No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity
Page 5
Christian theology, on the other hand, does not have a problem with the Word of God being an eternal expression of God that is in some sense separate from God, because it does not teach the absolute unity of God. It teaches that Yahweh is three in one.
But what does it mean for God to be three in one? Let’s make sure we have a good definition of the Trinity before we examine why Christians believe it.
DEFINING THE TRINITY: DOES IT CONTRADICT ITSELF?
The Trinity is just like every other monotheistic doctrine in teaching that there is only one God. If we miss this, we miss everything! Christianity has always taught that there is only one God. Where Christian theology differs from other forms of monotheism is not on the number of gods, but on the concept of God’s personhood. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the one God exists as three persons.
It is at this point that Muslims often level a charge of self-contradiction, but it certainly is not, and here is why: person is not the same as being. Your being is the quality that makes you what you are, but your person is the quality that makes you who you are. For example, we are humans. That is what we are. That is why we are called human beings. But what we are is not the same as who we are. If someone asks, “Who are you?” I should not respond by saying, “A human!” That answers the question of what I am, not who I am. Who I am is Nabeel; that is my person. What I am is a human; that is my being. Being and person are separate.
Unlike a human being, which has only one person, God has three persons. He is one being, Yahweh, in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. He’s more than able to exist like that because he is God. If we say God must have only one person, like humans, then we are making God in our image. Who are we to limit God? It is up to God to tell us who he is.
That is where the discussion should really be between Muslims and Christians: on revelation, not on the conceptual plane of “Trinity versus tawhid,” as if our reason alone can dictate or even decipher the nature of God. Based on their traditional teachings, Muslims and Christians should agree that God is greater than we can possibly conceive, more complex than we could ever hope to grasp. We are in no position to determine the intricacies of God’s nature. If he were to inform us that he is one being in one person, we are obligated to believe him. If he tells us, “I am one being in three persons,” who are we to say no to God? As believers in revelation, we must turn to divine Scripture to learn about God.
THE TRINITY IN THE BIBLE
Scripture is the reason why Christians believe God is triune. The doctrine of the Trinity is the best interpretation of the Bible. Just as the Quran does not systematically expound upon the doctrine of tawhid, the Bible does not expound upon the doctrine of the Trinity in any one place. However, there are five elements found repeatedly throughout the Bible’s text that are best interpreted through the lens of the Trinity:
There is only one God (e.g., Rom. 3:30)
The Father is God (e.g., John 6:27)
Jesus is God (e.g., John 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 2 Peter 1:1)
The Holy Spirit is God (e.g., Acts 5:3–5)
These three are distinct persons (e.g., John 14:16–17)
So if there are three distinct persons that are God, but there is only one God, we are naturally led to the doctrine of the Trinity: one God who subsists in three persons.
A verse that indicates the unity of these three distinct persons is Matthew 28:19, which says, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (NIV). All three persons in this verse share one name, because they are one being.1
Now you may have noticed that the above verses are found in the New Testament. A common question that Muslims ask is, “If God is a Trinity, why do we have to wait until the New Testament to see it? Why did God not even give a hint of the Trinity before?” My answer often surprises them: He did, starting with the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (NIV). If we look more closely at the word we translate “God,” Elohim, we see it is plural. If we were to translate it literally, we would translate it “Gods.” But the reason we do not translate it that way is because the verb in the sentence is singular. The word Elohim is plural, but the verse treats it as a singular noun. So, in the very first verse of the Bible, we see that God is in some sense plural, but in some sense singular. This fits the model of the Trinity perfectly: God is in one sense plural in terms of his persons, but in another sense singular in terms of his being. A monadic interpretation of God makes less sense of the verse.
Of course, if it were just this one instance, there would not be much of a case, but we find three indications of God’s plurality in Genesis 1. The second is found in verse 26, where God says, “Let us make man in our image” (NIV). He refers to himself in the plural. Why would God call himself “us”? Some people respond that it is a plural of majesty; a king might refer to himself as “we,” and indeed, Allah does this throughout the Quran. Such an explanation is anachronistic, though. Biblical Hebrew does not use the plural of majesty, and it is probable that such a literary device had not been invented yet. To say that the Bible is using a plural of majesty is to apply later manners of speaking and writing to the Bible, which is poor methodology. God is not referring to himself here with a “royal we.” God is pointing out that, in some sense, he is plural.
Another indication of his plurality is found in verse 27, which reads: “And God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” After emphasizing that God created mankind in his image, the Bible then says he created them male and female. That’s not to say God has genders, but it is to say that there is plurality in his image. This is reflected in Scripture’s use of him to refer to mankind, and then its switch to them. Mankind is in one sense singular, one humanity, but in another sense plural, composed of men and women. That is the image of God: both singular and plural.
So when we read the chapter carefully, we see that there are three indications in the very first chapter of the Bible that God is plural and singular. The Trinity is in the Bible from the very first verse, even multiple times in the very first chapter.
Before moving on, it is worth mentioning that the Trinity is implicit throughout the Old Testament. In Genesis 18, we find Yahweh coming as a man to speak with Abraham, informing him that he will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Then, in verse 19:24, the Bible says, “Yahweh rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from Yahweh out of the heavens.” Yahweh appears to be both on earth and in the heavens, the person on the earth raining down sulfur from the person in heaven.
Lest it appear that this is not what Genesis is saying, Amos 4:11 confirms this interpretation: “ ‘I overthrew some among you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah . . .’ declares Yahweh.” Here, Yahweh refers to God in the third person. This makes little sense within a monotheistic framework unless we read the Old Testament through the lens of the Trinity.
Finally, an example of a passage in the Old Testament that features the deity of all three persons of the Trinity can be found in Isaiah 48:12–16. The clarity of the statement can be lost because of the many statements emphasizing the sovereignty of the speaker, but if we remove the intervening statements, the passage reads: “ ‘I am he; I am the first and the last. Indeed, my own hand established the earth . . .’ and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent me.” Here, the Alpha and the Omega says he was sent by the Lord God along with his Spirit. The next verse calls the speaker “Yahweh,” “Redeemer,” and “the Holy One of Israel.” In this passage, Yahweh is sent by Yahweh and the Spirit of Yahweh, and this makes little sense unless read through the lens of the Trinity.
THE TRINITY AND TAWHID IN THE QURAN
Just as the Bible is the reason Christians believe in the Trinity, the Quran is the reason Muslims deny it. The clearest rejection of the Trinity in the Quran is 4.171. After denying the deity of Jesus
, it says: “Do not say ‘three.’ (It would be) better for you (if you) stop. Only Allah is God. One.”
But when we study the Quran more carefully, it appears the Quran is not actually denying the Trinity but rather polytheism, that Jesus is a second deity alongside God. For example, after denying that Jesus is God, 5.73 says, “Certainly they are infidels who say, ‘truly, God is the third (of) three.’ There is no god but one God.” If the Quran envisions the Trinity as three gods, with Allah as one and Jesus as the second, who is the third? Apparently it is Mary, as is most clear in 5.116, where Allah says to Jesus: “Did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods in addition to Allah’?”
So the trinity that the Quran denies is actually tritheism, three gods: Allah, Jesus, and Mary. At this point, some Christians argue the Quran gets the Trinity wrong, and this disproves the Quran. Muslims often argue in response that there very well may have been Christians that worshiped Mary, Jesus, and God as a trinity, and that the verses of the Quran are directed toward them. I choose to avoid this discussion, emphasizing instead that the Quran effectively denies polytheism, three gods, not the concept of a triune God as Christianity has traditionally taught.2
Throughout the rest of the Quran, Allah regularly says that there is only one God (e.g., 16.51; 47.19; 112.1), but always as a rejection of polytheism. The Quran never rejects the possibility of one God subsisting in three persons. The omission is noteworthy, as this had been the orthodox doctrine of Christianity for centuries before Muhammad and the advent of the Quran.
THE NINETY-NINE NAMES AND TRANSCENDENCE OF ALLAH
In addition to denying polytheism, the Quran expounds upon the transcendence of Allah, that he intentionally keeps himself removed from mankind. He remains behind a veil, as it were, speaking to humans only through angels. Verse 42.51 says, “It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a partition, or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.”
This verse is instructive for two reasons. In the last sentence, “He is Most High and Wise,” we find an example of the epithets the Quran uses to describe Allah, also called the ninety-nine names. The Quran tells Muslims to call upon Allah by any of his names (17.110), and Muslims often urge one another to learn these names to gain deeper knowledge of Allah’s character.
Also instructive is the implication of Allah’s transcendence: It is not for man to know him intimately. This is also reflected in his ninety-nine names, as there are no names that indicate Allah desires intimacy with man. The two possible exceptions are al-Wali and al-Wadud. Some understand al-Wali to mean “the Friend,” but really it means “the Patron,” and it emphasizes the protection of Allah, not a relationship with him. The other word, al-Wadud, is more promising, as it does mean “the Loving” and is used twice in the Quran. But when we look more closely at the word, it seems an expressive idea is in view rather than a relational idea, as in “the Affectionate.” This might seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction. Only one of Allah’s ninety-nine names could imply he wants intimacy with man, and looking carefully at this word yields nothing that necessitates a relationship.
Of course, it would help if we had more context for the term, but we find only two instances of the word in the Quran; and since they are epithets, surrounding words do not clarify the meaning. Considering the broader context is illuminating, however: In 11.90, al-Wadud is used to describe Allah just one verse after a warning, “Let not your dissension from me cause you to be struck,” and in 85.14, it is only two verses after the warning, “Indeed, the vengeance of your Lord is severe.” Neither occurrence inspires confidence that Allah wants an intimate relationship with humans.
Truly, nothing else in the Quran appears to indicate that Allah wants a relationship with humans. This is especially true of a father-child relationship, as the Quran specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.3), and in 5.18 it rebukes the idea of God’s spiritual fatherhood: “The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are the children of Allah and His beloved.’ Say (in response), ‘Then why does He punish you for your sins?’ Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created.”
This verse is telling. When Jews and Christians suggest that they are children of God, the Quran says to castigate them and inform them that they are nothing but his creatures, as are all humans. We must also note that this verse actually does use the primary and best word for “love” in Arabic, habb, but it uses it to explicitly deny that people are God’s beloved.
This may come as a shock to Muslims who grew up as I did, being taught that Allah loves us. It is a common teaching among Muslims, but it is not the teaching of the Quran. A verse that is often used to suggest that Allah is close to us is 50.16, which says that Allah is nearer to people than their jugular veins. What I was not taught, and what most Muslims I know are not taught, is that this verse is in the context of an extended threat: Allah is so close to you that he knows your subversive thoughts very well, and he throws doubters into hell.3
So indeed, as part of our understanding of tawhid, we need to include a balanced understanding of Allah’s self-revelation. Allah intends man to pursue the relationship of a servant to his master, but not the relationship of a child with his father. Nothing in the Quran suggests that Allah desires intimacy with humanity. We are not his beloved—just one of his creatures.
REMOVED VERSUS RELATIONAL
There is an intrinsic reason why Allah does not desire a relationship with humans, whereas Yahweh does. On account of tawhid, Allah is a monad; he is not inherently relational. Yahweh, on the other hand, is three persons; he is inherently relational. The implications are far-reaching. When Muslims say, “Allahu-Akbar,” they mean “God is great,” and Christians would agree with that.4 Both Muslims and Christians believe that God is the greatest being in the universe. But if Allah is the greatest, and in his nature he is removed and does not desire a relationship, then Islam exalts the qualities of being removed and nonrelational.
On the other hand, if Yahweh is the greatest being, and intrinsic to his nature are intimacy and love, then Christianity exalts relationships and community. Remember from chapter 2 that the one God exists as three persons who selflessly love one another; love is therefore the central principle of God (1 John 4:8). It is out of that selfless love that he created this universe, and he expects it to function through love in reflection of him. That is exactly why the Bible teaches what it does: “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Matt. 22:37–38). Since God is the greatest being, relational and loving, relationships and love are the most important commandments for mankind.
According to Christian teachings, God is our Father. He loves us as a perfect Father, and he will always love us so. He wants us to have an intimate relationship with him, turning to him with our fears and failures, with our dreams and victories. He wants us to rejoice with him and in him. This is all because God is triune, and in his very nature he is love. This is all very different from the traditional doctrines about Allah in Islam.
CHAPTER 7
QUESTIONING COMPLEXITY
In the 1920s, a scientific discovery revolutionized the world forever. Until that time, physics had been considered one of the most unchanging, well-understood fields of scientific knowledge. Isaac Newton’s principles had been proven sound again and again and again, for hundreds of years. Some nineteenth-century physicists, such as Pierre-Simon Laplace, even began to boast that science was now equipped to explain all movements in the entire universe, both past and future. Man, it seemed, had conquered physics.
But near the turn of the twentieth century, scientists started noticing cracks in their understanding of the world. In particular, the behavior of light did not always fit into Newton’s bo
x. Through the work of intellectual giants like Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, physicists began to discover the hidden secrets of light. Combining the insights gained through the 1920s, Paul Dirac published his Principles of Quantum Mechanics, and the world would never be the same.
One of Dirac’s students, John Polkinghorne, shares how Dirac explained the discovery to his students at Cambridge. “He took a piece of chalk and broke it in two. Placing one fragment on one side of his lectern and the other on the other side, Dirac said that classically there is a state where the piece of chalk is ‘here’ and one where the piece of chalk is ‘there,’ and these are the only two possibilities. Replace the chalk, however, by an electron and in the quantum world there are not only states of ‘here’ and ‘there’ but also a whole host of other states that are mixtures of these possibilities—a bit of ‘here’ and a bit of ‘there’ added together.”1
In other words, something can be in two places at once in ways that are contradictory to reason. According to Polkinghorne, “Quantum theory permits the mixing together of states that classically would be mutually exclusive of each other. It is this counterintuitive possibility of addition that marks off the quantum world from the everyday world of classical physics.”2 This realization, a counterintuitive and apparently self-contradictory truth, is opening the door to twenty-first-century advances in technology that mankind could only have dreamed of before: technologies like MRIs, smartphones, and Blu-Ray players all owe their existence to quantum physics, and fields like quantum computing and quantum optics keep the future full of promise.