In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"
The HB describes God with singular pronouns over 11000 times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single Individual. The expression "let us" of Gen1:26 is isolated and doesnt indicate duality, trinity or a hundred members of the godhead. Again, the pluralization of words for intensification of the meaning is common in Semitic languages. Many examples have already been given, and in different contexts, another one being Ezra 4:18. Just as Isa44:24 says it is Myself not Ourselves "who spread out the earth" Jesus says in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone. And again in In Heb4:4 God not Jesus or the holy spirit rested from the work of creation. Similarly in
Job38:4"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"not We.
The Midrash Rabbah cited in Rashi’s commentary on
Gen1:26"Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yonathan: At the time when Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to set down what happened on each (of the six) days of creation. When he got to the verse "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' " (Gen. 1:26), Moses said before Him: "Master of the universe, why do You give heretics an excuse? (they will say that there are numerous deities!)" He replied: "You write! and whoever wishes to err, let him err.""
Sure, there must have been Israelites who understood some of these texts in a polytheistic manner, hence this midrash. Read on their own certain passages can be understood in a polytheistic fashion if one so chooses. But the overwhelming fact that the HB fails to give a single example that MUST be read in a polytheistic fashion justifies that all these texts in their canonical context are monotheistic.
God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings".
When husband and wife are "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative
Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”.
Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centred tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying
"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu).
As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...
The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts.
The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one.
In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes.
The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularily, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.
Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent
3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers".
The violent hardship that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings
5:18"you are mortals of His creating".
Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.
In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that
19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path".
In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appelation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition
"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him".
This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22.
It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.
The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.
This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.
One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.
Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?
Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.
This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being.
The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in paralleling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.
Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least to false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above.
No comments:
Post a Comment