Some Misunderstood Verses of the Bible Now Put Back in Their Contexts :
With the Necessary Corrections to Shabir's Misinterpretation of these Same Passages,
Part 2

Sam Shamoun

Response:

Notice Shabir's assertions that are at play in his exegesis of this passage. He claims that translations that render the Hebrew text of Isaiah as a virgin that shall conceive and give birth to a son called Immanuel are "a defective translation." He then assumes that Christians are mistaken for believing that this passage teaches the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Shabir has allowed his theological presuppositions to influence his exegesis of the text, as opposed to allowing the text to determine his theology. This is a classic case of eisegesis, not exegesis.

Response:

What Shabir should have actually said is that his presupposition will not allow for Matthew to portray Jesus as God. Shabir assumes, without any shred of fact, that the Deity of Christ was formulated long after Matthew's Gospel was written. Shabir then assumes that the Matthean portrayal of Jesus as God's servant somehow denies the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Inherent in Shabir's assumption is the belief that God is unipersonal, as opposed to being tripersonal, i.e. that since Jesus is the servant of God he cannot at the same time be that God. Shabir's reasoning is therefore flawed from the outset.

First, Jesus can be both God and the servant of God at the same time since the God of Scripture is a Triune Being. When Christians say that Jesus is God, they mean that Jesus is fully God in nature. Jesus is all that God is without being the only person who is fully God in nature. The Father and the Holy Spirit are also fully God as well. The one Being of God exists in three eternally distinct and inseparable Persons or centers of consciousness.

Second, the entire intent of Matthew is to present Jesus as the divine Messiah coming to fulfill the promises of the OT scriptures. A brief sampling of passages should demonstrate that Matthew's intended point is to present Jesus as God Incarnate:

Jesus acts and speak with unprecedented Divine Authority

One astonishing aspect of Jesus is his confidence to speak on his own authority on matters pertaining to spirituality and the kingdom of God. In fact, Christ overrides certain aspects of the Mosaic Law solely on the basis of his own authority. Three examples will illustrate this point more clearly:

After citing the Mosaic Law, Jesus proceeds to reinterpret it on the basis of his own authority. Unlike the OT prophets who often began their utterances with "Thus saith the Lord," Jesus simply exclaims "But I tell you." Noted Christian Apologist William Lane Craig states:

"... The typical rabbinical style of teaching was to quote extensively from learned teachers, who provided the basis of authority for one's own teaching. But Jesus did exactly the opposite. He began, ‘You have heard that it was said the men of old ...’ and quoted the Mosaic Law; then he continued, ‘But I say to you ...’ and gave his own teaching. Jesus thus equated his own authority with that of the divinely given Torah. It's no wonder that Matthew comments, ‘When Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught as one who had authority, and not as their scribes’ (Matt 7:28-29).

"But it's not just that Jesus placed his personal authority on a par with that of the divine Law. More than that, he adjusted the Law on his own authority. Although Jewish scholars have attempted valiantly to assimilate Jesus' ethical teachings to the tradition of Judaism, Jesus' opposition of his own personal authority to the divine Torah given through Moses is the rock upon which all such attempts are finally broken. Take, for example, Jesus' teaching on divorce in Matt 5:31-32 (cf. Mark 10:2-12). Here Jesus explicitly quotes the teaching of the Law (Deut 24:1-4) and opposes to it, on the basis of his own authority, his teaching on the matter. In the Markan passage, he declares that Moses does not represent the perfect will of God on this matter and presumes to correct the Law on his own authority as to what really is the will of God. But no human being, no prophet or teacher or charismatic, has that kind of authority. ‘Jesus,’ observes Witherington, ‘seems to assume an authority over the Torah that no Pharisee or Old Testament prophet assumed the authority to set it aside.’

"In his provocative dialogue A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, the eminent Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner explains that it is precisely on this basis why he, as a Jew, would not have followed Jesus had he lived in first-century Palestine. Explaining that for a Jew the Torah is God's revelation to Moses, he asserts,

Jews believe in the Torah of Moses ... and that belief requires faithful Jews to enter a dissent at the teachings of Jesus, on the grounds that those teachings at important points contradict the Torah ...

And therefore, because that specific teaching was so broadly out of phase with the Torah and the covenant at Sinai, I could not then follow him and do not now either. That is not because I am stubborn or unbelieving. It is because I believe God has given a different Torah from the one that Jesus teaches; and that Torah, the one Moses got at Sinai, stands in judgment of the torah of Jesus, as it dictates true and false for all other torahs that people want to teach in God's name.

"Given the supremely authoritative status of the divinely revealed Torah Jesus' teaching can only appear presumptuous and even blasphemous. In effect, as Robert Hutchinson put it, ‘Neusner wants to ask Jesus, "Who do you think you are — God?"’ Neusner himself recognizes that ‘no one can encounter Matthew's Jesus WITHOUT CONCURRING THAT BEFORE US IN THE EVANGELIST'S MIND IS GOD INCARNATE.’ But if Jesus' opposition of his personal teaching to the Torah is an authentic facet of the historical Jesus — AS EVEN THE SKEPTICAL SCHOLARS OF THE JESUS SEMINAR CONCEDE — then it seems that Jesus did arrogate to himself the authority of God. According to Robert Guelich, ‘one must not shy away from the startling antithesis between God has said to those of old / But I say to you since here lies not only the key to the antithesis but to Jesus' ministry.’" (Craig, Reasonable Faith - Christian Truth and Apologetics [Moody Press, Chicago 1984; revised edition 1994], pp. 246-247; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Craig goes on to say in regards to Jesus’ "Truly, truly I say to you" statements:

"Second, Jesus' use of ‘amen’ expresses his authority. The expression frequently attributed to Jesus, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,’ is historically unique and is recognized on all hands to have been used by Jesus to preface his teaching ... Ben Witherington in his acclaimed study of the Christology of Jesus explains the significance of Jesus' use of the phrase ‘Amen, I say to you’:

It is insufficient to compare it to ‘thus says the Lord,’ although that is the closest parallel. Jesus is not merely speaking for Yahweh, but for himself and on his own authority.... This strongly suggests that he considered himself to be a person of authority above and beyond what prophets claimed to be. He could attest to his own truthfulness and speak on his own behalf, and yet his words were to be taken as having the same or greater authority than the divine words of the prophet. Here was someone who thought he possessed not only divine inspiration... but also divine authority and the power of direct divine utterance. The use of amen followed by ‘I say unto you’; must be given its full weight in light of its context — early Judaism.

"That Witherington's analysis is correct is evident from the complaint of the orthodox Jewish writer Ahad ha' Am: ‘Israel cannot accept with religious enthusiasm, as the Word of God, the utterances of a man who speak in his own name — not "thus saith the Lord," but "I say unto you." This "I" is in itself sufficient to drive Judaism away from the Gentiles forever.’" (Ibid., p. 248; bold emphasis ours)

Craig concludes with the words of Horst Georg Pöhlmann:

"Horst Georg Pöhlmann in his Abriss der Dogmatik reports, ‘In summary, one could say that today there is virtually a consensus concerning that wherein the historical in Jesus is to be seen. It consists in the fact that Jesus came on the scene with an unheard of authority, namely with the authority of God, with the claim of the authority to stand in God's place and speak to us and bring us to salvation.’ This involves, says Pöhlmann, an implicit Christology. He concludes:

This unheard of claim to authority, as it comes to expression in the antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, is implicit Christology, since it presupposes a unity of Jesus with God that is deeper than that of all men, namely a unity of essence. This ... claim to authority is explicable only from the side of his deity. This authority only God himself can claim. With regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of behavior: either believe that in him God encounters us or nail him to the cross as a blasphemer. Tertium non datur.

There is no third way." (Ibid., p. 252; bold emphasis ours)

Amazingly, Shabir tries to deny what Neusner and the rest claim is the obvious, namely that to Matthew Jesus is God in the flesh!

Jesus is the Lord of Judgment

Jesus claims to be the sovereign Lord that determines the eternal destiny of every human being:

Jesus is the Bridegroom

Matthew portrays Christ as the Bridegroom of God's people:

Yet, according to the OT the Bridegroom is Yahweh Elohim:

Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath

Jesus claims to be greater than the temple of God. Just how much greater becomes evident from the following citation:

Jesus is greater than the temple because he himself is the Lord of the Sabbath, i.e. Jesus is Yahweh God. Therefore, Jesus is the very Lord of the Temple who had come to dwell visibly with his people. This point is brought out more clearly from Jesus' own words:

Jesus claims that John is the Messenger that Malachi had predicted would come to prepare the way for the Messiah:

According to Malachi the one whom John was preparing for was actually the very Lord of the Temple himself. Seeing that Jesus is the one whom John prepared the way for, this makes Jesus Yahweh God the very One to whom the temple had been erected!

Jesus is the Lord of the World, Angels and of God's Elect

Jesus likens the kingdom to a sown field:

Jesus goes on to identify himself as the owner of the field, with the enemy representing Satan:

Jesus again goes on to say:

Jesus even identifies himself as the Lord of the harvest since he says:

After telling the disciples to pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers Jesus proceeds to send out his disciples!

Thus, Jesus is essentially identifying himself as the Lord of the harvest whom believers need to pray to so that he can send forth laborers!

Jesus claims that the world, the angels, the elect and the kingdom belong to him. In light of Psalm 24 this makes Jesus Yahweh:

Interestingly this passage shows that Jesus knew what the teachers of the law were thinking within their hearts without them having to speak out loud. This implicitly attests to Jesus' omniscience. Compare this with the following OT citations:

The fact that in the NT it is Jesus that both redeems men from their sins and heals people of their infirmities argues quite persuasively that Matthew's Jesus is none other than Yahweh God!

Jesus is Omnipresent

According to Matthew, Jesus is omnipresent:

In order for Jesus to be omnipresent he must be God since God alone is present everywhere, especially till the end of the age.

Jesus is Omnipotent

Christ claims to have sovereign authority over all creation:

It is impossible for a finite creature to sustain the entire universe and preside over it as its Sovereign ruler. God alone is able to sovereignly control the universe. Therefore, in order for Christ to exercise sovereign authority over the entire universe implies that Jesus is God Almighty. This is solidified by the fact that Jesus also shares the very same Divine name of both God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Seeing that the term "name" also signifies authority, Jesus is therefore claiming to have the same divine authority that Yahweh God has. This again indicates that to Matthew Jesus was Yahweh God Incarnate!

Jesus is also able to grant others the authority to perform miracles and wonders in his name:

Jesus gives his followers the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the leprosy and drive out demons. In order for Christ to grant such authority to others he must be the Almighty God since God alone has such power and authority, especially to delegate to others.

Finally,

In order for Jesus to grant rest to all who come to him Christ must be omnipotent. A finite creature is unable to grant rest to all who draw near to him. Compare this with the claims made by Yahweh in the OT:

Hence, Jesus again claims to perform a function that the OT attributes to Yahweh God.

Jesus is Omniscient

For a man to claim to have the same intimate knowledge of God that God has of him is either blasphemous or makes that man God. Seeing that Matthew has no intention of presenting Christ as a blasphemer only demonstrates once again that the Matthean Jesus is God Incarnate.

Jesus receives the praise of Yahweh

Amazingly, Jesus applies to himself Psalm 8:2 where Yahweh is seen as receiving the praise of infants and children!:

Jesus is therefore claiming that to praise him is to praise Yahweh God! The only way for this quotation from Psalms to count as valid justification for Jesus not to forbid, but to confirm and encourage the praise of his own person from those children, is the assumption of his identity with Yahweh God.

In light of the preceding lines of evidence there can be no doubt left that to Matthew Jesus was indeed Yahweh God Incarnate.

Response:

Here, Shabir fails to make a distinction between proper names and the use of titles and/or names as descriptions of a person's nature or character. Whereas Elijah and Elihu are the personal names of specific individuals, the name Immanuel is not a personal name but rather a description of the child's nature.

In our response to Shabir's assessment of his debate with Alan Storkey as well as to the first part of this article, we had already noted that the Holy Bible often uses names to describe certain characteristics, qualities and/or functions of an individual. For instance, we had commented on the Angel of Yahweh and the fact that God's name is contained within him:

Hence, the personal name of the child would not be Immanuel. Rather, the name Immanuel describes the child's nature and function. Edward J. Young in his commentary on Isaiah states:

Therefore, Shabir's entire argument crumbles since the passage in Isaiah is not predicting the Messiah's personal name. Rather, Isaiah is indicating that the Messiah would be the complete embodiment of what the name actually represents. Hence, Immanuel signifies that the Messiah would be God himself coming to dwell with his people in visible form, being the fullness of Deity in the flesh. (cf. Matthew 1:22-23, 28:20; John 1:18; Colossians 2:9)

Response:

Shabir objects to the Messianic application of this passage since it was meant as a sign for King Ahaz. Hence, the passage states that before the maiden's child would be old enough to choose good and refuse evil, Syria and the Northern Kingdom would lose their kings, and Assyria would attack Judah. This all took place in the eighth century BC. (vv. 10-17)

In reply to Shabir's assertion we must state that the context includes all of Isaiah 7, a point that Shabir himself noted. When we take into consideration the entire context of Isaiah we discover that the sign of v.14 was for the entire "House of David" since the term for "you" in verses 13-14 is in the plural. Yet, the sign for King Ahaz in vv. 11 and 16-17 was for him only since "you" is singular in these passages.

Therefore, Ahaz's sign was that before the child (Hebrew- na'ar meaning a toddler, never a baby) should know how to choose good, refusing evil, the events of vv. 16b-17 would transpire. This child was Isaiah's son, Shear Jashub, who was with the prophet at the time and at whom Isaiah directed this sign. (Cf. Isaiah 7:3)

Yet, the son (Hebrew- ben) of v.14 would be a sign to come for all of David's descendants since he would be the long-awaited Messiah who was born approximately 700 years later to the young virgin maiden, Mary.

Furthermore, rabbinic interpretation applied Isaiah 7, specifically Isaiah 7:21, to messianic times:

The point that sticks out from the preceding quotation is the constant reapplication of OT passages to messianic times. Hence, Matthew was being thoroughly Jewish in his application of Isaiah 7:14 to the Messiah seeing that this is precisely what the rabbis did with Isaiah 7:21!

Finally, Shabir's argument against Matthew's alleged misapplication of Isaiah 7:14 backfires against him. In one of his articles, Shabir claims:

Unlike Isaiah 7 where we find ancient rabbinic commentary applying specific portions of the passage to the Messiah, Shabir cannot show us a single pre-Islamic source where either Jews or Christians applied Song of Solomon 5:16 prophetically to an Ishmaelite prophet whose name would be Muhammad. Yet this does not stop Shabir from misapplying this specific passage by wrenching it out of its immediate context and forcing it to agree with his preconceived notions. Shabir is guilty of the very thing he accuses Matthew of, namely misapplying OT passages to suit his own theological presuppositions. The only difference is that whereas Matthew was being thoroughly Jewish in his application of OT passages to the Messiah, Shabir distorts the scriptures to his own destruction. (Cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16)

Therefore, we only need to remind Shabir of his own advice to Christians:

Response:

Shabir attacks a straw man here. Shabir knows well enough that the historic Christian position has always been that the one person of Christ is both God and man at the same time. As God, Christ's knowledge was complete and immediate, not needing to conceptualize anything in order to gain an accurate understand a thing or item. Yet as man, Christ grew in relation to his human consciousness as the following citations prove:

Therefore, Isaiah 7:14-16 actually proves the very point Shabir has unsuccessfully tried to refute! Namely, that the Messiah is the God-child and the God-man, being both omniscient in relation to his divine nature and finite in understanding in relation to his human nature.

Response:

Shabir's allegation is that the word translated virgin in the Christian Bibles is more properly translated "young maiden" since this is the proper meaning of the word almah. The Hebrew word for virgin is b'tulah.

Although it is true that almah refers to a young maiden, this maiden by necessity would be a virgin since the Mosaic Law made it forbidden for women to engage in sexual intercourse prior to marriage. (Cf. Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

Furthermore, the Bible itself testifies that the word almah can be used in reference to a virgin since Rebecca, Isaac's wife, is called an almah in Genesis 24:43. Yet in Genesis 24:16 it states that "neither had any man known her," i.e., that she was a virgin.

The most famous medieval Jewish Bible commentator Rashi (AD. 1040-1105) explained that alamot (plural of almah) in Song of Solomon 1:3 means b'tulot ("virgins") as a metaphorical reference to the nations. Hence, we find at least one Rabbi agreeing that almah and b'tulah are virtually synonymous terms.

In Exodus 2:8, almah is used to describe Moses' older sister Miriam who is an obvious virgin from the context. Moreover, more than two centuries before the birth of Jesus, the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint used parthenos for almah. Depending upon the context parthenos can either mean young maiden or virgin, much like the term almah. This indicates that even the Jews translating Isaiah into Greek knew that the context of the passage demanded that a virgin be meant and used the proper Greek term to signify this fact.

Shabir might argue that the Septuagint is not a Jewish document. The Septuagint is the translation into Greek of the Hebrew Scriptures, made for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Shabir in his articles, like many others before him, has tried to discount the value of the Septuagint. However, that is not the view of most scholars.

Suzanne Daniel, Associate Professor of Judeo-Hellenistic Literature, Hebrew University, Jerusalem states:

Cyrus Gordon, a leading Jewish scholar who was formerly Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology, Dropsie College, wrote:

Jewish sages have sometimes had something to say about the possibility of a virgin birth:

Abraham Farissol, medieval Jewish sage:

The Nizzahon Vetus, medieval work of polemics:

Contemporary scholar Adam Kamesar:

These citations again implicitly affirm that the Jews realized that the context of Isaiah 7:14 demanded that a virgin be meant here.

This is further strengthened by the fact that Isaiah 7:14a states that this was to be a "sign" (Hebrew- ot) from the Lord. The word ot almost always means an extraordinary event demonstrating God's power and direct involvement in human affairs. There is nothing miraculous for a woman to conceive a child through sexual intercourse since this is something common. Yet it is truly amazing for a virgin to conceive a child as in the case of Mary and Jesus.

Response:

We have already addressed all of Shabir's points. The one thing we would like to say is that although the Quran does in fact teach the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, it fails to explain the reason and the significance behind it. It is the Holy Bible that tells us the reason for the virgin birth:

The reason for the virgin birth is that this was the only suitable manner for the Son of God to take on actual flesh.

Response:

Amazingly, Shabir manages to pull one of the greatest attempts of scripture twisting we have ever read. Shabir again assumes what he has yet to prove. He assumes that God is unipersonal and therefore whenever the NT says that God has never been seen this proves that Jesus is not God. Yet, had Shabir quoted the passages accurately he would have realized that the NT teaches that God the Father has never been seen. That is why God the Son became flesh in order to reveal God to man:

Interestingly Shabir quoted this passage to give the impression that Jesus was not God. Yet, the whole point of this verse is that the only way Jesus could reveal God to man is because he himself is God in nature.

These verses state that God the Father has never been seen. That is why God the Son became man, in order to reveal the nature and character of God to man. Interestingly, Christ claims to be the only person who has seen the Father:

Shabir also assumes, albeit erroneously, that Jesus' worshiping the Father as the only true God somehow diminishes Christ's Deity. Yet, Shabir forgets to mention that Jesus also demanded that his followers worship him as God in the same way that they worship the Father:

Jesus does not say to honor him as a prophet, but rather to honor him just as one would honor the Father. This honor includes praying to Christ directly:

In order for Christ to answer prayer he must be all-powerful and all-knowing, which again proves that Jesus is God!

John also records Jesus making the following personal claims with the Jewish crowds responding accordingly to such claims:

Jesus accepts and blesses Thomas's confession that he is both Lord and God.

Hence, far from proving Shabir's point that Jesus is not God, these passages are quite emphatic in stating that Jesus is indeed God. John goes out of his way to show that Christ is the only One to have seen the Father's essential nature, having eternally coexisted with him in intimate personal communion:

That is precisely why John says that Jesus is able to reveal God perfectly, since he is the fullness of Deity in bodily form. (Cf. John 1:1, 10, 14)

Response:

Seeing that 1 Timothy 3:16 is not the only passage affirming the Deity of Christ and seeing also that there is a textual dispute over the original rendering, we have no major qualms with Shabir. We do however recommend the following book which deals with the textual issues surrounding 1 Timothy 3:16:

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? James R. White Paperback - 286 pages (March 1995) Bethany House; ISBN: 1556615752 specifically pp. 207-209

In regards to Paul's view of Jesus, whether he believed Christ was God or an exalted heavenly creature please read the following rebuttal located here.

Finally, as far as 1 Corinthians 11:3 is concerned this again demonstrates Shabir's logical fallacies. Shabir commits a categorical fallacy by confusing position with nature. He somehow thinks that just because God the Father is superior in position this then makes Jesus inferior in nature. Yet, you can have one Person who is superior in rank without this implying superiority in nature.

For instance, the Holy Bible clearly teaches that both man and woman were created in the Divine image, making them both equal in nature. (Cf. Genesis 1:26-30; 5:1-2)

Therefore, Paul's teaching that man is the head of the woman relates to position, that man holds a higher position over woman. Paul is not claiming that men are essentially superior to women since elsewhere Paul clearly states that all are one in Christ. (Cf. Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)

Likewise, God is the head of Jesus in that the Farther is greater in position, not in nature. Both the Father and Son are equal in nature and essence, yet not in position.

Response:

Shabir commits the fallacy of equivocation, assuming that the term "Father" carries the same meaning at all times. Yet, "Father" can carry a whole range of meanings as the following examples clearly demonstrate:

In this passage, we find that both God and Abraham are said to be the Father of the Jews. Therefore, applying Shabir's logic we would be forced to conclude that Abraham is actually God the Father!

Again, if Shabir's logic were sound we would once more conclude that Abraham is God the Father since he is said to be the father of all believers.

This means that Paul is also God the Father as well.

In light of the preceding examples, the term "Father" means different things in different contexts. For instance, the term can mean Source, Creator and/or Author as the following citations demonstrate:

Here, God is referred to as Father in his role as Israel's Redeemer. Hence, the term in this context refers to God as the Source of Israel's redemption from Egypt.

The term is used in these passages to refer to God as Creator.

Jesus is called Everlasting Father in the sense that he is both the source and giver of eternal life. This understanding bears out in light of the fact that the literal Hebrew phrase in Isaiah 9:6 is not "Everlasting Father." Rather, it is "Father of Eternity" (Hebrew- Avi Ad). Dr. Robert Morey notes:

This is precisely the picture the NT gives of the Lord Jesus Christ, namely that he is the source of eternal life:

Therefore, in light of the preceding factors we again find Shabir's entire argumentation crumbling from under his feet. Even in his attempted rebuttal to our criticism of his misuse of Bruce Metzger, Shabir failed to offer anything of substance. This fact will become evident in our rebuttal to his attempted rebuttal that is to appear soon on Answering Islam, Lord willing.

In the service of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who is Lord over all! Amen. Come Lord Jesus.

Articles by Sam Shamoun
Responses to Shabir Ally
Answering Islam Home Page