. Arguing from silence proves absolutely nothing.
Assertion 2:
The term Paul uses for Jesus' appearances is opthe. This implies that the
appearances were merely spiritual in nature, visions, not something
occurring in physical reality.
Response 2:
This is simply erroneous since it assumes (without evidence) that the term
can only refer to visions, as opposed to concrete reality. Noted apologist
Norm Geisler states it best in his response to this erroneous assumption:
"However, Christ's resurrection body could be seen with the eye.
Appearance accounts use the word horao ('to see'). Although this word is
sometimes used of seeing invisible realities (cf. Luke 1:22; 24:23), it
often means to see by the eye. The usual word meaning 'vision' is orama, not
horao (see Matt. 17:9; Acts 9:10; 16:9). In the New Testament a vision
usually, if not always, refers to something that is essentially invisible,
such as, God or angels. For example, John uses horao of seeing Jesus in his
earthly body before the resurrection (6:36; 14:9; 19:35) and also of seeing
him in his resurrection body (20:18, 25, 29). Since the same word for body
(soma) is used of Jesus before and after the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44;
Phil. 3:21), and since the same word for appearing (horao) is used of both,
there is no reason to believe the resurrection body is not the same physical
body now immortal.
"Even the phrase 'he let himself be seen' (aorist passive, opthe), simply
means that Jesus took the initiative to disclose himself, not that he was
essentially invisible until he did so. The same form ('He/they appeared') is
used in the Greek Old Testament (2 Chron. 25:21), the Apocrypha (1 Macc.
4:6), and in the New Testament (Acts 7:26) of human beings appearing in
physical bodies (Hatch, 2.105-7). In further references opthe is used of
ocular vision ... since the same expression is used of other humans with
physical bodies and since Christ is said to have had a body (soma), there is
no reason to take the expression to refer to anything but a literal,
physical body, unless the context demands otherwise. To say otherwise
contradicts the emphatic declaration of John that the body of Jesus, even
after the resurrection (when John wrote) was continuously physical (1 John
4:2; 2 John 7).
"The same event that is described 'he appeared' or 'let him be seen'
(aorist passive) such as the appearance of Christ to Paul (1 Cor. 15:8), is
also found in the active mood. Paul wrote of this experience in the same
book, 'Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?' (1 Cor. 9:1). But if the
resurrection body can be seen by the eye, then it is not invisible until it
makes itself visible by some kind of 'materialization.'
"Christ's appearances were natural. The word 'appeared' (opthe) refers to
a natural event. Arndt and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament points out that the word is used 'of persons who appear in a
natural way.' The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that
appearances 'occur in a reality which can be perceived by the natural
senses.' In his Linguistic Key to the New Testament, Fritz Rienecker notes
that appeared means, 'He could be seen by human eyes, the appearances were
not visions' (Rienecker, 439)." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics [ Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI, 1999], p. 659 bold emphasis
ours)
Mr. Malik's Arguments on 1 Corinthians 15:6
Assertion 1:
Paul is the only one who knows of appearances to more than 500 individuals
at one time. The Synoptic writers such as Luke know of only the appearances
made on the very day of Jesus' resurrection. In fact, Luke implies that
Jesus appeared to only 13 individuals before ascending to heaven on that
very same day. (Cf. Luke 24)
Response 1:
First, Luke does not say that Jesus appeared ONLY to 13 individuals, but
clearly implies that there were many more than that present:
"They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the
Eleven and those with them, assembled together." Luke 24:33
How many were present with the Eleven we do not know since Luke does not
specify their number. To then try and use this passage to prove a
contradiction in Paul's writings is erroneous.
Secondly, Mr. Malik has a problem with the Gospel writers giving us a
condensed summary report of the events as opposed to a comprehensive list of
all that transpired. The only problem with this approach is that it assumes
that a writer is obligated to give complete details on every event reported,
instead of simply summarizing the material to suit an intended audience.
This methodology not only discredits the Gospels, but all summarized
historical reports in general. This would also discredit the Quran since it
often reports the same event with major verbal variations and with diverging
details. Will Mr. Malik now toss out the Quran because it also summarizes
events with variations?
Finally, the fact that Luke is giving us a summary report in Luke 24 can be
easily seen from Acts:
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all the things Jesus began
to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving
instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After
his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing
proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days
and spoke about the kingdom of God." Acts 1:1-3
Luke is clearly aware that Jesus did not ascend to heaven on the same day he
rose from the dead, but appeared to his followers over a 40-day period. This
demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Luke is in fact summarizing
Jesus' resurrection appearances in Luke 24. In light of Luke's own claim
that Jesus remained on earth over a 40-day period, we can safely assume that
it was sometime during this period of time that the risen Lord appeared to
more than 500 of the brethren. We therefore see that no real contradiction
exists between Paul's teachings and the Gospels.
Assertion 2:
In Acts 10:40-41, Peter states that Jesus appeared only to those whom he had
chosen, i.e. the disciples. This explicitly denies the appearance to the
500.
Response 2:
There is nothing in the passage that even denies 1 Corinthians 15:6 since
Peter never tells us how many were actually chosen by God to be eyewitnesses
to the resurrection of Christ. If anything, this only demonstrates that the
500 were part of those eyewitnesses whom God had chosen. As in the previous
example, these accounts do not contradict but rather complement one another.
PAUL'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS
In his debate with Pastor Lockwood, Mr. Malik also attempted to prove that
the Apostle Paul knew next to nothing about the historical Jesus, but was
simply interested in the Christ of faith.
A brief outline of what Paul actually knew of the historical Jesus will
demonstrate the absurdity of such a claim.
Paul knew that Jesus was an Israelite and a descendant of David. (Romans
1:3, 9:3-5; 2 Timothy 2:8 cf. Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 1:26-33, 3:23-33)
Paul knew that Jesus was born to a Jewish woman and under the Mosaic Law.
(Galatians 4:4 cf. Mt. 5:17; Lk. 1:26-33) He was also aware that Jesus had
several brothers, one of whom was James. (1 Corinthians 9:5; Gal. 1:19 cf.
Mark 6:3)
Paul knew of Jesus' humble and lowly state, that while on earth he lived
poor, having no material riches. (2 Cor. 8:9; Philippians 2:5b-8 cf. Mt.
8:20, 11:29)
Paul was aware of Jesus' earthly teachings such as his position on
marriage (1 Cor. 7:10-11 cf. Mt. 5:32, 19:3-9) and the right of evangelists
in receiving monetary compensation for their work, even citing Luke 10:7 to
support this (1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:18 cf. Mt. 10:10). Paul knows of
Christ's instructions on the night he was betrayed regarding the Lord's
supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26 cf. Lk. 22:17-20) and is even aware of Jesus' Sermon
on the Mount, alluding to it throughout Romans 12:9-21. He also confers with
Christ on paying taxes to civil authorities. (Rom. 13:7 cf. Mt. 22:15-22)
Paul alludes to the historical Jesus' death under Pontius Pilate, which
had been instigated by the Jews. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15; 1 Tim. 6:13 cf.
John 18:28-37, 19:8-12) He also affirms that Jesus was betrayed on the night
of the Lord's supper. (1 Cor. 11:23 cf. Mt. 26:20-28)
This clearly affirms that the apostle Paul both knew and appealed to the
life of the historical Jesus, providing details which are in perfect accord
with that written elsewhere in the Gospels and Acts.
HEBREWS AND THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Mr. Malik tried to use Hebrews 5:7 to prove that Jesus didn't die on the
cross:
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and
petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from
death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."
It is asserted that God saved Jesus from death by delivering him from the
cross. It is quite sad to see Malik wrench this verse from both its
immediate and greater context. In order to know what the inspired author
meant by the statement that God saved Jesus from death we must look at the
entire context of Hebrews. Once this is done, the author's meaning becomes
quite clear:
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now
crowned with glory and honor BECAUSE HE SUFFERED DEATH, so that by the grace
of God he might TASTE DEATH FOR EVERYONE. In bringing many sons to glory, it
was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should
make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering." Hebrews
2:9-10
"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity
so that by HIS DEATH he might destroy him who holds the power of death -
that is, the devil - and free those who all their lives were held in slavery
by their fear of death ... For this reason he had to be made like his
brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful
high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins
of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able
to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 2:14-15, 17-18
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have
tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have
tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if
they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they
are crucifying the Son of God ALL OVER AGAIN and subjecting him to public
disgrace." Hebrews 6:4-6
The phrase "crucifying the Son of God ALL OVER AGAIN" presumes that Christ
had been crucified before. Otherwise, the expression would make little if
any sense had Christ never been crucified.
"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them
from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a
permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come
to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a
high priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart
from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he
does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and
then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all
WHEN HE OFFERED HIMSELF. For the law appoints as high priests men who are
weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has
been made perfect forever." Hebrews 7:23-28
"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,
he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not
man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by
means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place
once for all BY HIS OWN BLOOD, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood
of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are
ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How
much more, then, will THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that
lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ
is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the
promised eternal inheritance-now that HE HAS DIED AS A RANSOM to set them
free from the sins committed under the first covenant." Hebrews 9:11-15
"For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the
true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high
priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the
world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do
away with sin BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF. Just as man is destined to die
once, and after that to face judgment, SO CHRIST WAS SACRIFICED once to take
away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear
sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews
9:24-28
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs
his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which
can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one
sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he
waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he
has made perfect forever those who are being made holy ... Therefore,
brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood
of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that
is, his body." Hebrews 10:10-14, 19-20
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who
for the joy set before him ENDURED THE CROSS, scorning its shame, and sat
down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such
opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart."
Hebrews 12:2-3
"so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy
THROUGH HIS OWN BLOOD. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the
disgrace he bore ... May the God of peace, who through the blood of the
eternal covenant BROUGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD OUR LORD JESUS, that great
Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will,
and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom
be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Hebrews 13:12-13, 20-21
In light of these statements, we can now understand what the inspired author
meant. God saved Jesus from the dead by raising him back to life, not by
sparing Christ from the cross.
CROSS OR TREE: CRUCIFIED OR STONED?
The final area of attack on the crucifixion made by Mr. Malik is references
in the Holy Bible which allude to Jesus being slain and then hung on a tree:
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a
tree." Acts 5:30 KJV
According to Peter, Jesus was killed by the Jews and then hung on a tree.
The Jewish method of execution was stoning, not crucifixion. In fact, in
Deuteronomy 21:22-23, after a person had been stoned he would be left
hanging on a tree as a sign that the person was accursed of God. Paul also
alludes to Jesus hanging on a tree after being slain. (Cf. Galatians 3:13)
Finally, the term here for tree is xulon whereas the term used for cross is
stauros, pole or stake. Accordingly, this proves that Jesus was not
crucified on a cross where he then died. Rather, he was stoned by the Jews
and then placed on a tree. This is a clear contradiction in the NT accounts
since in the Gospels Jesus was placed on a cross and was killed, while in
other places he was stoned and then placed on a tree after having already
died.
Response:
This is perhaps the weakest point brought up by Mr. Malik since there is no
contradiction. Had he read clearly and carefully he would have found the
answer in the Holy Bible itself. First, the erroneous assumption that Jesus
had died and then placed on a tree is not completely Mr. Malik's fault since
this is the impression given by the unclear translation he uses, the KJV.
Other, more accurate translations are not as vague:
"The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a
tree." RSV
"The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging
him on a tree." NRSV
"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead- whom you had killed by
hanging on a tree." NIV
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by
hanging Him on a cross." NASB
"The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a
tree." ESV
"The God of our ancestors raised Jesus to life after you hung him on a tree
and killed him." ISV NT
"You murdered Jesus by hanging him on a cross. But the God of our ancestors
brought him back to life." GOD'S WORD
"The God of our forefathers has raised Jesus to life, whom you crucified and
put to death." WEY NT
"You killed Jesus by nailing him to a cross. But the God our ancestors
worshiped raised him to life." CEV
"The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from death, after you had killed him
by nailing him to a cross." TEV
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had murdered by hanging
Him on a tree." HOLMAN NT
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, the one you killed by hanging on a
dead tree." WE
These translations bring out the meaning of this verse much more clearly and
conclusively demonstrate that Jesus died as a result of being crucified on
the tree. The verse in no way supports Mr. Malik's erroneous assertion that
Christ died prior to his hanging on the tree. Also notice that some of these
translations imply that the Jews had Jesus killed at the hands of others.
Secondly, since Mr. Malik cites both Peter and Paul in support of his
proposition let us see if they give any clear indication that Jesus died as
a result of crucifixion:
"this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and
foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside
the law." Acts 2:23 NRSV
Peter clearly believed that Jesus was killed by crucifixion and that this
was done by the instigation of the Jews at the hands of the Gentiles.
"Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has
made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:36
NRSV
Peter again affirms the crucifixion, this time emphasizing the role played
by the Jews in instigating Christ's death. Therefore, Peter's statement that
the Jews killed Jesus is not a denial of the role the Romans had in
crucifying Christ, since the apostle earlier in the very same chapter
clearly alludes to the role of the Gentiles in putting Jesus to death. The
apostle was simply emphasizing the responsibility of the Jews in Christ's
crucifixion, being the very ones that God used to fulfill his plan of having
Christ die at the hands of the Gentiles.
"The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in
condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every
Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked
Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written
about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb." Acts
13:27-29
Paul affirms that the Jews had Jesus executed by Pilate on a tree. There is
not a single place in the scriptures where it alludes to Jesus being put to
death by stoning, since the evangelists clearly teach that the Jews had
Christ killed at the hands of the Romans. The method of death used by the
Romans was crucifixion, not stoning.
Furthermore, to argue that the apostles used xulon - tree as opposed to
stauros - cross means that Jesus did not die on the cross is a fallacy. This
is due to the fact that the evangelists use both Greek terms interchangeably
when referring to the cross of Christ. An example is found in the writings
of Paul:
"For the message of the cross (tou staurou) is foolishness to those who
are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1
Corinthians 1:18
"Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being
persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross (to skandalon tou staurou)
has been abolished." Galatians 5:11
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (en to
stauro tou Kuriou hemon 'Iesou Christou), through which the world has been
crucified (estaurotai) to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written:
'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the
Book of the Law.' Clearly no one is justified before God by the law,
because, 'The righteous will live by faith.' The law is not based on faith;
on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.' Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is
written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree (epi xulou).' He redeemed
us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles
through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the
Spirit." Galatians 3:10-14
This last passage from Paul gives us the reason why the evangelists would
speak of the cross as a tree. They did this to emphasize the fact that Jesus
took the curse of sin upon himself in order to redeem us from death. Christ
hanging on the tree was evidence that the Lord had willfully become accursed
of God on our behalf. As the Apostle Peter states:
"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an
example, that you should follow in his steps. 'He committed no sin, and no
deceit was found in his mouth.' When they hurled their insults at him, he
did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he
entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his
body on the tree (to xulon), so that we might die to sins and live for
righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep
going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your
souls." 1 Peter 2:21-25
In the words of Messianic Jewish believer Dr. David H. Stern, taken from his
comments on Acts 5:30:
Stake. Greek xulon, which KJV renders "tree" here and four other places
(10:39, 13:29; Ga. 3:13; I Ke [Sam- Peter] 2:24), all referring to what
Yeshua was hanged on until he died. Yeshua was not hanged on a tree, but on
a stavros, usually translated "cross" and in the JNT translated
"execution-stake," as explained in Mt 10:38N. The word "xulon" is used
instead of stavros in these five places because all of them quote or allude
to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, where the Hebrew word is "'etz," normally rendered
into Septuagint Greek as "xulon." Both Hebrew 'etz and Greek xulon can mean
"tree, wood, stake, stick" depending on context. In Deuteronomy 21:22-23,
where the subject is hanging, an 'etz is any piece of wood which a person
can be hanged, i.e. a stake (perhaps if metal gallows had existed, a
different word would have been used). If Luke had meant a tree and not a
stake, the Greeks had a word for it, "dendron," which he could have used but
didn't. Therefore, while at Mt 26:47 and Mk 14:48 xulon means "stick," at Lk
23:31 and Rv 18:12 it means "wood," and at Rv 2:7 it has to mean "tree,"
here it means "stake"... (Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Jewish New
Testament Publications, Inc., Clarksville Maryland, 1996], p. 237; bold
emphasis ours)
Furthermore, the term xulon came to be used "in Classical Greek of stocks
and poles on which bodies were impaled, here of the cross." (NIV Study
Bible, footnote on Gal. 3:13)
Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich in their Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, state:
"xylon means living or dead 'wood,' anything made of wood, e.g., 'a stick,'
'cudgel,' or 'club,' also a 'bench' or 'table.' An instrument of punishment
or restraint it is a kind of wooden collar. It is also for the 'stake' or
'tree' to which malefactors are fastened. Figuratively xylon is an
'unfeeling' person. The LXX often uses xyla for trees, but also xylon for
wood, used for cultic or secular purposes." (Ibid., George W. Bromiley ed.,
Abridged In One Volume [Eerdmans Pub.; Grand Rapids, MI, 1985], p. 665; bold
emphasis ours)
The Dictionary goes on to say:
"... The Cross. A distinctive use of xylon in the NT is for the cross. The
basis is Dt. 21:22, which stresses the shame of being exposed on a tree.
Acts 5:30, 10:39, etc. make the point that crucifixion is the greatest
possible insult to Jesus, but that God has displayed his majesty by raising
him from the dead. Paul in Gal. 3:13 shows that Christ has redeemed us from
the curse by being made a curse for us according to Dt. 21:22. A curse lies
on those who break the law, but Christ, who has not broken the law,
voluntarily and vicariously becomes accursed, as his death on the accursed
wood makes plain. He thus releases us from the curse and from the death that
it entails. 1 Pet 2:24 is to the same effect when it says that Christ bore
our sins in his own body on the 'tree' (with a plain reference to Is. 53:4,
12). The vicarious element is prominent here. Human sins are laid on Christ,
crucified in him, and thus set aside. Christ does not lay sins on a
scapegoat, but takes them to himself and cancels them on the cross, so that
sinners, dead to sin, may live to righteousness." (Ibid., p. 666; bold
emphasis ours)
The Blue Letter Bible's online Greek Lexicon presents the following
definitions for "xulon":
3586 xulon {xoo'-lon}
AV - tree 10, staff 5, wood 3, stocks 1; 19
1) wood
1a) THAT WHICH IS MADE OF WOOD
1a1) AS A BEAM from which any one is suspended, a gibbet, A CROSS
1a2) a log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of
prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs
1a3) a fetter, or shackle for the feet
1a4) a cudgel, stick, staff
2) a tree
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)
Notice the manner in which xulon is used in the NT:
"'Am I leading a rebellion,' said Jesus, 'that you have come out with
swords and CLUBS (xulon) to capture me?'" Mark 14:48
No one assumes that "xulon" here means tree, unless of course one wants to
claim that the soldiers were armed with actual trees! And:
"Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened
their feet in the STOCKS (xulon)." Acts 16:24
"If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones,
WOOD (xula), hay or straw." 1 Corinthians 3:12
This demonstrates that "xulon" can mean different things depending upon the
context in which it is used. Since these lexical sources state xulon also
refers to the cross as the method of execution, we therefore see that
Malik's assertions are without any real merit.
Conclusion
It becomes apparent that Mr. Malik's points are easily refuted by a careful
examination of the passages within their entire context, as well as careful
research into lexicons, dictionaries etc. Something else that is also
apparent from Mr. Malik's debate material is his consistent attack on the
integrity of the apostle Paul. He often accuses Paul of deceit and outright
textual fabrication.
The astonishing part of this assault is that Mr. Malik has absolutely no
historical basis by which to attack the character of Paul. It is a fact that
neither the Quran nor the earliest Islamic writings ever mention Paul as a
false apostle. In fact, the earliest biography on the life of Muhammad
actually teaches the exact opposite.
The Muslim biography Ibn Ishaq, in his book Sirat Rasulullah, affirms that
Paul was one of those entrusted by God to pass Jesus' message universally,
as well as being a companion of the apostle Peter:
"God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God
have mercy on you. Do not hang back from me as the disciples hung back from
Jesus son of Mary. They asked how they hung back and he said, 'He called
them to a task similar to that which I have called you. Those who had to go
a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey
before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them
to God. (Tabari From that very night) every one of them was able to speak
the language of the people to whom he was sent.' (T. Jesus said, 'This is a
thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.'
"Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came
after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul
belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome. Andrew and
Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is
in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the
city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the
city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz;
Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put
in place of Judas." (Alfred Guillaume, Life of Muhammad [Oxford University
Press Karachi], p. 653)
In light of this evidence, we ask Mr. Malik to refrain from any further
unwarranted and malicious attacks on the apostle Paul. To continue to both
misrepresent and attack the teachings of Paul will only serve to indicate
that Mr. Malik has no substantial arguments by which to refute Christianity.
Nor shall such an approach win him approval before the God he claims to
serve seeing that the earliest historians of Islam viewed Paul as a
messenger sent by God on behalf of Jesus.
All Scripture references taken from the NIV unless noted otherwise.
To order the debate tapes between Hamza Malik and Bill Lockwood write to or
call:
Islamic Research & Propagation Center, Hamza Abdul Malik, Director
145-44 105th Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11435
Phone: (718) 739-4314
Fax: (718) 262-0179 or (718) 739-4314