Cover

Title Page

Copyright Page

© 2017 by Reasons to Believe

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakerbooks.com

Ebook edition created 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-1-4934-0607-4

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com

Scripture quotations labeled ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2011

Scripture quotations labeled NLT are from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Some material in chapters 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 was adapted from Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004). Some material in chapter 8 was adapted from Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007). Some material in chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 appeared in a preliminary form on the Reasons to Believe Reflections blog.

Endorsements

“Samples’s book is a fair-minded, systematic comparison of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth with the life and teachings of other key leaders of world religions—and the comparison is revealing! The author presents a stark and powerful contrast between the historically well-grounded, textually reliable, and lofty identity claims of Jesus and the credentials of other sages, and Jesus towers above them all. Well informed, wise, and sympathetic, this is a readable volume for those interested in exploring world religions and what makes Jesus so unique.”

Paul Copan, Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University; author of A Little Book for New Philosophers

“This is not the typical world religions volume that simply provides an information-filled survey of major faith options. Rather, Ken Samples emphasizes an interactive approach, done in a comparative fashion that contrasts strengths, weaknesses, philosophical implications, and historical foundations of the relevant religious documents. More than fifty tables and charts provide many such contrasts and assessments in visual overviews that encourage grasping key ideas in a single view. The result is a text that affords a variety of opportunities to mix and match preferred features that particular instructors wish to highlight. Such an approach affords excellent opportunities to mold a religions course. I recommend it wholeheartedly.”

Gary R. Habermas, distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy, Liberty University and Theological Seminary

“There has been a crying need for a book like this, and Ken Samples was clearly the one to write it. He compares Christ and Christianity to the founders and doctrines of the other great religions—but with an important difference. He does not dilute the complexity of the faiths he describes, yet he writes in a way that makes the comparative project accessible to everyone. This book would be my top recommendation for any Christian, church, or Bible study group that wanted to learn how the Christian faith stacks up against the other great religious traditions.”

Craig J. Hazen, professor of comparative religion and apologetics, and founder and director of the Christian apologetics program, Biola University

“This is a day like that of the first century, when a variety of gods compete for the allegiance of human beings. Christians and non-Christians alike need discernment even more today than then. This book by Kenneth Samples can provide helpful guidance.”

Gerald R. McDermott, Anglican Chair of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School

“Rarely is a book this comprehensive also this accessible. God among Sages surveys the biblical teaching about Jesus Christ and compares him with the founders of the major world religions. Yet Samples does so in a way that is fair, thorough, and easy to understand.”

Kenneth Keathley, senior professor of theology, Jesse Hendley Chair of Theology, and director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Today’s Christians are not only constantly exposed to claims that there is no significant distinction between religions; they are also liable to be stigmatized as intolerant if they disagree with such assertions. Ken Samples comes to our aid by giving us a close-up view of Jesus and four other important religious figures (Krishna, Gautama, Confucius, and Muhammad) and demonstrating the uniqueness of Christ. This book is a needed and helpful tool for Christians to share the gospel message with confidence.”

Winfried Corduan, professor emeritus of philosophy and religion, Taylor University

“The Christian message that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior for people of all nations is widely regarded as an intolerant claim that has no legitimate place in today’s pluralistic world. There is much confusion today about who Jesus is and how his life and teachings compare to those of other important religious figures. Kenneth Samples dispels this confusion in God among Sages, offering a careful overview of what we know about Jesus and comparing him to the four most popular religious figures outside the Bible: Krishna, Gautama (the Buddha), Confucius, and Muhammad. A model of clarity and charity, God among Sages commends other religions for their strengths while explaining why Christ, who alone is God incarnate, uniquely offers us a relationship with God and eternal life in his presence.”

Robert M. Bowman Jr., executive director of the Institute for Religious Research

“Rather than resist the comparison between Jesus and other leaders of the worlds major religions, Samples welcomes the comparison. The truth claims of Christianity and of Jesus Christ himself stand in high relief when compared to those of Krishna, Gautama, Confucius, and Muhammad. Jesus’s claims far surpass any made by these; and unlike the claims of these other leaders, they proved true.”

Todd Wilken, host of Issues, Etc.

Dedication

To Walter R. Martin—the original Bible Answer Man, tenacious apologist of historic Christianity, insightful scholar on the new religious movements, and mentor to a new generation of apologists

Contents

Cover    i

Title Page    iii

Copyright Page    iv

Endorsements    v

Dedication    vii

List of Tables    xi

Acknowledgments    xv

Introduction: Jesus and the World’s Religious Leaders    xvii

Part 1:  The Historic Christian Portrait of Jesus Christ    1

1. Jesus’s Stunning Self-Understanding    3

2. The Matchless Life of Jesus    17

3. A Historic Christology    33

4. Answering Challenges to Jesus’s Historic Identity    55

Part 2:  Four Major Leaders of World Religions and Jesus    77

5. The Prince (Krishna) and the Lord    79

6. The Buddha (Gautama) and the Christ    103

7. The Teacher (Confucius) and the Savior    133

8. The Prophet (Muhammad) and the Son of God    159

Part 3:  Christianity and the World’s Religions    189

9. Truth, Tolerance, and the Plurality of Religious Claims    191

10. Biblical Perspective on the World’s Religions    209

Conclusion: Jesus, God among Sages    229

Notes    233

Bibliography    245

Index of Subjects    257

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources    261

About the Author    263

Back Ads    265

Back Cover    267

List of Tables

1.1. Who Do People Say I Am?    4

1.2. Parallels between Yahweh and Jesus    7

1.3. Five Divine Prerogatives Jesus Invoked    11

1.4. Jesus Was Conscious of His Deity    13

2.1. Some of Jesus’s Most Famous Parables    29

2.2. Major Themes of Jesus’s Teaching    31

3.1. Trinity: One God in Three Persons (One “What,” Three “Whos”)    36

3.2. Four Affirmations concerning the Incarnation    39

3.3. Six Explicit Incarnational Passages    45

4.1. Paul’s Earliest Letters    59

4.2. Apostolic Proclamation Stages Time Line    63

4.3. Historic Dates Relating to Jesus Christ    65

4.4. The Importance of the Incarnation to Historic Christianity    70

4.5. First-Century Time Line    73

5.1. ISKCON Essential Teachings    84

5.2. The Bhagavad Gita’s Four Ways to Moksha    84

5.3. Comparison of the Prince and the Lord    91

5.4. Hinduism’s Complex Religious Belief System    96

5.5. Worldview Differences between Hinduism and Christianity    97

5.6. Comparison of Bhakti Hinduism and Christianity    99

6.1. Descriptions and Characteristics of Nirvana    106

6.2. The Four Noble Truths    108

6.3. The Noble Eightfold Path    109

6.4. Historical Time Span Comparison: The Buddha and the Christ    112

6.5. Comparison of the Buddha and the Christ    115

6.6. Two Major Branches of Buddhism    118

6.7. What is Karma?    122

6.8. Worldview Differences between Buddhism and Christianity    127

6.9. Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity    130

7.1. The Confucian Canon    136

7.2. Two Influential Confucian Philosophers and Schools of Thought    136

7.3. Confucius’s Moral Ideals    140

7.4. Comparison of the Teacher and the Savior    145

7.5. Ethical Systems of Confucianism and Christianity    151

7.6. Worldview Differences between Confucianism and Christianity    151

7.7. Two Views of Ethical Foundations    152

7.8. Comparison of Confucianism and Christianity    156

8.1. Roles of Muhammad    162

8.2. Muhammad’s Message    163

8.3. Qualities and Characteristics of Muhammad    166

8.4. Comparison of the Prophet and the Son of God    170

8.5. Worldview Differences between Islam and Christianity    179

8.6. Comparison of Islam and Christianity    187

9.1. Two Types of Pluralism    193

9.2. Different Views of God and Ultimate Reality    194

9.3. What Is God?    194

9.4. Who Is God?    194

9.5. Three Foundational Laws of Logical Thought    197

9.6. Applying Logic to the Incarnation    198

9.7. Christians Should Be Tolerant and Intolerant    207

10.1. Three Essential Points of Christian Exclusivism    220

10.2. Two Essential Points of Christian Inclusivism    222

C.1. Comparison of the Leaders of the World’s Religions    230

Acknowledgments

Writing a book puts great demands on the author, especially since many of those hours are spent working at home. I am deeply fortunate to have the love and support of the wonderful family the Lord has given me. My special wife, Joan, and our three grown children, Sarah, Jacqueline, and Michael—who are impressive in their own right—fill my life with love, meaning, and significance. I only hope that the life I have lived satisfactorily shows them how much they mean to me.

My wife not only cheerfully endured the many hours I spent writing but also genuinely encouraged me in the process. Joan knows the sacrifices that writing deadlines demand. The care and respect I consistently received from my children helped me to complete my work. It is humbling to see them become thoughtful and responsible adults.

I am deeply indebted to several fine Christian scholars who reviewed the manuscript and offered numerous suggestions that significantly improved the work. Heartfelt thanks, therefore, go to Drs. Dave Rogstad, Winfried Corduan, and Rob Bowman.

While the reviews of my scholar friends enriched the quality of this work, whatever errors or mistakes that remain are my responsibility alone.

Reasons to Believe’s editorial staff skillfully worked to improve the style and clarity of my writing. Kind thanks go to editors Joe Aguirre, Sandra Dimas, Maureen Moser, and Amanda Warner.

Because I am fortunate to be a member of Reasons to Believe’s scholar team, I enjoyed the collegial support of Drs. Fazale Rana, Jeff Zweerink, and Hugh Ross. Thanks as well to my friend, apologist Dr. Bob Stuart.

I am grateful for Baker Books again being my publishing partner. Specifically, thanks to Baker’s executive editor Robert Hosack for his help and to James Korsmo and Melinda Timmer for their editorial work and counsel. Further thanks to the Baker marketing team who worked hard to make this book possible, including Eileen Hanson, Hannah Brinks, Ruth Anderson, and Lauren Carlson.

The book is affectionately dedicated to my mentor and former boss Dr. Walter R. Martin. Walter was one of my early teachers in the Christian faith, and he motivated me to carefully study the world’s religions.

Finally, I offer glory and honor to the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Contemplating the one God who eternally and simultaneously subsists as three distinct but not separate persons has always left me joyful, prayerful, and thankful.

Faith Seeking Understanding, Kenneth Richard Samples, Advent 2015

Introduction

Jesus and the World’s Religious Leaders

“Who do the world’s religions say the Son of Man is?”

“The Buddhists say a bodhisattva, the Hindus say an avatar, and the Muslims say one of the prophets of Allah.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

The Christians answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Salvation itself hinges on the answer to the question Christ asked of his disciples in Matthew 16:15: “Who do you say I am?” If that conversation were to include the spiritual sages of other religions, it might resemble the above exchange. Who do you say Christ is as compared to the spiritual sages of the world’s religions?

All the world’s religions—most people in fact—have a particular take on who Christ is. Not surprisingly, when it comes to determining Jesus Christ’s true identity, the views of the world’s religions contrast with what Scripture reveals and what Christians have historically affirmed about Christ.

The question of Christianity’s truth as compared to that of other world religions is one of the greatest apologetic challenges of the twenty-first century. If Christians hope to share their faith with other people—many of whom affirm a non-Christian world religion—it is crucial that they fully understand what they believe about Jesus Christ and why they believe it. The first step in this pursuit is to examine who Christ is.

This book is intended as a primer for Christians who want to deepen their understanding of Christ’s identity, especially in light of the competing spiritual sages.

Part 1 offers the historic Christian portrait of Jesus Christ. Chapters 1 and 2 examine Christ’s view of his own identity and offer a detailed review of his unparalleled life. Additional chapters present a biblical and theological study of the doctrines relating to Christ (Christology) and a response to the common skeptical objections regarding the textual and historical support for Jesus Christ.

Part 2 introduces the lives and accomplishments of four of the world’s leading religious founders: Krishna, the Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammad. Each leader is compared and contrasted with Jesus Christ using eight relevant categories of evaluation. Chapters in this section also summarize the basic theological agreement and disagreement between historic Christianity and the world religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam.

Part 3 moves beyond the founders themselves and develops a basic Christian view of the world’s religions. Chapter 9 addresses the issue of religious pluralism along with the controversial question of tolerance. Chapter 10 offers twelve biblically derived principles that shape a Christian perspective on the world’s religions.

Apologetically speaking, this book offers a careful examination of the truth of historic Christianity in the context of world religions. May its pages equip you to help others in their quest for the soul-satisfying truth of Christ’s true identity and his proper place alongside the spiritual sages.

Part 1: The Historic Christian Portrait of Jesus Christ

1
Jesus’s Stunning Self-Understanding

How conscious was Jesus of his divine nature and of his mission during his earthly life?

Gerald Bray, God Is Love

Jesus’ self-consciousness is without historical parallel and represents a very weighty piece of evidence concerning his unique nature.

Bruce Milne, Know the Truth

He not only invoked the phrase that Yahweh in the Old Testament had chosen as His own special term of self-identification, but He also claimed a preexistence appropriate only to one possessing the nature of Yahweh.

Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah

Several times in the Gospel accounts, Jesus directed his disciples and others (including his enemies) to consider his true identity (Matt. 22:41–46; John 8:23–28, 53–58). Matthew 16:13–17 offers one provocative example:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”

Who Do People Say Jesus Is?

During his lifetime, Jesus was considered a dangerous blasphemer and heretic. Today many view him as a good moral teacher or social reformer. Among the world’s religions, he is commonly viewed as a great prophet, an enlightened sage, or a kind of mystical guru or avatar. Table 1.1 offers a summary of these views.

Table 1.1. Who Do People Say I Am?

Baha’i | One of many manifestations of God
Buddhism | A bodhisattva
Hinduism | One of many divine avatars of Vishnu
Islam | One of many merely human religious prophets of Allah (though Muslims do affirm that Jesus was born of a virgin)
Jehovah’s Witnesses | A spirit creature who became a perfect man (and is now a spirit creature again)
Judaism | A merely human religious rabbi or blasphemer or sorcerer
Liberal Theology | A merely human social reformer
Mormonism | The first of God’s spirit children to become a God
New Age Movement | One of many mystical gurus with a divine consciousness
Secularism | A mythical religious figure
UFO Religions | An extraterrestrial visitor to earth
Source: Samples, World of Difference, 139.

Opinions about the identity of Jesus Christ have mounted over two millennia, but perhaps the most important opinion is that of Jesus himself. Did he view himself as a mere man or as something more? What do the New Testament Gospels reveal about Jesus’s self-understanding? (For the sake of brevity, I will consider the Gospels to be credible historical accounts. Thus, I view the Gospels as testimony written by those who were actual eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. However, see chapter 4 for a discussion of the trustworthiness of the Gospels.)

Did Jesus View Himself as God?

For centuries, various individuals and groups have denied that the New Testament presents Jesus as both fully God and fully human. Yet a fair assessment of the scriptural data leaves little doubt that the New Testament sees Jesus as the divine Messiah (chapter 3 will more fully substantiate this claim). Viewing Jesus Christ as the God-man is the historic and orthodox consensus of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant). But this question must be fairly addressed: Did Jesus view himself as divine? Some critics assert that Jesus never claimed to be God and that the Christian church has erroneously drawn that conclusion. According to this perspective, Christendom is guilty of deifying a mere human Jesus over a couple centuries of intense theological speculation.1 What follows is a summary of the biblical data that strongly shows Jesus saw himself as the divine Messiah.

Though Jesus never actually said the words “I am God,” the Gospels reveal that Jesus did view himself as divine. The following five major points illustrate that Jesus was conscious of his own deity and that he deliberately made that fact known to others.

Jesus Claimed Equality with God the Father (Yahweh)

In his public ministry, Jesus either directly associated himself with God or claimed unique divine prerogatives in at least twelve identifiable ways.2

To know Jesus is to know God: “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well” (John 14:7).

To see Jesus is to see God: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

To encounter Jesus is to encounter God: “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:11).

To acknowledge Jesus leads to a unique acknowledgment before God: “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven” (Matt. 10:32).

To trust in Jesus is to trust in God: “Trust in God, and trust also in me” (John 14:1 NLT).

To welcome Jesus is to welcome God: “Whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me” (Mark 9:37).

To honor Jesus is to honor God: “That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23).

To hate Jesus is to hate God: “Whoever hates me hates my Father as well” (John 15:23).

To come to Jesus is to come to God: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

To love Jesus is the unique way to be loved by God: “The one who loves me will be loved by my Father” (John 14:21).

To obey Jesus is the unique way to be found in obedience before God: “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them” (John 14:23).

To believe in or reject Jesus is to believe in or reject God: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36).

No one in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) ever claimed to have the kind of intimate and special relationship with Yahweh that Jesus proclaimed he had. In equating himself so intimately with the Father, Jesus became, at minimum, an extension of Yahweh.3 Jewish monotheistic culture was hostile to any such claims, yet Jesus asserted he possessed the prerogatives of the one true God. In other words, one’s relationship with Yahweh depended on one’s relationship with Jesus. Thus, to interact with Jesus was to interact with the Father and vice versa. For a believer in traditional Jewish monotheism to think of himself as an actual extension of Yahweh would have been nothing short of audacious (were it not true). Table 1.2 presents other parallels between Yahweh and Jesus.

Table 1.2. Parallels between Yahweh and Jesus

Title/Action | Yahweh | Jesus
Call on the name of the Lord | Joel 2:32 | Rom. 10:9–13
Tongue confess / knee bow | Isa. 45:22–25 | Phil. 2:5–11
Life in himself | Exod. 3:14 | John 5:26
Power and authority | Dan. 7:13–14 | Matt. 28:18–19
Final judgment of humankind | Joel 3:12 | Matt. 25:31–32
“I am” | Isa. 46:4 | John 8:58
Creator of the world | Isa. 40:28 | John 1:3
Savior of humankind | Isa. 43:11 | John 4:42
Power to raise the dead | 1 Sam. 2:6 | John 5:21
Glory of God | Isa. 42:8 | John 17:1–5
First and last | Isa. 44:6 | Rev. 1:17
Redeemer | Isa. 48:17 | Heb. 9:12
Forgiver of sins | Jer. 31:34 | Mark 2:7, 10
Addressed in prayer | Ps. 51:1 | Acts 7:59
Worshiped by angels | Ps. 97:7 | Heb. 1:6
Light | Isa. 60:19–20 | John 8:12
Shepherd | Ps. 23:1 | John 10:11
Bridegroom | Isa. 62:5 | Rev. 21:2
Rock | Ps. 18:2 | 1 Cor. 10:4
King | Ps. 95:3 | Rev. 19:16

The Religious Leaders of the Time Considered Jesus’s Claims Blasphemous

Jesus’s extraordinary claims of oneness with the Father came to the attention of the official religious leaders of the time who oversaw Second Temple Judaism.4 Being strict monotheists, they were outraged at Jesus’s claims to divine authority. His insistence on his unique relationship with the Father was largely the reason some of the Jewish religious leaders charged him with blasphemy. Their reaction illustrates that they understood he was claiming deity for himself. Consider four such instances.

1. John 5:17–18:

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus’s constant insistence that he had an intimate and special relationship with God the Father infuriated many Jews because it presumed equality with God. Notice that Jesus didn’t speak of God using the traditional “our Father” but used rather the intimate “my Father.”

2. John 8:58–59:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus’s use of “I am” (Greek: egō eimi) was tantamount to saying, “I am God,” for he was applying to himself from the Old Testament “one of the most sacred of divine expressions.”5 In the Old Testament, Yahweh specifically referred to himself as “I am” or “I am he” (Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12). Jesus may also have been appealing to Exodus 3:14, where Yahweh referred to himself as the great “I AM.” In a Jewish context, “I AM” is how someone would assert deity for himself. The fact that the Jews reacted in John 8:59 by wanting to stone Jesus (the prescribed penalty for blasphemy; Lev. 24:16) contextually supports the deity claim.

3. John 10:30–33:

“I and the Father are one.”

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

The Greek word for “one” (hen) used in John 10:30 is in the neuter form; thus, it does not say Jesus and the Father are the same person. It could be translated, “I and the Father, we are one.” The oneness between Jesus and the Father is more than a unity of purpose or action; it clearly has metaphysical overtones (deity).6 The Jews understood Jesus’s statement as a reference to his deity, for again they sought to stone him.

4. Mark 14:61–64:

The high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced to die by the Jewish religious leaders for the crime of blasphemy because his statements before the high priest were understood to be claims of deity. Notice four things in Jesus’s brief exchange with Israel’s high priest. First, he affirmatively identified himself as Israel’s Messiah (a term from the Old Testament that often carried with it divine titles). Second, he used the title Son of Man, which in certain contexts was viewed as a divine title (e.g., Dan. 7:13–14; see below). Third, he asserted that he will be “sitting at the right hand” of God, which implied that he possessed the authority of God. Fourth, he claimed that he will be “coming on the clouds of heaven,” by which he identified himself as the future judge of humanity.

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13–14)

Jesus’s claims that he had a unique oneness with God were interpreted by the religious scholars and leaders of the time as metaphysical in nature and implying a relationship of deity. These same claims motivated the Jewish religious leaders to seek Jesus’s arrest and subsequent trial. And it was finally Jesus’s own affirmations of deity before the Jewish high priest that led to his condemnation.

Jesus Invoked Divine Prerogatives

During Jesus’s ministry, he engaged in functions that were exclusively reserved for God alone.7 In a context of strict Jewish monotheism, the following five activities were considered blasphemous if practiced by anyone other than God.

1. Forgiving sins. “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’” (Mark 2:5).

Jesus claimed authority to forgive sins, even sins not committed against him personally—a prerogative reserved for God alone. Because all sin is ultimately committed against God, granting forgiveness lies within the exclusive authority of the Lord God Almighty (Lev. 16:30; 2 Sam. 12:13). Jesus’s claim to forgive sins could be viewed by the Jewish religious leaders of the time only as blasphemy and as a radical challenge to their own religious authority and vocation. Christian thinker Paul Copan puts it this way: “[Jesus] forgave sin, not only displacing the temple, but assuming God’s authoritative domain.”8

2. Accepting worship. “When they saw [Jesus], they worshiped him” (Matt. 28:17).

Jesus accepted worship from other human beings—a prerogative reserved for God alone. Jesus’s act of freely accepting worship (see also Matt. 14:33; John 9:38; 20:28) indicated that he saw himself in a different category of being than that of a mere creature. Venerable apostles such as Paul and Barnabas and even the angelic host diligently refused to receive adoration from other creatures (Acts 14:14–15; Rev. 19:10). In the fiercely monotheistic milieu of Second Temple Judaism, the worship of anyone other than Yahweh was inconceivable and a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:3–6). As the ESV Study Bible notes, “That a monotheistic Jew like Jesus accepted worship from other monotheistic Jews shows that Jesus realized that he possessed a divine identity.”9

3. Answering prayer. “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:14).

Jesus possessed the ability to hear and answer prayer—a prerogative reserved for God alone. The omnipresent God is the exclusive recipient of humanity’s prayers (Ps. 116:1). Yet Jesus claimed not only to hear prayers but also to possess the sovereign power to answer prayer according to his will, clearly something only God can do.

4. Raising the dead. “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it” (John 5:21).

Jesus exercised unique the power and authority to raise the dead—a prerogative reserved for God alone. As the source of all life, only God can bring forth the living from among the dead (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6). God alone is immortal and possesses the power to overcome death by raising people from the dead. Yet Jesus exercised this exclusive divine power during his public ministry by raising his friend Lazarus (John 11:41–44). All other instances of people being raised from the dead in the Bible are done in the name of Yahweh or in the name of Jesus.

5. Judging humanity. “The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22). Jesus claimed to possess the authority to judge humanity—a prerogative reserved for God alone. As humankind’s Creator, God exclusively reserves the right to judge all people (Gen. 18:25; Judg. 11:27). Yet Jesus claimed he possessed the judicial power and authority of God to judge all creatures.

Table 1.3. Five Divine Prerogatives Jesus Invoked

Forgiving sin

Accepting worship

Answering prayer

Raising the dead

Judging humanity

If we consider the five divine prerogatives Jesus invoked (see table 1.3), we can begin to build a logical argument:

Premise 1: Whoever does the things that only God can do is God.

Premise 2: Jesus does the things that only God can do.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God.

Jesus’s Teaching and Use of Scripture Reflected the Authority of God

By invoking divine prerogatives, Jesus made it clear that he equated himself with God. Yet did his teaching and use of Scripture reflect the authority of God? Consider three points about Jesus and his handling of the sacred text.

First, Jesus’s teaching reflected a divine authority. Though not formally trained in a rabbinic school of theology, Jesus taught with unprecedented divine authority. He amazed the crowds, as mentioned in Matthew 7, because “he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (v. 29). Richard Bauckham explains, “Jesus spoke and acted with God’s authority in a way that went beyond how prophets and other figures in the Jewish tradition usually did.”10

Second, Jesus authoritatively interpreted and reinterpreted Scripture and placed his own word on the level of Old Testament Scripture. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus added to the well-known commandment forbidding murder, saying that “anyone who is [even] angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment” (Matt. 5:22). In Matthew 24:35, he says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Jesus’s words carried a final authority that in a Jewish context was true only of God.

Third, Jesus declared that the Hebrew Scriptures spoke specifically about him. Luke 24:27 says that Jesus sat down to explain “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets . . . all the Scriptures concerning himself.” Jesus, the living Word, explained how the written Word spoke of him and of his life, death, and resurrection. Again, Jesus’s reading and handling of the Hebrew Bible were audacious and unprecedented.

Jesus Claimed Various Divine Titles

Jesus referred to himself by various Old Testament titles that, in certain contexts, carried the implication of deity. A good example is found in his trial before the Sanhedrin in which Jesus used the titles Son of God and Son of Man—two titles that could carry the implication of deity—as designations for himself. Jesus’s use of these titles (among other things) led the high priest of Israel to condemn him as a blasphemer worthy of death (Matt. 26:62–66). First, Jesus invoked the title Son of God. This title conveyed Jesus’s unique relationship with God (Father-Son intimacy). Jesus’s use of this title implied a oneness with God, and the Jews who heard him use it accused him of blasphemy (see John 10:30, 33, 36). Second, he invoked the title Son of Man. This title was Jesus’s favorite designation for himself. It appears more than eighty times in the Gospels, and on each occasion Jesus used it exclusively when speaking of himself (e.g., Matt. 16:13; Mark 13:26). Daniel 7:13–14 likely stands in the background of Jesus’s use of this title. Daniel reveals a heavenly messianic figure who comes at the end of history as the Lord and Judge of all things. Daniel’s Son of Man figure appears to possess the very prerogatives of deity.

Jesus’s consistent use of Old Testament divine titles infuriated the Jews. Bauckham lends helpful insight as to why the Jewish religious leaders viewed Jesus as a blasphemer who was worthy of death: “It would not have been blasphemy simply to claim to be the Messiah, but they took Jesus to be claiming something more, something that sounded to them like an infringement of God’s sole prerogative of universal sovereignty.”11

Table 1.4. Jesus Was Conscious of His Deity

Jesus claimed equality with God the Father (Yahweh).

The religious leaders of the time considered Jesus’s claims blasphemous.

Jesus invoked divine prerogatives.

Jesus’s teaching and use of Scripture reflected the authority of God.

Jesus claimed various divine titles.

More could be said about Jesus’s provocative identification with deity,12 but these five points (summarized in table 1.4) provide sufficient evidence that Jesus of Nazareth knew he possessed a divine nature and in fact claimed to be God. But let’s consider one additional point about Jesus’s self-understanding regarding his divine nature.

Keep in mind that Jesus’s followers were Jewish monotheists. Thus, the idea of worshiping a second figure as God was simply out of the question for them. Theologian Gerald Bray notes, “There is a compelling argument for accepting that Jesus must have taught his disciples that he was the Son of God, because if he had not done so, they would never have made it up or tolerated it if it had been suggested by others.”13 Bray insists that the best explanation for why the primitive Jewish-Christian church quickly came to see Jesus as an extension of Yahweh and to worship him as God was because Jesus specifically taught his followers that great truth.14 Theologian Bruce Milne explains the astounding reality that the apostles heard and adopted: “Thus the staggering truth is unfolded: Jesus, the man who walked the streets of Nazareth, sweated in Gethsemane and died on the cross at Calvary, is to be identified with Yahweh, the Creator-Redeemer God.”15

Support for the truth of Jesus’s claim of deity is found in such particulars as his matchless (and unchallenged claim of) moral perfection, his specific fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and his many miraculous works—culminating in his own bodily resurrection from the dead.

Appropriately so, Jesus’s superlative character and accomplishments are the focus of the next chapter.

Further Suggested Reading

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

Green, Michael. Who Is This Jesus? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Kreeft, Peter. Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982.

Reymond, Robert L. Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1990.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Swinburne, Richard. Was Jesus God? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Wilkins, Michael J., and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Discussion Questions

What sorts of identities have you heard non-Christians attribute to Jesus?

What are the one or two strongest pieces of evidence that Jesus viewed himself as having a divine nature?

How would you describe the relationship Jesus claimed to have with the Father?

What was it about Jesus that caused the Jewish religious leaders to respond so harshly?

How does Jesus’s relationship with the Father affect your thinking about God?

2
The Matchless Life of Jesus

Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ (as Christians call him), is undoubtedly the best known and most influential human person in world history.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction

His coming split history into two: everything is dated before or after this man. A third of the world’s population professes allegiance to him two thousand years after his death.

Michael Green, Who Is This Jesus?

He hated injustice, and perhaps hated hypocrisy even more because it hid people from themselves and precluded the authenticity he sought to build into relationships.

Huston Smith, The Illustrated World’s Religions

Jacqueline, an affluent and highly trained physician, gave up her successful medical practice in America to move to West Africa, where she treats victims of the Ebola virus. Her medical colleagues were dumbfounded by her decision. But Jacqueline’s priest described her decision as a Christlike act.

The highest moral compliment a person can receive is to be called Christlike. Those who knew Jesus Christ personally and wrote about his life as eyewitnesses described a man who seemed to possess no human brokenness whatsoever. “How is that possible?” one might ask. For the rest of us, our brokenness is evident upon a brief inspection.

Even some of his powerful enemies, who didn’t accept his message, nevertheless found Jesus to be morally flawless. His short life and ministry have incalculably influenced the entire world for good. The comparisons discussed later in this book will reveal the stark contrast between Jesus and other religious founders. All of the others are competing for a distant second place; it’s not even close.

In this chapter, we will survey the life and ministry of Jesus by examining three critical areas. First, we will ask what kind of person Jesus was by focusing on his character, personality, and moral nature. Second, we will evaluate his extraordinary vocation as a miracle worker. And third, we will examine Jesus’s work as a master teacher. Let’s begin our look at the person many people call “the greatest person who ever lived.”1

What Kind of Person Was Jesus?

Jesus’s Character

TRUTH

The Jesus we read about in the Gospels is a person who was driven by the two most important things in life: truth and love. His thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes, especially about himself, while strong and incredibly bold, nevertheless were solidly anchored in reality. (In the Western philosophical tradition, truth is attained when one’s beliefs correspond to reality.) There are an amazing candor and a haunting veracity in his words. Jesus speaks the truth, is the truth, and will settle for nothing less than the truth in all things.

His abiding concern for truth is illustrated in the following two verses. In his high priestly prayer, Jesus spoke to the Father concerning his followers: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). Then when speaking to the Jewish believers, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31–32).

COMPASSION

Jesus has been described as love incarnate. His expressions of love often took the form of compassion. As theologian Benjamin Warfield notes, “Jesus’ prime characteristic was love, and love is the foundation of compassion.”2 His extraordinary compassion extended to a variety of sufferers, including lepers, the lame, the blind, and the grief-stricken.

This account from the Gospel of Luke illustrates not only Jesus’s compassion but also his power over one of humanity’s greatest foes:

Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.”

Then he went up and touched the bier they were carrying him on, and the bearers stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

They were all filled with awe and praised God. (7:11–16)

Jesus felt compassion for this widow who had lost her only son to death (and possibly with him her only means of financial support). The NIV conveys Jesus’s compassion by saying, “His heart went out to her.” Thus, Jesus’s concern extended to the bereaved.

As a public figure, Jesus attracted throngs, and he expressed great concern for them as well. People constantly followed him during his public ministry, and Jesus genuinely cared for and met the needs of the total person: physical, mental, and spiritual. Seeing the crowds, Jesus “had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). Human beings need meaning, purpose, and spiritual guidance in life. Jesus was concerned about the spiritual condition of the people who followed his every step and action.

RESPONSE TO SUFFERING

One critical way Jesus distinguished himself from other leaders of world religions was in his response to human suffering. Jesus did not rationalize it as the Buddha did or blame it on past-life karmic injustices as the Hindu gurus do. Rather, Jesus’s profound, personal experience with suffering in life makes him an ideal empathetic high priest for his people, who inevitably struggle with various kinds of pain and suffering.

Theologian Alister McGrath explains, “Jesus did not come to explain away, or to take away, suffering. He came to take it upon himself, to assume human suffering, and lend it dignity and meaning through his presence and sympathy.”3

FORGIVENESS

Another extension of Jesus’s astonishing love is found in his great capacity to offer forgiveness—even to his enemies. While suffering the excruciating and humiliating act of crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, Jesus nonetheless offered divine acquittal from the cross: “Father, forgive them,” Jesus prayed in Luke 23:34, “for they do not know what they are doing.” Turning to a criminal hanging beside him, Jesus reassured the man, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

ALTRUISM

Love expressed in the form of compassion and forgiveness demonstrates Jesus’s supreme virtue of altruism. In his public ministry, he was constantly concerned with the welfare of others, particularly the weak, the poor, the powerless, and those held captive by shame and guilt. Consider how he touched the lepers to heal them—something no one would think of doing to a person who has an incurable infectious disease!

A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. (Matt. 8:2–3)

Theologian Stephen Neill compares Jesus’s extraordinary selflessness with examples found in people among the world’s religions: “Altruism of the purest and most generous kind is found among people of other faiths and of no faith. But it is so supremely seen in Jesus of Nazareth that Christians feel justified in inviting others to look at him.”4

TREATMENT OF UNDESIRABLES

Jesus also related to people who were considered too sinful for dignified religious individuals of his day to associate with. Jesus befriended tax collectors, prostitutes, and even Samaritans (a racially mixed group whose religious practices differed somewhat from those of the Jews). When Jesus encountered a despised tax collector, he honored him by asking to stay at his house, a privilege many other citizens were hoping to receive (Luke 19:1–10). The tax collector’s response was to repent and repay everyone he had cheated of their money. Jesus also held a conversation with a Samaritan woman at a well who was equally astonished that Jesus would dare to speak to her, as she says in John 4:9, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?”

Jesus got into trouble for associating with people who were considered outcasts. Yet as theologian Richard Bauckham explains, “Jesus did not keep his distance from anyone who needed the love of God, whether they needed liberation from demons, healing of sickness, or forgiveness of sin.”5

McGrath has discussed various ways in which Jesus’s treatment of women was far more gracious and respectful than what was typically afforded women in the first century by either Jews or Gentiles. Following are seven of McGrath’s points:6

Jesus included women in his group of followers.

Jesus uniquely acknowledged women.

Jesus treated women as persons, not objects.

Jesus freely associated with women.

Jesus publicly engaged in conversations with women.

Jesus did not blame women as scapegoats in sexual matters.

Jesus treated women respectfully and responsibly.

Jesus revealed truth and love to broken people who desperately needed both. He offered sympathetic compassion to the suffering and divine forgiveness to sinners. Jesus encountered the human condition up close and personally. According to the New Testament writings, he is the answer to humankind’s greatest existential yearning and need. As theologian Michael Green explains, “All the time the human heart cries out for love and forgiveness, for meaning and reconciliation, for peace and hope. These are the very issues which Jesus spent his life addressing.”7

Jesus’s Personality

Jesus was a deeply appealing person who possessed power to attract men and women to himself and to his cause. He effectively called people back to their deepest spiritual commitments in life. He also had a brilliant, creative mind combined with amazing dialectical skill. Jesus was careful and discerning in his reasoning about truth and life. One of his universal calls comes from Matthew 22:37 (which reiterates Deut. 6:5): “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Jesus encouraged people to love God with their entire being. That means loving God with one’s spiritual devotion, outward behavioral practices, and mental life.

REASONING

Even Jesus’s chief critics were silenced when confronted with his astute logical reasoning. Matthew 22:41–46 reflects how detractors were challenged to consider his true identity:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’ [quoting Ps. 110:1]. If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Jesus, in effect, reasoned logically with the Pharisees from the Scriptures, showing them that they had an incorrect view of the Christ (or Messiah). His argument presupposed that a man’s son is not greater than he is (an assumption reflecting a family-based honor culture in which the father was supreme in his household).

In this next passage, Jesus illustrated his ability to respond analytically and with great wisdom even though he was being pressured by a controversial “gotcha” question:

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him. (Mark 12:13–17)

As Neill notes, “Though he was not technically well educated, he could speak profoundly on all the great problems that encircle humanity.”8 Jesus spoke on greed in Luke 12:15, saying, “Life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” He also touched on retaliation, saying, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (Matt. 5:39), and on worldly ambition, saying, “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?” (Mark 8:36–37).

AUTHORITY AND HUMILITY

One element of Jesus’s personality astonishes like no other: he was uniquely able to authoritatively speak for God and yet be genuinely humble of heart. How can one possibly combine divine authority and authentic humility?

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Matt. 11:27–30)

In light of passages such as this, world religions expert Huston Smith describes how people came to view Jesus: “In the end it seemed to those who knew him best that here was a man in whom the human ego had disappeared, leaving his life so completely under the will of God that it was transparent to that will.”9

Neill offers a similar assessment of Jesus’s personality and temperament: “He combines unhesitating authority with a total lack of self-assertion; courage in the face of danger with almost feminine tenderness in affection; the harshest judgment on the self-satisfied and the complacent, with winning kindness to sinners and those who are out of the way.”10

As we saw in chapter 1, Jesus clearly claimed to be God (John 8:58–59). Even in the passage quoted above, he insisted, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27). And yet there was an amazing unpretentiousness about him. Jesus was a man without the brokenness that sin causes. Green describes him this way: “Free from fear, he was also free from arrogance. He had no taboos, no chips on the shoulder, no pride, no mealy-mouthed humility either.”11

Jesus’s Moral Nature

One of the most engaging and mind-boggling characteristics of Jesus is that he was morally faultless. The people who knew him most intimately insisted he was sinless. Even his enemies, who opposed his claim to divine authority, could not point to a single transgression. One of Jesus’s earliest followers, Peter, said, “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). The apostle John, who was in the inner circle with Jesus, proclaimed, “In him is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Even his Roman judge Pontius Pilate declared, “I find no basis for a charge against him” (John 18:38).

Near the end of his life Jesus stated, “I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:10). Jesus further astounded his staunchest opponents with this query: “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” (John 8:46). Imagine any other human being standing before critics, if not enemies, and saying what Jesus said here? How about standing before your family members and trying to get by with that line?

Smith suggests the following: “The most impressive thing about the teachings of Jesus is not that he taught them but that he appears to have lived them.”12 Nobody, except Jesus, lives out the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7). Green says, “The character of Jesus is immensely attractive. It embodies all that we ourselves would, in our best moments, like to be. . . . And the claims of Jesus are so startling that they stop us in our tracks and challenge us to make up our minds about this most remarkable person.”13

Jesus’s Extraordinary Vocation as a Miracle Worker

According to the New Testament Gospels, Jesus Christ was a miracle worker extraordinaire. Christian thinker Norman Geisler is correct in saying that “Jesus lived a miracle-filled and supernaturally empowered existence from his conception to his ascension.”14

Categories of Miracles

The many miracles Jesus performed seem to fall into three basic categories: healings, exorcisms, and nature miracles.

1. Healings. Many of Jesus’s healings were reported in the Gospels. He cured diseases such as leprosy (Matt. 8:2–4; Luke 17:11–19) and other sicknesses (Matt. 9:35). He healed physical impairments such as blindness (Matt. 9:27–31; 12:22; Mark 8:22–26; Luke 18:35–43; John 9:1–7), deafness (Mark 7:31–37), and muteness (Matt. 9:32–33; 12:22; Mark 7:31–37). Jesus healed paralysis in legs (Mark 2:3–12), hands (Luke 6:6–10), and backs (Luke 13:11–13).

2. Exorcisms. The Bible describes a powerful fallen angelic being known as Satan who is in rebellion to God (prefigured in Isa. 14:12–20; Ezek. 28:12–19) and hostile to Jesus Christ and his church (Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19). A sizable number of angels followed Satan in his rebellion against God, and these beings are now called demons. Given this invisible spiritual war (2 Cor. 4:4), people who do not know God and open themselves—through counterfeit spirituality—are vulnerable to demonic influence and, in rare cases, demonic possession.15 Jesus, as God in human flesh, encountered people in his public ministry who were controlled to some extent by demonic forces. Through his divine power, Jesus Christ liberated various people from demonic influence (John 12:31), including demon-possessed men (Matt. 9:32–33; Mark 1:23–26; Luke 11:14) and a demon-possessed boy (Mark 9:17–29).

3. Nature miracles. As God in human flesh, Jesus Christ has power over the natural world he created (John 1:3; Col. 1:15). On various occasions, Jesus exercised his power to bring about supernatural occurrences. He raised the dead, bringing back to life Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:22–24, 38–42), a widow’s son (Luke 7:11–15), and a friend (John 11:1–44). He also walked on water (John 6:19–21), calmed a storm (Luke 8:22–25), multiplied food to satisfy five thousand (Matt. 14:15–21) and four thousand (Mark 8:1–9) people, and turned water into wine (John 2:1–11).

The Great Physician

Let’s explore the healing aspect of Jesus’s ministry and also provide some analysis of this phenomenon.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HEALING MIRACLES

Jesus’s healings appear genuine and not explainable on a purely naturalistic basis. They were often instantaneous, medically effective, and without relapses, and many of them were of medically incurable illnesses.16

The healings or miraculous occurrences had a positive effect on the total person. As Green explains, “Jesus came to bring healing at every level: healing of body, healing from the malign influence of dark forces, healing from sin.”17

THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON JESUS’S HEALINGS

A study of the people Jesus healed reveals an identifiable pattern in Jesus’s miraculous actions. First, Jesus healed many people whose illnesses stood in the way of their working to earn a living (blind, deaf, and lame). There was no social safety net in the ancient world; thus, without direct family support, these people would be relegated to begging. Bauckham notes, “By healing these people, Jesus gave them back their dignity and a place in society.”18

Second, Jesus healed people who for various reasons were unable to attend the temple in Jerusalem (lepers, those afflicted by demonic forces). As such, these unfortunate people were cut off from what was known as the earthly presence of Yahweh.

Third, as we saw earlier in this chapter, Jesus was deeply motivated to heal because of his great compassion toward people who were suffering. In his very short public ministry (a few years), Jesus healed an extraordinary number of people. As Green observes from reading the Gospels, “There are an enormous number of physical healings attributed to Jesus.”19

THE PURPOSE OF THE HEALING MIRACLES

The miraculous actions of Jesus Christ obviously showed his deep concern for people who had been hurt in a fallen world. Through his atoning death on the cross, he would provide a spiritual healing of the soul that would make sinners once and for all right with God. But these glorious works also functioned as signs pointing to his identity as the Messiah (Matt. 11:1–6). Jesus performed the acts that were prophetically expected of the Coming One (Isa. 29:18–21; 35:5–6; Luke 4:18). When John the Baptist was imprisoned and had doubts as to whether Jesus was really the Messiah, Jesus sent the following message to John:

Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matt. 11:4–6)

APOLOGETIC REFLECTIONS ON JESUS’S HEALINGS

Although secularists reject the possibility of the supernatural based on their worldview commitments, the best explanation of the reports of healing miracles in Jesus’s public ministry is that they were occasioned by genuine supernatural events. Consider the following ten points:20

Grand naturalistic, metaphysical theories about reality suffer from coherence problems and seem inadequate to explain the complexity of the cosmos and especially intelligence in the universe. Thus, the worldview of naturalism remains at best unjustified and at worst incoherent.

Some scientific phenomena fail to correspond to purely naturalistic cause-and-effect explanations (e.g., quantum mechanics).

Naturalistic explanations of Jesus’s miracles (hoaxes, legends, etc.) are not supported by the many historical facts backing other events in Jesus’s life.

Jesus and his healing miracles do not fit the category of the magician, spiritist, or occultist.

Miracles fit well with the extraordinary life and claims of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God (in other words, miracles would be expected if Jesus was indeed the Son of God).

The solid evidence backing the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead makes the miracles in his preceding public ministry more credible and plausible.

All four New Testament Gospels reflect eyewitness testimony, and each Gospel reports that Jesus was a miracle worker.

The Gospel reports of Jesus’s miracles are intertwined with other material that contains marks of historicity.21

The reports concerning Jesus’s miracles are parsimonious in nature and therefore unlike legendary and apocryphal accounts.

Even Jesus’s enemies admitted that he performed miracles (Matt. 12:22–24).

The preceding points offer good reasons for believing that the healing miracles of Jesus actually happened as they are reported in the New Testament Gospels. Now let’s transition from his work as physician to that of instructor.

The Incomparable Teacher

Neill identifies humanity’s three greatest teachers in historical order as Socrates, Gautama, and Jesus.22 What was it about Jesus that leads people to consider him one of the greatest teachers of all time? Let’s briefly look at both his teaching method and his major themes.

Jesus’s Teaching Method

In important ways, Jesus’s instruction was rooted in the Old Testament. After all, he said he came to fulfill the Old Testament law, not to abolish it (Matt. 5:17–18). Yet Jesus’s teachings were also quite unique. Smith says they reflect “a vividness, urgency, and absence of second-rate material that makes them startlingly new.”23 Jesus’s instruction, while captivating, certainly was not systematic in nature.

Jesus was a gifted storyteller who often appealed to the human imagination in an effort to provoke thought. Instead of lectures Jesus preferred indirect communication in which he could ask probing questions. In keeping with the oral tradition of his time, Jesus communicated using rich metaphors and, most especially, parables (“earthly stories with heavenly meanings”).24 Approximately forty parables appear in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Some of his most famous parables are listed in table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Some of Jesus’s Most Famous Parables

The prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32)

The good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37)

The lost sheep (Matt. 18:12–14)

The hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

The Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:10–14)

The persistent widow (Luke 18:2–8)

Jesus was especially skilled at communicating profound truths in the context of everyday experiences. Part of his genius included his unique ability to speak simply about deep spiritual realities. Yet Jesus did not teach like the other rabbis. Though not formally trained in rabbinic studies, Jesus amazed the crowds because he taught with divine authority (Matt. 7:28–29). And what was the major focus of all this passionate teaching? Neill memorably encapsulates the primary emphasis of Jesus’s instruction: “God can be depended upon in every circumstance of life.”25

Major Themes of Jesus’s Teaching

While his teaching covered many important areas, Jesus focused especially on the kingdom of God, the fatherhood of God, and the primacy of love.26

The kingdom of God. This theme is present throughout Scripture (e.g., Dan. 4:34–35) and was a topic Jesus spoke about frequently. He declared that the kingdom was near and that in fact the time of its fulfillment had come (Mark 1:15). And yet the focus for Jesus was less about the kingdom per se and more about God the Father’s kingship. God the Father is the benevolent sovereign Ruler of all creation, and people should rightly submit their lives to his gracious care.

The fatherhood of God. Jesus’s wonderful message about God the Father’s kingship (sovereign rule) is that people can readily enjoy the connection and intimacy with the Father that Jesus enjoys. As Bauckham explains, “Here Jesus speaks of the unparalleled intimacy between a father and his son, as though this was his own special privilege, but he also envisages a sharing of this privileged access to the father with others.”27

When speaking of this incredible access to the Father, Jesus used the intimate Aramaic word Abba. No one in the history of Judaism had ever spoken of Yahweh in such familiar terms. Jesus implored people to view God as their intimate and loving Father, who is beyond measure in generosity, compassion, and trustworthiness.

This new meaning to the fatherhood of God that Jesus introduced stands in strict contrast to the way God is viewed in the other religions of the world. Here again, Green offers this contrast: “Jesus brought an entirely new picture of God into the world. He was Father. You can search Islam and you will not find the name of Father among the ninety-nine names of God.”28

The primacy of love. In light of one’s benevolent and intimate relationship with Abba Father, all things in life should be motivated by a love for God and then, as an extension, a love for one’s neighbor. As Jesus said in Matthew 22:37–39, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Table 2.2. Major Themes of Jesus’s Teaching

The kingdom of God

The fatherhood of God

The primacy of love

In this chapter, we briefly surveyed the person of Jesus Christ by looking at his matchless character, his vocation as a miracle worker, and his work as the incomparable teacher. In light of this person and his body of work, we can ask, Has anyone ever lived a life similar to the life of this man? What are we to think about and do with the one who has been called “the universal man”?29

Green offers a powerful perspective on how we ought to make sense of Jesus’s identity: “There is, I think, one overwhelming reason why we should believe the picture of Jesus given us in the Gospels. Who could have made that picture up? It reveals a man so different from any other in the world, so sublime, so unexpected.”30

In the next chapter, we will transition from the New Testament to Christian history. Did these stellar views of Jesus hold up, or are they confined to the Bible? What has historic Christianity taught us about the identity of Jesus Christ?

Further Suggested Reading

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Green, Michael. Who Is This Jesus? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992.

Griffiths, Michael. The Example of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985.

Harris, Murray J. 3 Crucial Questions about Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.

Neill, Stephen. The Supremacy of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: P&R, 1950.

Wilkins, Michael J., and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Discussion Questions

How is Jesus’s “unbrokenness” as a person characterized in his life and public ministry?

What feature or characteristic of Jesus do you find the most appealing? Why?

What motivated Jesus’s decision to heal others? Was there a detectable pattern among the people he healed?

What was it specifically about Jesus that made him such a great teacher?

Of Jesus’s many parables, which one is your favorite? Why?

3
A Historic Christology

The Incarnation, this mysterious miracle at the heart of historic Christianity, is central in the New Testament witness.

J. I. Packer, Concise Theology

We may summarize the biblical teaching about the person of Christ as follows: Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one person, and will be so forever.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology

Chalcedon simply states definitively what the first five centuries of Christian reflection on the New Testament had already established.

Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity

As the historic Christian church grew in size and influence and expanded farther into the Mediterranean world, a need arose to provide greater clarity and explanation as to the exact nature and person of Jesus Christ. Encounters with other religions and philosophical systems along with heretical challenges within the church led Christian leaders and scholars to reflect deeply on the teaching of the apostles. What came to be known as the doctrine of the incarnation was “the central summary of the way Christians understand Jesus’ relationship to humanity and to God.”1 This central article of the Christian faith—the doctrine of the incarnation—states that God became a human in Jesus of Nazareth.2 This truth sets Christianity apart from all other religions of the world (including the monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam), for it is unique to Christianity to discover a God who takes the initiative to become flesh in order to redeem sinful human beings. As C. S. Lewis aptly put it (influenced as he was by the fourth-century Eastern church father Athanasius), “The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God.”3

The Christian teaching that the Savior of the world is both divine and human is certainly a mysterious and unfathomable truth. For that reason, it is often misunderstood and misrepresented. This chapter will explore the doctrine of the incarnation and respond to some critical questions concerning its origin, importance, historical development, and coherence. The goal is to delineate the historic Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the God-man and to provide further biblical support for that claim.

The Historic Christian Doctrine of the Incarnation

The Creed of Chalcedon (AD 451)

Arguably, the most important creedal statement on the incarnation is the Creed of Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon (the fourth ecumenical council) in AD 451 laid down the basic boundaries of the orthodox view of Christ’s person and nature. According to this council, Jesus Christ is one divine person in two natures (divine and human). Thus, the Chalcedonian Creed became, and continues to be, the normative standard for the orthodox doctrine of Christ. All Christendom (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) affirms the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus Christ is both God and man. This creed enunciates the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation (specifically, Christ’s two natures) in the following manner:

We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be one and the same Son, perfect in divinity and humanity, truly God and truly human, consisting of a rational soul and a body, being of one substance with the Father in relation to his divinity, and being of one substance with us in relation to his humanity, and is like us in all things apart from sin (Heb. 4:15). He was begotten of the Father before time in relation to his divinity, and in these recent days was born from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos [God-bearer], for us and for our salvation. In relation to the humanity he is one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-begotten, who is to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. The distinction of natures is in no way abolished on account of this union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature is preserved, and concurring into one Person and one subsistence, not as if Christ were parted or divided into two persons, but remains one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets from the beginning spoke concerning him, and our Lord Jesus Christ instructed us, and the Creed of the Fathers was handed down to us.4

The Chalcedonian formulation wisely does not explain how the two natures are united in one person, but it sets the crucial theological parameters for orthodox, biblical Christology (the doctrine of the person and nature of Christ).

The Christian Theistic View of God

The doctrine of the incarnation should properly be understood within the broader context of the Christian theistic view of God. The God unveiled in the Bible and later described in the historic creeds and confessions of Christendom is the one sovereign and majestic Lord. Historic Christianity thus affirms belief in one infinitely perfect, eternal, and personal God, the transcendent Creator and sovereign Sustainer of the universe. This one God is triune, existing eternally and simultaneously as three distinct but not separate persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.5 All three persons in the Godhead, or divine being, share equally and completely the one divine nature and are therefore the same God, coequal in attributes, nature, and glory. The teaching of the incarnation then emerges doctrinally from this explicit trinitarian teaching. Table 3.1 summarizes some of the biblical support for the triunity of God.

Table 3.1. Trinity: One God in Three Persons (One “What,” Three “Whos”)

| The Father | The Son | The Holy Spirit
Also Called
God | John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 4:6; Col. 1:2–3; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; 2 Pet. 1:17 | John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1 | Acts 5:3–4
Lord/Yahweh | Gen. 2:4; Exod. 3:15–18; Deut. 6:4; Ps. 110:1; Isa. 64:8 | Rom. 10:9–13; 1 Cor. 8:5–6; 12:3; Phil. 2:9–11; 1 Pet. 2:3; 3:15 | 2 Cor. 3:17
Qualities of Deity
Self-existence | Acts 17:25 | John 5:26 | Rom. 8:2
Immutability | James 1:17 | Heb. 13:8 | 2 Cor. 3:8–11
Omnipresence | Jer. 23:23–24 | Matt. 28:20 | Ps. 139:7
Omniscience | Isa. 40:28 | Col. 2:3 | 1 Cor. 2:10–11
Omnipotence | Jer. 32:17 | Col. 1:16–17 | Luke 1:35–37
Works of Deity
Creation | Gen. 2:7 | John 1:3; Heb. 1:10 | Gen. 1:2
Salvation | Isa. 45:21 | Rom. 10:12–13 | Titus 3:5–7
Incarnation | Heb. 10:5 | Heb. 2:14 | Luke 1:35
Resurrection | Acts 2:32 | John 2:19 | Rom. 1:4
Judgment | Eccles. 12:14 | John 5:22 | John 16:7–8
Source: Samples, World of Difference, 135.

The term incarnation is of Latin origin and literally means “enfleshment” or “embodiment” (Latin: in carne). While the term is not contained in Scripture per se, a form of the Greek equivalent is (Greek: en sarki [sarx]; John 1:14: Kai ho logos sarx egeneto—“And the Word became flesh,” ESV).6 The doctrine of the incarnation is at the heart of the biblical message because it reveals the person and nature of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation teaches that the eternal Logos (“Word”), the Second Person of the Trinity, without diminishing his deity, took to himself a fully human nature. Specifically, this doctrine teaches that a full and undiminished divine nature and a full and perfect human nature were inseparably united in the one historical and divine person of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Scripture, Jesus Christ is God the Son in human flesh (Greek: theanthropos, the “God-man”).

The Hypostatic Union

As the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures. In accord with the Chalcedonian Definition, these two natures (divine and human) remain “distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man.”7 Christ is one in substance (Greek: homoousios) with the Father in regard to his divine nature, and one in substance with humanity in regard to his human nature. The two natures are perfectly united forever in the one person (Greek: hypostasis) of Jesus Christ. The hypostatic union refers therefore to the union of the two distinct natures in the one person of Jesus Christ (neither dividing the person nor confounding the natures). Philosophically speaking, as the God-man, Jesus Christ is two “whats” (i.e., a divine “what” or nature and a human “what” or nature) and one “who” (i.e., a single “person” or “self”).

Kenosis

The concept of kenosis8 (Greek: ekenōsen; Phil. 2:7: “made himself nothing” or “emptied himself”) is an attempt to explain how the two natures of Christ relate to each other in God becoming human. While there have been many so-called kenotic theories in the modern era, two models will be briefly considered here.

The first contemporary model states that in order for Jesus to have been truly human he must have stripped himself of such divine attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. This kenotic theory interprets “emptied himself” as meaning that Christ laid aside divine attributes. Thus, the incarnate Christ is something less than God and therefore not equal to God.

This position must be regarded as heresy (a major departure from Christian truth), however, because if God the Son is deprived of any divine attribute, then he is obviously not deity. Christian theologian Bruce Milne identifies the equation for this heretical kenotic theory as “incarnation = God minus.”9 The model runs contrary to the creeds and to Scripture and is therefore rejected by theologically orthodox Christians.

The second model suggests that instead of stripping himself of divine attributes in the incarnation, Christ retained all divine attributes through his divine nature but in union with his human nature may have voluntarily chosen not to exercise certain attributes in his earthly sojourn as a human. According to this position, Jesus’s deity was undiminished. This view understands Philippians 2:7 not as a literal emptying of attributes but as a sign of Christ’s humility, in which he voluntarily gave up the status and privileges that were his in heaven. This action involved a surrendering of divine glory (cf. John 17:5) rather than divine power. Milne identifies the equation for this approach as “incarnation = God plus,”10 for Christ retained his deity and yet took to himself a truly human nature. This second model has biblical support and is consistent with creedal orthodoxy.

Ten Essential Points about the Incarnation

The following ten points convey essential truth about the incarnation and will help us think through the most important elements of the doctrine:11

Jesus Christ is one person possessing two distinct natures: a fully divine nature and a fully human nature (a unity of person and a duality of natures). The historic person of Jesus of Nazareth is therefore the God-man.

While Christ has two natures, he nevertheless remains a single unified person (not two different persons). Christ’s human nature subsists only for the purpose of this union; it has no independent personal subsistence of its own. Christ is the same person both before and after the incarnation. The difference is that before the incarnation Christ had but one nature, namely, divine. During the incarnation, this very same Christ added to himself an additional nature—a human one—that subsists together with the original divine nature and has not disappeared. While Christ has a divine and a human consciousness (and two wills as part of the two natures), he nevertheless remains one person. Christian orthodoxy rejected the Nestorian heresy, which taught that there were two separate persons in Christ.

Through his divine nature, Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who shares the one divine essence fully and equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christian orthodoxy rejected the Arian heresy, which viewed Jesus merely as a Godlike creature.

Through his human nature, Jesus Christ is fully human, possessing all the essential attributes of a true human being. Christian orthodoxy rejected Docetism, which denied the true humanity of Christ.

The properties or attributes of both natures may be properly predicated of the one person. In other words, the one person of Jesus Christ retains all the attributes of both natures (e.g., through his divine nature he is omniscient, while simultaneously through his human nature he may lack knowledge).

The union of the two natures is neither an indwelling nor a mere contact or occupancy of space but a personal union.

The two natures cohere or interpenetrate in perfect union so that the human is never without the divine or the divine without the human, but the natures do not mix or mingle.

The two natures, divine and human, are distinct but inseparably united in the one person. The two natures retain their own attributes or qualities and are thus not mixed together. Christian orthodoxy rejected the Eutychian heresy, which blended the two natures of Christ together to form one hybrid nature (monophysitism: “one nature”).

The human nature is not deified, and the divine nature does not suffer human limitation.

The word nature refers to essence or substance, and these two natures are inseparable, unmixed, and unchanged.

With these essential theological points in mind about the person and natures of Christ (summarized in table 3.2), we can now consider five important questions about the doctrine of the incarnation.

Table 3.2. Four Affirmations concerning the Incarnation

Jesus Christ is fully and entirely divine.

Jesus Christ is fully and entirely human.

The two natures of Christ (God and man) are distinct.

The two natures of Christ (God and man) are united in one person.

Source: Thoennes, “Biblical Doctrine,” 2515.

Five Critical Questions about the Incarnation

Since there is no passage in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ actually says “I am God,” how did Christians come to formulate the doctrine of the incarnation?

The doctrine of the incarnation was the result of the Christian church’s sustained and critical reflection on the overwhelming scriptural evidence that Jesus is indeed both God and man. Jesus’s apostles were devout Jewish monotheists; they nevertheless became convinced that while Jesus was indeed a man, he was far more than just a man. In fact, in various ways, these same apostles placed Jesus on the level of Yahweh in their scriptural writings. They came to the astounding conviction that to encounter Jesus of Nazareth was to encounter none other than God in human flesh.

Although there is no specific passage in which Jesus says, “I am God,” there are at least seven (and possibly as many as ten) New Testament passages in which Jesus is called or referred to as God (Greek: theos).12 Moreover, the Bible thoroughly supports both the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. Literally hundreds of passages could be marshaled to support the doctrine of the incarnation.13 The following is merely a survey of the biblical support for this distinctive and essential Christian doctrine.

BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THE TRUE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

The Bible attests in numerous ways to the full and undiminished deity of Jesus Christ (see chapter 1). The following material serves as a representative portion.14

Divine Titles Proclaimed by or Attributed to Jesus Christ

God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1)

Lord (Mark 12:35–37; John 20:28; Rom. 10:9–13; 1 Cor. 8:5–6; 12:3; Phil. 2:11)

Son of God (Matt. 11:27; Mark 15:39; John 1:18; Rom. 1:4; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:2)

Son of Man (Matt. 16:28; 24:30; Mark 8:38; 14:62–64; Acts 7:56; cf. Dan. 7:13–14)

Characteristics or Actions of Yahweh Proclaimed by or Attributed to Jesus Christ

Worship of God (Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10–11)

Salvation of God (Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:13)

Glory of God (Exod. 33:19; John 12:41)

Judgment of God (Eccles. 12:14; Acts 17:31)

Nature of God (Exod. 3:14; John 8:58)

Triumph of God (Ps. 68:18; Eph. 4:8)

Witness of God (Isa. 43:10; Acts 1:8)

Divine Names, Actions, or Prerogatives Proclaimed by or Attributed to Jesus Christ

Creator (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10–12)

Sustainer (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)

Universal Ruler (Matt. 28:18; Rom. 14:9; Rev. 1:5)

Forgiver of sins (Mark 2:5–7; Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13)

Raiser of the dead (Luke 7:11–17; John 5:21; 6:40)

Object of prayer (John 14:14; Acts 1:24; 7:59–60; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8–9)

Object of worship (Matt. 28:16–17; John 5:23; 20:28; Phil. 2:10–11; Heb. 1:6)

Recipient of doxologies (Rom. 9:5; 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5)

Object of saving faith (John 14:1; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Rom. 10:8–13)

Image and representation of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3)

Divine Attributes or Qualities Proclaimed by or Attributed to Jesus Christ

Eternal existence (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Cor. 10:4; Col. 1:17; Heb. 13:8)

Self-existence (John 1:3; 5:26; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2)

Immutability (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8)

Omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11)

Omniscience (Mark 2:8; Luke 9:47; John 2:25; 4:18; 16:30; Col. 2:3)

Omnipotence (John 1:3; 2:19; Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2)

Sovereignty (Phil. 2:9–11; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 19:16)

Authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22)

Life in himself (John 1:4; 5:26; Acts 3:15)

BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THE TRUE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST

The Bible attests in numerous ways to the full and essential humanity of Jesus Christ. The following material serves as a representative portion.15

Jesus Christ Is Called a Man

During his earthly ministry (John 8:40; 1 Cor. 15:21; Phil. 2:7–8)

After his resurrection (Acts 2:22; 17:31; 1 Cor. 15:47; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:14; 4:15)

Jesus Christ Was Conceived Supernaturally but Born Naturally (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7; Gal. 4:4)

He had ancestors (Matt. 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–28)

He experienced normal growth and development (Luke 2:40–52; Heb. 5:8)

He grew physically, intellectually, and spiritually (Luke 2:40)

Jesus Christ Was Subject to Real Physical Limitations

Weariness (John 4:6)

Hunger (Matt. 21:18)

Need for sleep (Matt. 8:24)

Thirst (John 19:28)

Sweat (Luke 22:44)

Temptation (Matt. 4:1–11)

Lack of knowledge (Mark 9:21; 13:32)

Physical pain and death (Mark 14:33–36; Luke 17:25; 22:63; 23:33; John 19:30)

A resurrection body that was physical (Luke 24:39)

Jesus Christ Had a Human Mind

He thought (Matt. 9:4)

He learned (Heb. 5:8)

He taught (Matt. 7:28–29)

He questioned (John 8:46)

He debated (Matt. 19:3–9)

He displayed wisdom (Luke 2:52)

Jesus Christ Exhibited the Full Range of Human Emotions

Joy (Luke 10:21; John 17:13)

Sorrow (Matt. 26:37)

Love (John 11:5)

Compassion (Matt. 9:36)

Weeping (John 11:35)

Astonishment (Luke 7:9)

Anger (Mark 3:5; 10:14)

Loneliness (Mark 14:32–42; 15:34)

Jesus Christ Had All the Qualities of a Human Being

Body (Matt. 26:12)

Bones (Luke 24:39)

Flesh (Luke 24:39)

Blood (Matt. 26:28)

Soul (Matt. 26:38)

Will (John 5:30)

Spirit (John 11:33)

SIX EXPLICIT INCARNATIONAL PASSAGES

Challenges to the biblical basis for the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation require explanations from Scripture. Six explicit passages that reveal the truth of Jesus Christ as God incarnate are worth exploring in more detail.

1. John 1:14: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” John’s Gospel explicitly teaches that the Word (the preexistent Son), who both was with God and was himself God (John 1:1), became incarnate as a human. God the Son always had a divine nature, but at his incarnation he took a real human nature and became henceforth both God and man. Viewing Jesus as God “enfleshed” or incarnate distinguished historic Christianity from the incipient gnosticism, which taught that God could not become flesh because matter was inherently evil. Religious groups today, such as the mind science sects and the New Age movement, perpetuate gnostic-like views.16

2. Romans 1:3–4: “. . . concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (ESV). The apostle Paul mentions both Jesus’s human nature (“flesh”) and his divine nature. Jesus’s humanity is recognized through his ancestry—he was a descendent of Israel’s king David along the royal messianic lineage (Isa. 11:1). His divine nature as the Son of God, however, becomes evident through his miraculous resurrection from the dead. Thus, Jesus is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and the Lord.

3. Romans 9:5: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them [the Jews and/or the patriarchs] is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” Again, Paul distinguishes between Jesus’s humanity and his deity. His human nature is tied to his Jewish lineage, and his divine nature makes him “God over all.” Contextually, this reference to “God over all” applies to the person of Christ and is not a separate doxological reference to God.

4. Philippians 2:5–7: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” This passage, which reflects a primitive Christian hymn, speaks of Jesus Christ as possessing the very metaphysical nature or form of God (en morphē theou) in his preexistent state. He had the same essence as God and thus was God. However, though he possessed the nature and prerogatives of deity, Jesus did not insist on clinging to his lofty status and surroundings but instead humbled himself as a servant and took on a fully human nature. Thus, he became the God-man.

5. Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” This passage makes it unequivocally clear that God’s total essence resides in union with the body of Jesus Christ. In context, the apostle Paul responds directly to the heresy that categorically denied that Christ had come in the flesh (ideas anticipating gnosticism). This verse, along with those previously discussed, illustrates that the doctrine of the incarnation was a central feature of Paul’s preaching and teaching.

6. 1 John 4:2: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” The apostle John also responds to heretics who denied the real humanity of Christ by asserting that true Christian doctrine must include the incarnation. In fact, John makes “God in the flesh” the true test of Christian orthodoxy (correct belief). All religious sects, both ancient and contemporary, that deny Jesus’s deity and humanity are outside the historic Christian communion of belief. The apostles of Jesus took doctrine and doctrinal disputes seriously, and their example should be followed today.

Table 3.3. Six Explicit Incarnational Passages

John 1:14

Romans 1:3–4

Romans 9:5

Philippians 2:5–7

Colossians 2:9

1 John 4:2

If Jesus Christ is God and therefore equal to the Father in nature, how does one explain the handful of passages in the New Testament that seem to subordinate Christ to the Father?

Certain groups both past and present that reject Christ’s deity (and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity) do so because they believe Christ is subordinate in nature or essence to the Father. Those who hold this view (subordinationism) usually appeal to half a dozen or so verses that at first examination appear to suggest that Christ is less than God the Father. However, these verses—when understood in their proper theological context—provide no support for such a position. Before we examine some of these passages, two points of theological qualification need to be underscored.

First, as was discussed earlier, during his earthly sojourn, Jesus Christ humbled himself—taking the very nature of a servant. As a man, Jesus chose not to retain the status and privileges of deity. Therefore, in his role as a servant, he was in submission to the Father and could say that the Father was “greater” than he. However, the Father was greater only in position, role, or rank (function), not in nature (essence). Second, as a man (through his human nature), Jesus Christ will always honor his Father as his God. The Athanasian Creed states that Christ is “equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity.”17

What follows are four so-called subordinationist verses and an explanation of each that is consistent with the full and unqualified deity of Jesus Christ.18

1. John 14:28: “The Father is greater than I.” When Jesus uttered these words to his disciples in his Upper Room Discourse (John 14), he was not implying that he was inferior in nature or essence to the Father. On numerous occasions recorded in the Gospel of John, Jesus clearly placed himself on the level of Yahweh (John 5:17; 8:58; 10:30). Rather, Jesus was speaking of the Father being greater than he was because, in becoming incarnate as a man, he had humbled himself and taken the role of a servant. By relinquishing the prerogatives of deity and veiling his divine glory, Jesus had, as a man, taken a role or position that was less than the Father in rank but certainly not in essence.

2. John 20:17: “My God and your God.” After Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to Mary, he subsequently declared, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). How could Jesus call the Father “my God” if he was himself God? The answer is quite simply that Jesus Christ also possessed a human nature, and as a man he was capable of referring to the Father as “my God.” The Chalcedonian and Athanasian Creeds clearly state that as to Christ’s humanity, he was less than the Father in nature. This passage need not pose a challenge to historic Christianity’s designation of Jesus Christ as the God-man.

3. Colossians 1:15: “The firstborn over all creation.” The apostle Paul, speaking of Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:15, proclaimed, “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Some have suggested that this verse asserts that Jesus Christ had a beginning in time and was thus a creature made by God. However, a careful examination of this verse shows that interpretation to be erroneous. First, the word firstborn (Greek: prōtotokos) in this context does not mean “first one born.” Rather, firstborn means first in rank, heir, or preeminent one. Like the firstborn heir in a Jewish family, the Son (Christ) is the heir of all creation.

4. 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of Christ is God.”

The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Does this verse teach that Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father? The answer is no. This passage teaches about appropriate functional authority, not an inferiority of nature. Note that Paul says the head (authority) of woman is man, even though men and women are exactly equal in terms of being, for both are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–28) and thus equally possess inherent dignity and moral worth. However, this verse indicates that functional and/or voluntary submission is consistent with an equality of being. Christ is subordinate to the Father, but this is voluntary and a feature of Christ’s role as a servant while on earth.

Why is the doctrine of the incarnation important?

It is often stated that “Christianity is Christ.” The meaning behind this statement is, of course, that Christ is the center and heart of historic Christian truth. The Christian gospel message is all about the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ. In contrast, if Buddha or Confucius, for example, was taken away from his respective religion, the religion would retain the essence of his moral instruction. However, take the person of Christ away from Christianity and nothing distinctive remains.

In light of this christocentric focus, the doctrine of the incarnation has enormous significance for Christians. In the process of examining the incarnation, we get a clear picture of Christ’s person and nature, and it is specifically because of his identity (as the God-man) that he was able to perform his work of redemption. God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, assumed a human nature and entered the time-space world. He provided redemption for sinful human beings by living and acting in a manner that is open to historical investigation. As the God-man, he alone was able to represent both God and humankind and to provide redemption through his perfect life, sacrificial death, and glorious bodily resurrection from the dead. In other words, the incarnation is tied to the atonement. Theologian Gerald Bray puts it this way: “The Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father and fully equal to him in every respect, became a man so that he could unite us to himself, pay the price for our sins, and bring us back to God.”19

Since Christ is the center of Christian doctrine and truth, his identity is of vital importance. Therefore, it follows that the doctrine of the incarnation, which reveals his identity, is the foundation on which all Christian doctrine is built. This truth becomes evident when we begin to analyze some of the central tenets of the Christian faith.20 For example, consider the following.

God’s existence and characteristics. We may know many important things about God via general revelation (i.e., the created order, the providential ordering of history, and the human conscience), and even more through God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament. However, in the incarnation the God-man made a historical appearance in the world in time and space. Thus author J. B. Phillips called earth “the Visited Planet.”21

The Trinity. The two other persons of the Godhead, the Father and the Holy Spirit, are uniquely understood and appreciated in light of the revealed person and nature of Christ. The incarnation illumines the great truth about the triune nature of God.

The atonement. Only Jesus Christ, who is both God and human, was able to offer himself as a sacrifice that reconciled a holy God with sinful humankind. Christ could do what he did redemptively (Savior) because he is what he is ontologically (the God-man).

Resurrection. A bodily resurrection that conquered death was possible only for the God-man (Rom. 1:3–4).

Justification by faith. Human beings are justified before God through faith (personal trust) in the person of Jesus Christ. The basis of humanity’s acquittal before the Father is directly tied to the actions of the divine-human Savior on the cross.

The doctrine of the incarnation touches and influences every area of Christian theology. To change or distort the identity of Jesus Christ is to destroy the essence of the Christian faith (2 Cor. 11:3–4; Gal. 1:6–9). Jesus specifically instructed his disciples and others to consider and reflect on his true identity (Matt. 16:13–16; 22:41–46; cf. Ps. 110). And he warned some of the Jewish leaders of his time that their eternal destiny rested on whether they would acknowledge and accept him for who he really was (John 8:23–24, 28, 52–53, 57–58). Jesus and the apostles also warned the church about the ever-present danger of counterfeit messiahs (Matt. 24:4–5, 11, 23–24; 2 Cor. 11:3–4, 13–14; Gal. 1:6–9; 1 Tim. 4:1–2; 2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Pet. 2:1–2; 1 John 2:22–23; 4:1–3; Jude 3).

Historically speaking, didn’t individuals and various groups hold theological positions that challenged and/or rejected the orthodox position concerning the person and nature of Christ?

The central doctrinal controversies of the first several centuries of Christian church history focused on christological issues (questions concerning the person and nature of Christ). What follows is a brief explanation of the major ancient christological heresies,22 including what each taught about Christ, how the teaching differed from orthodoxy, and how Christian orthodoxy responded.

Docetism. An early form of what became gnosticism, this view affirmed a type of dualism (the belief that matter is evil and spirit is good). Docetists insisted that Jesus only seemed to be human (Greek: dokeō, “to seem”), even asserting that Jesus had a “phantom-like body.” Docetism denied the true humanity of Christ. The apostles encountered and rejected this heresy in the first century (see 1 John 4:1–3).

Ebionism. According to this view, Jesus was a mere man, a prophet but the natural son of Joseph and Mary (no virgin birth). Ebionism as a Jewish sect denied the true deity of Christ. This view is traced to the first and second centuries and was rejected by the early Christians.

Arianism. Arius of Alexandria (AD 256–336) argued that Jesus was of “like substance” (Greek: homoiousios) with the Father but not the “same substance” (Greek: homoousios). Arianism viewed Jesus as the first and greatest creation of God, thus denying the true deity of Christ. This influential heresy, which the ancient church father Athanasius (c. 296–373) successfully battled, was first condemned at the Council of Nicea (AD 325).

Apollinarianism. Following Apollinaris (born c. 310), the bishop of Laodicea, this view taught that in the incarnation the divine Logos took the place of the human soul and psyche of Jesus. Jesus’s humanity was restricted to his physical body. Thus, Apollinarianism denied the complete humanity of Christ. This heresy was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381).

Nestorianism. This view affirmed both Christ’s deity and his humanity but saw the union between the natures as only a moral and/or sympathetic union, not a real, personal union. This position represented an overemphasis on the distinctiveness of the natures. As a result, Jesus became two persons in two natures rather than the orthodox one person in two natures. This heresy was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431).

Eutychianism. Following Eutyches (c. AD 378–454), this view held that Christ had a single mixed or compound nature. That is, the two natures merged to form a single nature that was neither divine nor human (but was instead a third substance). This position represented an overemphasis on the unity of the natures. This heresy was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and at the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680).

Monophysitism. This view held that Christ had only one nature. Supporters usually argued that the human nature was absorbed into the divine nature. This heresy was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680).

Monothelitism. This view held that Christ had only one will. The orthodox position is that if Christ had two natures, he must have had two wills, though the human will conformed in every way to the divine will. Monothelitism was also condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680).

Isn’t the very concept of the incarnation (one person as God and man) logically incoherent?

Christians embrace the doctrine of the incarnation as an indispensable truth of divine revelation. God coming in the flesh to redeem lost sinners lies at the very heart of Christianity’s gospel proclamation. However, just how Jesus Christ is both God and man (two natures united in one person) remains an unfathomable mystery. In fact, this may be the most profound Christian mystery of all. But while the incarnation is incomprehensible to the finite mind, it should not be rejected as incoherent or absurd. Divinely revealed truth may move above reason, but it never goes against reason, for God is the source and ground of rationality itself. The following two points briefly address two logical challenges to the incarnation. Afterward, we will look at two analogies that attempt to illustrate the rational intelligibility of the incarnation.

One common objection holds that the incarnation is absurd because it asserts that the infinite (divine nature) is contained in the finite (human nature). But the incarnation does not imply that the infinite is contained in the finite.23 This criticism is a straw man (misrepresentation or distortion) argument. The divine nature of Christ is not confined or limited to the human nature (or to the body of Christ). While the divine nature is in union with the human nature in the one person, the divine nature certainly extends beyond the bounds of the human nature.24 Biblical scholar and Protestant Reformer John Calvin explains:

For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning!25

The incarnation should be understood as “God plus” (God the Son plus a human nature), not as “God minus” (loss of deity or divine attributes) or “God limited” (the infinite limited in the finite). The incarnation should be thought of as the divine Logos, a preexistent (eternal) person, assuming a human nature unto himself without laying his deity aside.

A second objection is that since God is unlimited (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, uncreated) but humans are limited (nonomnipotent, nonomniscient, nonomnipresent, time-bound, created), the very concept of someone being both God and man is logically contradictory and therefore impossible.

But could there be another way to look at this proposed logical dilemma? Some contemporary Christian philosophers definitely think so.26 Some argue that ordinary human beings are fully human (possessing the essence of humanity) but are also merely human (possessing the previously mentioned limitations). Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is fully human but not merely human. Thus, some Christian thinkers have suggested that the limitations of human nature may be common human properties (common to members of a particular kind) but not essential human properties (indispensable to a particular kind). If this is correct, then Jesus Christ could have a human nature that makes him fully human (possessing the essence of humanity) without being merely human (possessing the above-mentioned limitations). Therefore, Christ’s fully human nature (essential humanity without limitation) is not necessarily at odds with his fully divine nature. It should be noted, however, that historic Christianity has never explained in an official council or creed just how Jesus Christ is a single person with both a divine and a human nature.

ANALOGY 1 FOR THE INCARNATION: TWO NATIONALITIES

Bray offers an interesting analogy as a way of illustrating how the two natures in Christ functioned:

What it felt like for Jesus to be a human being and the Son of God at the same time is impossible for us to say, but perhaps we can begin to understand it if we think of someone who has two nationalities and lives in two different cultures. People like that sometimes think, speak, and act in one language and sometimes in another, without always realizing that they have switched. . . . Jesus must have been something like that during his time on earth. For him, it was natural to operate at some times in his human nature and at other times in his divine nature, and he may not have been fully conscious of switching from one to the other.27

An engaging aspect of Bray’s analogy is that some people who possess dual nationalities and speak multiple languages can move back and forth seamlessly with an internal mental consistency and cogency. Thus, this analogy may help some to imagine how Jesus, though a single person, could access his dual natures (divinity and humanity) and yet retain a conceptual unity and focus.

ANALOGY 2 FOR THE INCARNATION: TWO LEVELS OF AWARENESS

Christian philosopher Paul Copan offers an insight from psychology as a way of thinking about Jesus as a single person who possesses a duality of natures:

We can usefully compare Jesus’ two levels of awareness (“minds”) with our two levels of awareness—the subconscious and conscious. Jesus’ human awareness can be likened to our conscious, his divine awareness to our subconscious.28

Copan’s analogy may be helpful in terms of picturing how Jesus’s human knowledge is limited compared to his unlimited divine knowledge, which is always available yet lies underneath.

The incarnation is a great mystery that no human being can totally comprehend. But that does not mean analogies or illustrations cannot illuminate the truth of the incarnation in ways that are meaningful to the Christian believer. After all, being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27) may involve a special ability to apprehend truths about one’s Creator-Redeemer God.

During the Christmas season, Christians celebrate the great truth of the incarnation. In the Christ child of Bethlehem, God enters into human history and reveals himself up close and personal. The astounding truth is that through Jesus Christ, God is encountered in a real, personal, historical, and tangible way.

Having looked at Jesus Christ’s person and nature from a historical perspective, we next turn to skeptical questions about Jesus Christ before looking at other religious leaders.

Further Suggested Reading

Bowman, Robert M., Jr., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus: Lord and Savior. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.

Erickson, Millard J. The Word Became Flesh. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Holcomb, Justin S. Know the Heretics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Morris, Thomas V. The Logic of God Incarnate. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Reymond, Robert L. Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness. Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2003.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Sanders, Fred, and Klaus Issler, eds. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Intermediate Perspective. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: P&R, 1950.

Discussion Questions

How would you define the doctrine of the incarnation?

How would you define the hypostatic union and kenosis?

How should you respond to the charge that Christ is subordinate to the Father?

Why and how is the doctrine of the incarnation important to the rest of Christian theology?

Explain the two analogies used in this chapter to try to make the incarnation intelligible.

4
Answering Challenges to Jesus’s Historic Identity

Can a serious-minded thinker acquainted with the issues offer historically credible reasons for affirming the substantial trustworthiness of the entire canonical accounts of the life of Christ?

Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?”

Did Jesus of Nazareth, who was called Christ, exist as a real human being, “the man Christ Jesus”?

Lawrence Mykytiuk, “Did Jesus Exist?”

Down through the centuries, for many devout Jews and Muslims the reverence given to Jesus has probably been the most objectionable feature of Christian faith.

Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?

There has been no shortage of skeptics throughout the centuries who have doubted and questioned the exalted portrait of a divine-human Lord and Savior. In opposition, they have asserted that the picture of Jesus found in the New Testament Gospels is historically unreliable and even mythical. Some skeptical scholars have even denied that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed historically. Still others—who are critical of all things supernatural—have put forth theories that the exalted view of a divine-human Jesus does not reflect what the earliest Jewish Christians believed about Jesus. They have maintained that the orthodox Christian position, which affirms Jesus is God, was the result of a long evolutionary process of “divinization.” Often skeptics connect this process of exaltation to the Gentiles’ increasing influence within the early church, which apparently allowed theological speculation to overtake historical fact.1

Accordingly, this chapter will respond to three critical questions about the New Testament portrait of Jesus Christ:

Is the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ historically reliable and textually trustworthy?

Is there credible evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ outside the New Testament?

Is it plausible that the deity of Jesus Christ was actually the result of a long period of evolution in church history in which a purely human Jesus was somehow deified?

The Historic Trustworthiness of the Apostolic Witness to Jesus Christ

According to apostolic testimony, the primitive Christian church came into existence as a direct result of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Within days or weeks of Christ’s crucifixion (c. AD 30),2 his selected followers were preaching about their risen Savior. Numerous people believed the preached message about Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and so the earliest Christian community or church was born.

This apostolic age of Christian proclamation about Jesus Christ during the first century AD had three overlapping stages: (1) oral tradition stage, (2) written letters stage, and (3) written Gospels stage. We will explore these three stages to see how the apostolic leadership of the early Christian church preserved and conveyed reliable historical truth about Jesus Christ.

Oral Tradition Stage

The earliest period of gospel proclamation by the apostles was characterized by oral preaching and teaching and can be referred to as the stage of oral tradition. This period roughly covered the time between the first Easter and the composition of the first Gospels around the time of the deaths of the leading apostles Peter and Paul in the Neronian persecution (c. AD 30–68).

The classical world was an oral society that communicated by the spoken word. Long before the printing press was invented, writing in the ancient world was arduous and costly. Learning consisted largely of passing down stories from one generation to another. Such a world demanded a good memory. Textual scholar Craig Blomberg explains:

The ancient Jewish world (and to only a slightly lesser extent, the Greco-Roman world around it) was a culture that prized memorization skills highly. Rabbis were encouraged to memorize the entire Hebrew Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament), plus a sizable body of the oral laws that grew up around them. Elementary education, mandatory for many Jewish boys from ages five to twelve or thirteen, was entirely by rote memory; and only one topic was studied, the Bible.3

Teachers in this premodern culture used poetic expression to help their disciples remember instruction. Jesus was no different. He undoubtedly repeated his various parables on many occasions during his public ministry, and at least some of his teachings were given in poetic form to help listeners remember them. Thus, in the oral-tradition period of the apostolic age there was little danger of Jesus’s words and deeds being lost. On the contrary, the details of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection were recalled and proclaimed daily by Christianity’s first preachers and evangelists.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that erroneous information about Jesus and the newfound faith was spread during this early oral era. What sorts of checks and balances existed to counteract false instruction? Consider two points.4

First, the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) could and in fact did confront and squelch false or misleading information about Jesus and replace it with accurate information (see Acts 8:14; 11:1–3; 15:1–2; 21:17–25). Second, during the apostolic age, plenty of critics of the new Christian movement could easily have served as a corrective to false testimony. For example, if the apostles’ stories did not cohere, the critics could point out the contradictions. Both of these correctives served to keep the initial oral tradition (preached message) about Jesus from becoming corrupted through multiple transmissions (imagine the children’s game telephone).

According to ancient Judaism, disciples so revered their teachers that they took great effort not to miss a single detail of instruction. It is therefore quite reasonable to conclude that the apostles, during this initial oral tradition stage, were able to ward off any possible widespread misrepresentation. Thus, the church in its earliest period was able to preserve reliable historical information about the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ.

The first couple of decades of the apostolic church era saw the Christian faith spread rapidly through word of mouth. And as Michael Green reminds us about the apostles, “Their priority was not writing books but making disciples.”5 However, when the firsthand eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life began growing older and/or faced possible death via martyrdom, preserving the apostolic witness through the permanence of writing became a necessity.

Written Letters Stage

While the oral tradition or preaching about Jesus continued, particular apostolic leaders (Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and the unknown author of Hebrews) penned the first New Testament books. These were actually letters (also called epistles) written to either various churches or individuals. Twenty-one of the twenty-seven New Testament books are letters, and they equate to approximately 35 percent of the New Testament’s content. The largest collection of New Testament letters came from the pen of the prolific apostle Paul, who is traditionally credited with writing thirteen epistles.6

Alister McGrath provides a general time line for these early written letters, stating that “the New Testament letters . . . date mainly from the period 49–69, and provide confirmation of the importance and interpretations of Jesus in this formative period.”7

Most of Paul’s earliest letters were written too early to have relied on a written Gospel. But as Blomberg states, “There are a dozen or so clear quotations or allusions to teachings of Jesus that the Synoptics would later record.”8 These letters thus play a critical role in connecting the earliest oral tradition period with the later written Gospel period in terms of the identification of Jesus and some of his basic teachings. The content of these letters helps illustrate a line of continuity and integrity of message that runs through the entire period of apostolic proclamation. (We’ll return to the Christology revealed in some of the letters a little later in the chapter.) Table 4.1 contains a list of Paul’s earliest New Testament letters.9

Table 4.1. Paul’s Earliest Letters

Book | Date
Galatians | AD 48
1 Thessalonians | AD 49–51
2 Thessalonians | AD 49–51
1 Corinthians | AD 53–55
2 Corinthians | AD 55–56
Romans | AD 57

Written Gospels Stage

As important as the early apostolic letters were to the church for offering theological guidance and instruction to the faithful, a fuller written and thus more-permanent portrait of the unique life and teachings of Jesus Christ was needed. Writers provided multiple apostolic portraits in what became the four traditional or canonical Gospels of the New Testament—the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Let’s briefly explore the Gospels by asking and answering six critical questions.

WHAT KIND OF WRITING ARE THE GOSPELS?

The Gospels are different from modern historical or biographical writings.10 The authors did not intend to provide a strict chronology of Jesus’s life or to be comprehensive in telling everything Jesus said and did during his lifetime. Yet it is clear that the Gospels provide solid historical and factual information about the key events of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. What they provide is an “interpreted history” by informing readers about the theological meaning and truth of the events described.

In regard to this mixing of history and theology, McGrath says that “biography and theology are interwoven to such an extent that they cannot be separated any more. The early Christians were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and their Saviour, and naturally felt that these conclusions should be passed on to their readers.”11

WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS?

Unlike the New Testament Epistles, which were connected to their senders (with the exception of Hebrews), the manuscripts of the four Gospels were anonymous. However, the early church bore strong witness to who the authors were and insisted that the individual authors were in a strong position to report reliable historical information. A brief examination of each of the four canonical Gospels will illustrate this historical testimony concerning authorship.

Gospel of Matthew. From the earliest times in church history, the name Matthew (former tax collector turned apostle) was universally associated with this book.12 Strong ancient tradition stems from the church fathers Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. AD 60–130), and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. AD 125–202) that Matthew, one of the original twelve apostles, was connected to this particular Gospel.13 Other church fathers note Matthean authorship as well. No other name has been connected to this First Gospel, and no one challenged Matthean authorship until modern times.

Gospel of Mark. The early church unanimously agreed that John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas and associate of the apostle Paul, was the author of the Second Gospel in New Testament order.14 Church fathers Papias and Irenaeus testified that Mark’s Gospel reflected the eyewitness testimony of the apostle Peter.15 This early tradition conveyed that Mark took the basic preached message of Peter (the primitive church’s central preacher and an eyewitness) and arranged and shaped that message into the written Gospel of Mark. If Mark’s Gospel reflects Peter, then it makes sense that Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels would show deference to Mark.

Gospel of Luke. Belief that Luke was the author of the Third Gospel, as well as a close companion of the apostle Paul, is well supported in church history (Irenaeus and others).16 Also, his authorship best fits the internal textual considerations. The author of Luke’s Gospel also wrote the book of Acts and had to have been a personal companion of Paul. These elements affirm that Luke, the physician, was the author of the Third Gospel. Though not an original apostle, Luke had access to all the principal apostolic figures, including Paul, Peter, and James (the brother of Jesus).17 Therefore, Luke’s Gospel relied closely on the accounts of these eyewitnesses.

Gospel of John. The most likely author of the Fourth Gospel is the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, affectionately referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26). The details of this Gospel bespeak an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’s life. John was not only one of the original twelve apostles but also part of the inner circle, being present at Jesus’s transfiguration, the Last Supper, and the crucifixion. John was also a firsthand witness of the resurrected Christ (John 21:20). The church father Irenaeus supported John’s authorship.18

Solid support from the early church fathers exists for the traditional authorship of the canonical Gospels. The statements from Papias and Irenaeus particularly bear significant weight because of their close proximity to the original first-century apostolic leadership. Given that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) did not carry the name recognition of the central leaders of primitive Christianity (Peter, James, Paul), Blomberg asks a probative question: “Why would Christians as early as the second century ascribe these otherwise anonymous Gospels to three such unlikely candidates if they did not in fact write them?”19 In other words, the traditional authorship of the three Synoptic Gospels provided by the early church fathers bears the ring of truth.

WHEN WERE THE GOSPELS WRITTEN?

The testimony of certain church fathers (such as Irenaeus)20 and the timing of major events in the first century that influenced primitive Christianity have led a growing number of New Testament scholars to conclude that the Synoptic Gospels were likely written in the early 60s, if not earlier. For example, none of the Gospels mention noteworthy events that transpired between AD 60 and 70. Three such events were (1) the persecution of Christians instigated by the Roman emperor Nero (c. mid-60s); (2) the martyrdom of three of the early church’s central leaders: James, Peter, and Paul (c. AD 62–66); and (3) the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman military leader Titus (AD 70). Since none of these momentous events, all of great interest to Christians, are mentioned in the Gospels as having happened, it is very plausible that the Gospels were already in existence.21 In fact, the Synoptic Gospels report Jesus’s prediction of some of these catastrophic events in the Olivet Discourse.

If the three Synoptic Gospels were written in the early 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between the 70s and the 90s, then the written Gospels appeared only thirty years after the events they report and describe. This gap is amazingly short compared to other historical cases in antiquity (see, e.g., table 6.5). Such a short period means that people could still examine the accuracy of the claims made in the Gospels. Green notes, “No books in all the world’s literature have been subjected to such thorough and persistent scrutiny over a period of hundreds of years, as the Gospels.”22

WERE THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS’S LIFE?

The Gospel writers claimed either to have been with Jesus themselves (John 1:14; 19:35; 21:24–25) or to have relied closely on the words of those who walked and talked with him (Luke 1:2). As we saw earlier, the unanimous testimony of early church history is that two of the Gospels were written by Jesus’s original disciples (later called apostles), Matthew and John. The other two Gospels, Mark and Luke, relied on and closely reflected the testimony of the apostles Peter and Paul and others. Thus, good historical and textual reasons exist for concluding that the apostles either wrote the Gospels themselves or were the guiding source behind them.

SINCE THE GOSPEL WRITERS OPENLY MIXED HISTORY AND THEOLOGY, DOES THIS NEGATE THEIR OBJECTIVITY AS BIOGRAPHERS?

It is true that the Gospel writers were not without convictions about the events they recorded and described. But in reality, there are no truly unbiased reporters of fact, and all history is interpreted history. As Blomberg states, “In the ancient world, there was virtually no such thing as dispassionate history.”23

Still, holding convictions about the truth does not rule out one’s ability to write reliable history. A person can be passionately engaged in a movement and yet retain the ability to write with accuracy about that movement. Sometimes active participants feel a deep obligation to be careful and evenhanded. A source therefore can be committed and correct simultaneously. Consider theologian and New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham’s assessment: “The testimony of the eyewitnesses was precisely the kind of testimony that was valued by ancient historians—that of involved participants, people who could convey something of the reality of the events from the inside.”24

WERE THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS INTERESTED IN AND CAPABLE OF PRESERVING RELIABLE HISTORY?

The writers intended to convey and were capable of conveying historical and factual information about Jesus. Each was either a direct eyewitness himself or relayed direct eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus. Either way, each was fully conversant with the facts surrounding Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection and thus capable of communicating trustworthy history. Further, since the Gospel writers reported and described events within a generation of their occurrence and since they relied on early oral and written sources, the credibility of their message is strong.

Bauckham comments on the fullness of the Gospel writers’ story about Jesus: “The four Gospels all tell a continuous narrative about the historical person Jesus, beginning either with the outset of his public career or with his birth, continuing until his death on a Roman cross, and ending with accounts either of the discovery that his tomb was empty or of his appearances after death.”25

Table 4.2. Apostolic Proclamation Stages Time Line

Jesus’s crucifixion | c. AD 30
Oral tradition stage | c. AD 30–68
Written letters stage | c. AD 48–69
Written Gospels stage | c. AD 55–75

This brief exploration of the three stages of apostolic proclamation (the time line of which is summarized in table 4.2) indicates that the apostolic leadership of the early Christian church preserved and conveyed reliable historical truths about Jesus Christ.

Credible Extrabiblical Evidence for the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ

Solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ can be found in both classical and Jewish sources. Although some critical scholars continue to question certain aspects of these works, overall these non-Christian references serve an important function in corroborating the basic picture of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament. Yet it should be noted that these sources are limited and far inferior to the rich resources about Jesus’s life and works that are found in the New Testament Gospels.

Let’s look briefly at sources outside of Scripture that mention directly or indirectly the historic person of Jesus Christ.

Roman Sources

Three Roman authors mention Jesus Christ. Following are their names and dates, and the titles of their writings in which Christ is referenced. A summary of what their comments reveal about Jesus Christ and early Christianity is also provided.

Tacitus (c. AD 56–c. 120), Roman historian, Annals (c. AD 116). Cornelius Tacitus, who is considered one of the very best Roman historians, mentions Christ when writing about the great fire in Rome (AD 64) during the time of Emperor Nero. According to Tacitus, “Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”26

Historian and librarian Lawrence Mykytiuk notes that “Tacitus’s terse statement about ‘Christus’ clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death.”27 According to Mykytiuk, Tacitus’s reference confirms four specific truths about Jesus Christ:28

Jesus was connected with the historic Christian title Christus (Christ).

Jesus the Christ was recognized as the founder of the first-century Christian movement.

Jesus Christ was reported to have been executed under the authority of the Roman governor of Judea Pontius Pilate.

Jesus’s execution under Pilate took place during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.

Table 4.3 shows how historic dates relate to Jesus Christ.

Table 4.3. Historic Dates Relating to Jesus Christ

Pontius Pilate’s era as governor of Judea | AD 26–36
Tiberius’s reign as Roman emperor | AD 14–37
Jesus Christ’s crucifixion | c. AD 30 (or 33)

Suetonius (c. AD 70–c. 140), Roman historian, Life of Claudius (c. AD 120). Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus cites Christ in his biographical writing about Emperor Claudius. In Life of Claudius, Suetonius states that Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus.”29

Suetonius is describing a protest situation in Rome (c. AD 49) in which Emperor Claudius expelled certain Jews from Rome because of their complaints about Chrestus (most likely a reference to Christus or Christ).30 Suetonius seems to have mistakenly thought that Christ was actually present in the crowd doing the instigating. The response on Claudius’s part seems to correspond with what is recorded in the book of Acts: “After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome” (18:1–2).

Suetonius’s reference illustrates that (1) Christ was the leader of a distinctive group within Judaism at about the halfway mark of the first century; (2) the Christian movement, with its central belief that Jesus was the Messiah (Greek: Christos), still provoked tension within the Jewish community; and (3) the Christian movement had reached the city of Rome.31

Pliny the Younger (c. AD 61–c. 113), Roman administrator, Epistles X (AD 112). In correspondence with Emperor Trajan during the early part of the second century, this man, known as Gaius Plinuis Caecilius Secundus, describes early Christian worship services in which Jesus was worshiped as God.32 Pliny’s letter testifies that “they had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god.”33

New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst explains the significance of Pliny’s comment about the early Christians: “What is related about Christ confirms two points made in the New Testament: first, Christians worship Christ in their songs (Phil. 2:5–11; Col. 1:15–20; Rev. 5:11, 13), and second, no Christian reviles or curses Christ (1 Cor. 12:3).”34

As we will see later in this chapter, this reference supports the view that the primitive Christian church had a high Christology and worshiped Jesus Christ.

Jewish Sources

Josephus (c. AD 37–c. 100), Jewish historian, Jewish Antiquities (AD 90s). The man known as Joseph Ben Mattathias makes two references to Jesus Christ in his Jewish Antiquities. The first passage we will consider is a short reference (book 20) that pertains to the trial of James, brother of Jesus Christ. It states, “He [the high priest Ananus] assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ whose name was James.”35

An overwhelming majority of scholars accept this first mention—“Jesus called Christ”—as a genuine reference to Jesus of Nazareth.36 Josephus’s purpose in mentioning the name Jesus was for the real-life identification of the person James. Mykytiuk explains, “It can only be useful for the identification of James if it is a reference to a real person, namely, ‘Jesus who is called Christ.’”37 This passing remark on the part of Josephus, which again is almost universally accepted, serves as clear evidence for Jesus Christ’s historical existence.

The other reference to Jesus in Josephus’s writings that we will consider (book 18) is longer and more complicated. This extraordinary passage is known as Testimonium Flavianum:

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him, for on the third day, he appeared to them restored to life. The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out.38

The italicized portions of the quotation reflect what most scholars think are later additions. The vast majority of scholars believe this passage was only partly written by Josephus. While it contains what Josephus originally wrote, some Christians likely touched up the passage to make it sound as though Josephus had himself become a follower of Christ.

Yet even when the likely additions to Josephus’s statement are set aside, the core content still provides powerful confirmation of the historic person of Jesus Christ and his extraordinary life. Josephus’s original statement references Christ and specifically acknowledges Jesus’s wisdom, miraculous works, and amazing teaching. Josephus also confirms Jesus’s death through Roman crucifixion.39

Josephus grew up in Palestine and was writing only a couple decades after the death of Jesus Christ. He therefore knew the history and culture of this Jewish milieu intimately. In light of this, Van Voorst notes the following:

If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the nonexistence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-biblical evidence is not probative on this point.40

Talmud (c. AD 400–500). The Talmud serves as a central text of rabbinic Judaism. Many scholars affirm that the Talmud contains clear references to Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshua) and his public ministry. The references tend to be polemical and harsh, and they condemn Jesus as a false teacher and a heretic who was hanged on a tree (crucified). They affirm that Jesus was a healer and a miracle worker, but his actions are attributed to magic. Consider one such passage, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a: “It was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (the Nazarene) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.’”41

Given the polemical and hostile nature of some of the passages in the Talmud regarding Jesus, if there had been good reason to doubt Jesus’s actual existence, the rabbis would have readily used it as an argument to dismiss Christianity.

Other Ancient Sources

Space does not allow a review of other ancient sources that touch on the life of Jesus Christ such as42

Toledot Jesus (reflects early Jewish thought, completed fifth century AD)

Lucian (second century AD), Greek satirist

Thallus (c. AD 52), Samaritan-born historian, Histories

Mara Bar-Serapion (c. AD 73), Letter

Phlegon (c. AD 80), historian, chronicles (mentioned by Origen)

Yet even with the sources examined and referenced here, some may wonder why there are not more historical sources outside of the New Testament that testify to the historical existence of Jesus Christ. In response to this question, consider the following.43

First, many of these sources come from the era before anyone knew that Christianity would become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, let alone a worldwide religion with over two billion adherents.

Second, ancient historians were focused on the lives of political and military leaders who carved out an empire. The controversial religious happenings in the Jewish community of Palestine were of virtually no interest to those writing ancient history.

Third, given the contempt that the pagan Roman society had for both Jews and Christians, it is not surprising that sources pointing to Jesus Christ are limited.

Fourth, given the first three points, we can reasonably argue that it is surprising these non-Christian historical references exist at all.

Portrait of Jesus Christ from Non-Christian Sources

Ancient sources draw the following portrait of Jesus and the early Christians:44

He was a provocative teacher and a wise and virtuous man from the region of Judea.

He reportedly performed miracles and made prophetic claims.

The Jewish leaders condemned him for acts of sorcery and apostasy.

He was crucified by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate at the time of the Jewish Passover and during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.

Jesus’s followers, called Christians, reported that he had risen from the dead.

The Christian faith spread to Rome, where Christians were charged with crimes and met horrific persecution.

First-century Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as God and celebrated the Eucharist in their services.

Though at times the Romans ridiculed the followers of Christ as morally weak, these disciples were often known for their courage and virtue.

Brief and at times cryptic statements about Jesus made by ancient non-Christian authors do not prove the claims of the gospel. Yet nothing in them conflicts with what is recorded about Jesus in the Gospels. And these extrabiblical, historical sources are consistent with and confirm the historicity of the gospel message.

Historic Christianity’s High Christology Emerged from the Very Beginning of the Apostolic Era

Theologically liberal and skeptical scholars often insist that the so-called Jesus of history never viewed himself as the God-man. Rather, the divine-human Christ of faith was a much later doctrinal innovation on the part of the church. Various theories have been propagated to attempt to explain how the incarnation (God in human flesh) was the product of a long evolutionary process culminating at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, where Jesus was officially declared to be both God and man.

Consider, for example, the words of skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman: “That the earliest Christians did not consider Jesus God is not a controversial point among scholars. Apart from fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, scholars are unified in thinking that the view that Jesus was God was a later development within Christian circles.”45

Liberal-Skeptical Challenge

The idea that the incarnation did not find its roots in the claims of Christ and in the early apostolic church but instead was a later doctrinal innovation serves as a possible defeater of historic Christianity. If Jesus Christ did not view himself as the God-man and if the apostles never recognized Christ’s deity, then Christianity’s creeds are merely the false theological speculation of later church leaders.

This view that Christian orthodoxy has built an artificial theological structure (Christology) over a merely human Jesus, if true, has shocking implications for the believer in historic Christianity. If Jesus is not God in the flesh, then God did not make a unique appearance in the time-space world. As we saw in chapter 3, if Jesus is not God and man, then his work on the cross cannot reconcile a holy God with sinful human beings. In other words, the doctrine of the incarnation affects all other Christian truth claims. Table 4.4 reiterates the importance of the incarnation to historic Christianity.

Table 4.4. The Importance of the Incarnation to Historic Christianity

We know the Trinity in light of the incarnation.

The incarnation fulfills the promise of the imago Dei.

The incarnation validates the dignity of humanity.

The incarnation allows Christ to reconcile God and man (atonement).

The incarnation makes Jesus our High Priest a sympathetic intercessor.

A Powerful Refutation of the Liberal-Skeptical Challenge

Central to all such theories that belief in a divine Christ evolved over a couple centuries is the conviction that the earliest Christians did not view Jesus as divine. Larry Hurtado explains, “The specifics vary from one scholar to another, but common to all of the evolutionary proposals is the claim that the worship of Jesus as divine cannot have been a part of the devotional pattern that characterized earliest strata and circles of Jewish Christians.”46

But just what did the earliest Christians believe about the nature and person of Jesus Christ? A major textual breakthrough over the last couple of decades has allowed scholars to see more clearly what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus Christ, particularly as expressed in their church services.

Biblical scholarship (in this case, a type of form criticism) has discovered primitive Jewish-Christian creeds, confessions, and hymns woven into Scripture. The early Christians in their worship services used these compact confessions of faith long before the New Testament was written. As New Testament scholar Ralph Martin explains, “The church of the New Testament is already a believing, preaching, and confessing community of men and women. This implies the existence and influence of a body of authoritative doctrine . . . which was the given and shared possession of those who formed the nascent Christian communities in the world of the Roman Empire.”47

These primitive creeds and hymns are considered older than the New Testament books in which they appear. The statements of faith and songs were apparently used in church liturgy from the early apostolic period. Later, the apostolic authors wove these creeds into the scriptural texts they authored. The apostles Peter and Paul used the oldest passages reflecting creeds and/or hymns.

How do scholars know objectively which sections of Scripture were actually used as oral creeds, confessions, and hymns in ancient church services? Text scholar Blomberg explains how scholars detect them:

Numerous texts of highly poetic Greek, filled with tightly packed formulations of fundamental Christian doctrine, in styles that often differ from those of the epistle writers themselves, and which seem to be set apart as self-contained entities within the letters in which they appear, prove likely candidates for early Christian creeds or confessions of faith. The clearest and most commonly cited examples are Philippians 2:6–11, Colossians 1:15–20, and 1 Peter 3:18–22.48

Let’s look at the three passages Blomberg identifies as early oral statements of faith and/or songs. These passages are from two epistles written by the apostle Paul and one by the apostle Peter.

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:6–11)

This passage from Paul’s Philippian Epistle appears to have been an early Christian hymn (fundamental doctrine compacted in poetic language that differs in style from the rest of the epistle). Thus, this strong statement about an exalted Christ was affirmed corporately and liturgically in the church’s worship.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Col. 1:15–20)

Again, the poetic structure of this passage from Paul’s Colossian Epistle has led many scholars to view it as an ancient hymn that speaks gloriously about Christ in his work in creation and redemption.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (1 Pet. 3:18–22)

Scholars have proposed that this passage was a kind of ancient confession of faith. Note again the exalted language about Jesus Christ.

Historically speaking, the closer in time documents are to the events they report or describe, the more reliable and trustworthy those documents are considered. The Pauline Epistles of Philippians and Colossians and the First Letter of Peter are dated to around AD 62. But the hymnal and creedal portions of those letters date much earlier, possibly back to the Jewish expression of Christianity in the 40s or even earlier in the 30s.49 Table 4.5 illustrates the very early nature of the hymns, creeds, and confessions that reveal a high Christology (Jesus as God) within first-century Christianity.

Table 4.5. First-Century Time Line

Jesus’s life | c. 4 BC–c. AD 30
Jesus’s death and resurrection | c. AD 30
Paul’s conversion | c. AD 31–32
Early Christian creeds, confessions, and hymns | AD 30s–40s
Paul’s Letters | AD 48–64
Peter’s Letters | c. AD 62–64
Synoptic Gospels | AD 50s–60s
Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdoms | c. AD 64–68
John’s Gospel | c. AD 60s–90s
Book of Revelation | c. AD 90s

As noted, the creeds, confessions, and hymns reveal signs of early Jewish Christianity and have been traced back to the most primitive period of Christianity. And it is these same early statements that reflect a high Christology. Blomberg notes, “It is precisely in this very early material that we often find some of the most exalted language about Jesus.”50

Here are the specific hymnal and creedal statements that speak of Jesus Christ in divine terms:

Philippians 2:6: “Who, being in very nature God.”

Colossians 1:19: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.”

1 Peter 3:22: “Who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”

These affirmations of Jesus Christ’s deity come from Christianity’s earliest period. They appear almost immediately after the resurrection and while the apostles are still living and serving in leadership positions in the church. In fact, the inner-circle apostles (Paul and Peter) used these exalted statements about a divine Christ and wove them into their writings. Blomberg comments, “Such beliefs thus emerged early in the history of the church; we may not chalk Christ’s ‘deification’ up to a late stage in the development of Christianity.”51

Hurtado, an expert on ancient Christianity, states the following in light of the early and exalted language the primitive church used in describing and worshiping Christ: “The origins of the worship of Jesus are so early that practically any evolutionary approach is rendered invalid as historical explanation.”52 Contrary to the explanation that worship of Jesus resulted from a lengthy evolutionary process that allegedly took a couple hundred years, Hurtado states that the evidence suggests “a more explosively quick phenomenon, a religious development that was more like a volcanic eruption.”53

So in response to the liberal-skeptical theory of a long evolutionary period in church history that resulted in a divine Christ, we can make three points in summary:

While the New Testament books take us back to the apostolic age, the primitive creeds, confessions, and hymns contained in the New Testament point back to the earliest period of Jewish Christianity.

These primitive creeds, confessions, and hymns illustrate that the earliest Christians viewed Jesus as divine and thus serve to falsify the claim that belief in Jesus’s deity went through an extended period of evolution.

The earliest Christians, though staunch Jewish monotheists, nevertheless almost immediately worshiped Jesus Christ as an extension of Yahweh.

In this chapter, we have seen that the witness of the apostles concerning Jesus Christ was set forth in a historically trustworthy manner. We have also seen that there are good biblical and extrabiblical reasons for affirming Jesus Christ as an authentic person of history. Finally, evidence shows that historic Christianity’s affirmation of Jesus Christ as God in human flesh goes all the way back to the very origin of the faith itself.

Having explained and defended the orthodox view of the person and nature of Christ, we can now shift to part 2 of this book, where we begin an apologetic comparison between Jesus and four other major religious leaders: Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammad.

Further Suggested Reading

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Blomberg, Craig L. Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students. Vol. 2. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Wilkins, Michael J., and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Discussion Questions

What factors involved in the early Christian practice of oral tradition serve to make the enterprise trustworthy in nature?

How could the biblical authors be deeply committed to the truth of historic Christianity and yet avoid being unreliably biased in their reporting about Jesus?

In light of the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ, what is the benefit of the extrabiblical evidence for Jesus’s historical existence?

What is the best argument against the liberal-skeptical view that the Christian belief in Jesus Christ’s deity went through a long period of evolution in church history?

How do biblical scholars know there are indeed creeds, hymns, and confessions woven into Scripture?

Part 2: Four Major Leaders of World Religions and Jesus

5
The Prince (Krishna) and the Lord

The path of devotion (bhakti) best describes the religious life of most Hindus in India for the past millennium.

J. Isamu Yamamoto, Hinduism, TM, and Hare Krishna

The God of Christianity has no “devotees.” He has children adopted into his family whom he indwells by his Holy Spirit.

Winfried Corduan, “Christ and Krishna”

Hinduism says: You sin; you pay. In the Christian Gospel God says: You sin; I pay.

Stephen Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus

Among the world’s great religious leaders, two came to be viewed as representing deity in human form. In traditional Hinduism, the god Vishnu appeared in human form as Krishna. In historic Christianity, the Creator God became incarnate as Jesus Christ (the God-man: a single person with both a divine and a human nature). Yet while both are recognized (in some sense) as the divine in human form, the identities, missions, and messages of these two figures are very different.

Krishna is the most widely revered and popular Hindu deity. A historical quest will put us in a suitable place to compare and contrast the Hindu prince with the one Christians refer to as the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Hindu Prince (Krishna)

Scholars debate whether Prince Krishna was an actual historical figure whose life is covered in Hindu mythology or whether his existence was completely mythological. Some Hindu scholars who argue for a historical Krishna say that he may have lived about five thousand years ago.1 But as an Eastern mystical religion, Hinduism does not emphasize chronology. And modern-day Hindus show little interest in the “historical” Krishna the way contemporary Christians inquire about the historicity of Jesus.2 Scholar and Krishna devotee Mataji Devi Vanamali explains:

Hinduism is not a historical religion. If somebody were to prove conclusively that Krishna, Rama, and the various gods of the Hindu pantheon never existed, most Hindus would not mind in the least, and the religion would continue to flourish as it has done for so many centuries. However, to the devotees of Krishna, he is as real as any of their friends or relatives or children, depending on how they regard him—as friend, relation, child, or lover. This being so, most Indians have not bothered to verify his existence.3

Let’s dig a little deeper to see what Hindu sources reveal about Krishna and his proclaimed life.

According to Hindu tradition and mythology,4 Krishna was born in the city of Mathura in northern India. Some Hindu scholars today who believe Krishna was a historical person propose that his birth took place around 3200 BC. Tradition says he was born into the Yadava clan—the eighth child of his spiritually oriented parents, Vasudeva and Devaki. Because Krishna’s life was in danger, he ended up being raised by foster parents. His foster father was a chief in a local cow-herding community, where Krishna would live.

Krishna’s life and identity in sacred Hindu literature pass through three basic modes. First, the writings of the Bhagavata Purana describe Krishna as a dancing infant and as a young boy who plays a flute. The name Krishna (Sanskrit: Kṛṣṇa) literally means “the black one” or “the blue one” but also conveys the idea of mysteriousness. Thus, images of Krishna portray him in his youth with black or dark blue skin and holding or playing a flute. Theologian Peter Toon explains that the youthful Krishna “is portrayed in Hindu art with a peacock feather in his hair (which is a symbol of his lordship) playing a flute to awake people from their sleep of ‘maya’ (illusion).”5

In his second stage, again described in the Bhagavata Purana, Krishna is an adolescent prankster and playboy lover whose flute beckons the gopis (cow maidens) to follow him into the forest, where they dance ecstatically together and experience spiritual and sexual unity. In this phase, Krishna is seen as a divine herdsman (images often depict Krishna with cows, which are considered sacred in India).

Third, in the Bhagavad Gita (“Song of the Lord”), Krishna appears as a prince who offers moral and spiritual guidance and reveals himself as the ultimate supreme being, Krishna. In summary, the Hindu sacred writings “portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and the Supreme Being.”6

In Krishna’s supposed 120 years of colorful living on earth, his multifaceted life included killing demons, performing miracles, having multiple wives and sexual affairs, fathering many children, and revealing himself as the supreme divine being. Then he was killed accidentally when a hunter’s arrow struck him in the vulnerable spot of his heel.

Lord Krishna the Avatar

In its complicated theological system, Hinduism affirms a triad of deities who are considered the most important among all the gods of the Hindu pantheon. The gods of the Trimurti consist of Brahma (the creator), Shiva (the destroyer), and Vishnu (the preserver). Vishnu’s role of preserver and protector of the universe sometimes requires him to manifest himself on the earth. In Hinduism, these divine incarnations are known as avatars.

An avatar is a descended god. Put another way, it is a manifestation of a particular deity in either human or animal form. Avatars come to earth generally to preserve and protect the world by fighting evil and righting wrongs. Hinduism affirms that Vishnu (also known as the god of love, benevolence, and forgiveness) has been incarnated nine times on the earth. Krishna, serving as an avatar, is the eighth manifestation or incarnation of Vishnu.

Among those devoted to Vishnu and his avatars (called Vaishnavites), Krishna is by far the most popular and best loved of the avatars. In fact, as scholar Jerry Yamamoto notes, “Worship of Krisna [Krishna] has superseded the adoration of Visnu among many Vaisnavites.”7

This passionate devotion to Krishna has its roots in earlier Hindu history. The Bengali Brahmin Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1533) proposed that expressing loving devotion (called bhakti) to Krishna through dancing and chanting the Mahamantra (Great Mantra: “Hare Krishna, Hare Rama”) could counteract the effects of ignorance and bad karma due to illicit actions. But Chaitanya took a more monumental step in his exaltation of Krishna. Yamamoto expounds, “He declared Krisna the total embodiment of the divine, thus not only exalting Krisna above all deities but also incorporating the divine qualities of all the other gods into Krisna.”8

Bhakti Hinduism

The religion of Hinduism is tolerant, inclusivistic, and eclectic. Hinduism offers a philosophical monism and pantheism (all is one and the one is god) along with an almost limitless (330 million) pantheon of popular gods (polytheism). Some even worship one god among many deities (henotheism). But Hinduism also proposes the “path of devotion” or attachment to a single deity (untraditional monotheism or monolatrism). Christian scholar of world religions Winfried Corduan elaborates:

This school of thought became known as Bhakti, which means “loving attachment.” The essence of its teaching is that the love of a god or goddess provides salvation to these who love him or her alone. The roots of Bhakti Hinduism go back at least as far as the Bhagavad-Gita, a poem that forms a part of the Mahabharata, a lengthy epic composed around 200 BC.9

Distinctive Beliefs and Devotion

Bhakti Hinduism affirms four beliefs as part of its devotion:10 (1) affirmation of a personal god as ultimate reality, (2) worship of and devotion to this single deity, (3) appealing to this god for deliverance or salvation, and (4) uniting with this god or attaining an eternal relationship with him.

Characteristics of Bhakti Devotion

The following eight points highlight the most popular Hindu path of Bhakti spirituality:11

Surrender: Devotion involves the loss of self in passionate surrender to the divine.

Feeling: Instead of cool, dispassionate analysis, devotion involves passionate feelings of affection for one’s god.

Outgoing: Devotion by the devotee is outgoing and other-directed toward the deity.

Adoration: Devotion means giving all to one’s god (in terms of honor and worship) with the hope that the deity will respond in kind.

Two-way street: Devotion is offered from the human devotee to the god with the expectation of reciprocal blessings.

Salvation: The devotee’s affection may be rewarded with salvation (in Hinduism, salvation is breaking the cycle of reincarnation by moksha).

Two-world effects: The benefits to the devotee can be this-worldly (meeting present needs) and other-worldly (salvation).

Practices: Devotion involves chanting the name of the god over and over along with ecstatic dance and dramatic expressions.

Krishna is one of the most popular of the Bhakti gods. And in this form of Hinduism, adherents believe that a person can have a relationship with Krishna that is characteristically similar to theism (an eternal relationship with a personal deity). Thus, unlike the Vedanta monists, who are pantheistic, those who practice Bhakti Hinduism believe that the self or soul is real and it will retain its individuality even after the release from samsara. Also, those who practice Bhakti believe that salvation comes by Krishna’s benevolence (grace).

The Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON: International Society for Krishna Consciousness), which became popular in America in the 1960s, is an expression of Bhakti Hinduism.12 These Krishna devotees worship Krishna exclusively as the Lord of the universe. Thus, in ISKCON, devotion to Krishna alone is necessary for moksha (salvation, which ends the cycle of rebirths or reincarnation). Tables 5.1 and 5.2 summarize ISKCON’s essential teachings and the four ways to moksha.

Table 5.1. ISKCON Essential Teachings

Krishna is the supreme form of a personal god. Unlike traditional Hinduism, Bhakti Hinduism considers Vishnu to be an avatar of Krishna.

Salvation is achieved by continually chanting the Krishna mantra “Hare Krishna” one thousand times a day.

The Bhagavad Gita is sacred scripture.

Devotees must observe a life of pure devotion to Krishna, which includes abstaining from meat, caffeine, sweets, and sex for pleasure.

Devotees are expected to disseminate the literature of ISKCON.

Source: Adapted from Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 204–5.

Table 5.2. The Bhagavad Gita’s Four Ways to Moksha13

Since karma causes a person to experience rebirth (samsara: rebirth into an existence of ignorance and darkness), moksha represents salvation in which the cycle is broken and rebirth is ended. The approaches or systems in Hinduism differ as to whether moksha involves a personal conscious existence for the person who has attained it. Always inclusivistic, the Bhagavad Gita offers four ways of reaching moksha.13

1. The Way of Works (Karma-Yoga: Path of Selfless Action)

2. The Way of Meditation (Ashtanga-Yoga: Path of Physical Exercise)

3. The Way of Knowledge (Jnana-Yoga: Path of Seclusion and Study)

4. The Way of Devotion (Bhakti-Yoga: Path of Service to a Deity)

Source: Adapted from “Introduction: Four Main Paths.”

What Was Krishna Like?

Krishna has millions of devotees through Bhakti Hinduism who speak of their Lord in majestic, endearing terms. Yet the picture of Krishna offered in Hindu sources is, at minimum, heavily laced with myth and legend. Nevertheless, the portrait given of Krishna shows two very different, if not contradictory, sides of his royal personality.

First, as a child and as an adolescent, Krishna is known for his mischievous pranks (stealing butter), his rather bizarre miracles (lifting mountains), and his seduction of the daughters and wives of the cow herders. This playful, personal, and rather morally reckless portrayal of Krishna is relayed in the Bhagavata Purana.

A very different image of Krishna is portrayed in the seven-hundred-verse Bhagavad Gita, considered the most beloved of Hindu scripture. The Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna is the main character and speaker, shows a philosophically reflective side of Krishna, who, in the guise of a chariot driver, offers lofty moral wisdom to a commander (Arjuna) within the context of an impending battle. Later, Krishna reveals himself as the cosmic, supreme, and almighty God who has taken human form.

How do these two extremely different sides of Krishna’s personality mesh? They appear irreconcilable. The trickster and capricious side of Krishna conflicts with his actions as a philosophical sage. Some Hindu thinkers speak of this conflict as representing the beguiling paradoxes of an extremely mysterious god.

Krishna devotees grant their Lord such personality traits as being compassionate and loving. Yet the seemingly schizophrenic portrait seen in the Hindu sources does not confirm these qualities. If these stories about Krishna are to be taken as genuine accounts, then Krishna fails to treat women with dignity. In fact, he appears to treat women as sexual objects. Also, he does not use his supernatural powers to heal the truly misfortunate. Rather, he performs what appear to be bizarre magic tricks that are apparently intended to draw attention.

Historical data is difficult to obtain, as was mentioned earlier, and a chronology of Krishna’s life cannot be established. Having very briefly reviewed the limited information that is available from Hindu sources about Krishna’s apparent earthly life, it is time to set Krishna side by side with Jesus for evaluation.

The Prince and the Lord

Given that both Krishna and Jesus have been called by their respective religions “Lord” and “God” and more specifically “God in human flesh,” it is critically important to compare these two significant religious leaders.

Krishna holds the title Prince for his regal representation of a divine figure. Bhakti Hinduism now stands at the center of contemporary Hinduism, with Krishna as its most represented deity. Meanwhile, the New Testament title Lord (kyrios) is the Greek term used to translate the Hebrew name for Yahweh (YHWH: the name of Israel’s personal God). Thus, the historic Christian claim “Jesus is Lord” conveys the meaning “Jesus is Yahweh—God.”

A brief comparison of Prince Krishna and the Lord Jesus Christ will focus on eight important areas.

History

The historical existence of Krishna is a debated question. Some who claim Krishna was a man of history insist that the Hindu sources (Mahabharata) have been shown to be reliable sources when it comes to other testable areas (archaeology, astronomy). They appeal to the fact that non-Vedic literature such as the Buddhist Sutra Pitaka and Lalitavistara mention Krishna.14 But even these works date from three thousand years after the supposed period in which Krishna lived. In addition, the stories of Krishna’s life rely heavily on what appears to be speculative Hindu mythology.15 It could be that Krishna never existed at all and the stories about him are pure mythology. On the other hand, some suggest that a historical Krishna (or Krishnas) may have lived but that the supernatural events attributed to him are mythical. World religions specialist Gerald McDermott observes:

The avataras, as even Hindu scholars concede, are based less on historical reality than theological story. The stories about Krishna (stealing butter and having amorous affairs with cowgirls), for example, seem to have been a conflation of accounts of several Krishnas in real history, with supernatural elements added later.16

Whether Krishna’s life is best understood to be pure mythology or some historicity mixed with mythology, the question remains as to what can be reliably known about him. Corduan offers this assessment: “There’s not even good reason to believe that he existed. I’m not saying that he didn’t, but if he did, we have no reliable information about him.”17 Given the heavy doses of Hindu mythology and the absence of a strong historical and textual basis for Krishna’s life and actions, Corduan’s assessment seems correct. Truly reliable information about Krishna is hard to ascertain.

Conversely, Jesus of Nazareth’s life, death, and resurrection are well attested to both in the early historical documents of the New Testament, which were supported by eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4), and in certain secular works of history examined in chapter 4. In fact, the extrabiblical, historical sources are consistent with and tend to confirm the historicity of the gospel message.

Nature

Prince Krishna is considered an appearance or the descent of a deity (an avatar) to the earth. In traditional Hinduism, Krishna is the eighth avatar of Vishnu. However, Krishna devotees reverse this so that Vishnu becomes the avatar of Krishna. Ultimately, Krishna is viewed as the supreme God in his own right. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna describes his cosmic divinity and his appearance as an avatar: “Although I am unborn, everlasting, and I am the Lord of all, I come to my realm of nature and through my wondrous power I am born” (Bhagavad Gita 4:6).18

Jesus Christ declared himself God in human flesh (John 8:56–59; see also chapters 1 and 3). Central to historic Christianity is the doctrine of the incarnation (Jesus is a single person with both a fully divine nature and a fully human nature).

Followers of both Krishna and Jesus Christ affirm them to be God incarnate. Following are five points that differentiate the Christian doctrine of the incarnation from the Hindu idea of avatar:19

The incarnation of Jesus Christ took place in history, where testimony was available that can be evaluated (see Luke 2:1–7; 3:1–2), whereas the historicity of Krishna is dubious and has no direct eyewitness testimony.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ was a once-and-for-all event (see Gal. 4:4–5), whereas the Bhagavad Gita reveals that Krishna comes into the world age after age. Thus, Hinduism’s avatars came in the past, and many more are expected to come in the future. For example, according to the Bhagavad Gita 4:7–8, “When righteousness is weak and faints and unrighteousness exults in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, for the destruction of evil in men, for the fulfillment of the kingdom of righteousness, I come to this world in the ages that pass.”20

In historic Christianity, the incarnation happened once in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1, 14), whereas the avatars of the Hindu gods appear in various forms and figures, including humans and animals.

Orthodox Christology does not allow for the mixing or blending of the two natures of Jesus Christ (see chapter 3), whereas the Hindu avatars do mix and blend to the degree that true humanity is lost.

The specific purpose of the incarnation was to reveal God to humankind and to reconcile lost sinners to God through Christ’s sacrificial atonement (Titus 2:13); none of the avatars provide revelation, nor do they in any way provide atonement for human sin.

Character

Devotees of Prince Krishna say that he is loving and compassionate, but the stories about him reveal humanlike flaws and a lack of moral perfection. Hindu scholars attempt to explain Krishna’s sexual escapades as metaphors or parables of divine love for human beings. Some Hindu thinkers assert that God is above moral principles and therefore exempt from keeping them. However, neither of these explanations is satisfactory. A significant part of the stories about Krishna’s alleged life on earth are sexualized in nature. In these escapades, he violates basic Hindu sexual mores (such as prohibitions against marital infidelity). With that in mind, Corduan asks the appropriate question, “How does a god lead us to proper behavior if he is not only exempt from the standards, but violates them in the crassest of ways?”21

The Lord Jesus Christ, on the other hand, was declared morally blameless by his closest associates and his enemies. (In fact, on at least one occasion, Jesus challenged the Pharisees, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” [John 8:46]). Jesus laid down universal moral principles in his teaching that he alone was able to keep perfectly. In effect, Jesus, not Krishna, lived and acted the way one would expect if God were to take on human flesh (see chapter 2).

Mission

Hindu literature describes Prince Krishna’s mission as that of an inspiring divine hero. But his life lacks integrity and internal coherence. He is depicted as the god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and the supreme being. But which stage of his life reflects the true Krishna? If the answer is all of them, then some explanation is needed to tie them together in a coherent fashion.

The Lord Jesus Christ’s mission was to rescue sinners by providing a final atonement for sin through his death on the cross (Rom. 3:25). Jesus Christ’s life powerfully exhibits the integrity and coherence that are nowhere to be found in Krishna’s. Jesus lived out perfectly the commandments he proclaimed through his teaching. His genuine love was evident in his gracious treatment of the downtrodden and in his healing of people afflicted with physical suffering. His sacrificial death on the cross healed people’s spiritual suffering, and his bodily resurrection from the dead conquered humanity’s last enemy—death!

Role

Though Krishna is said to be gracious and merciful in nature as a personal deity, he provides no genuine means of redemption. Forgiveness for Krishna costs him nothing. As Corduan notes, “Krishna really has not done anything for us. . . . At best, he made some great claims, but did not do anything that would support them or bring about the results.”22

In stark contrast, the Lord Jesus paid the ultimate price. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection all focus on redeeming lost sinners. Jesus did everything for his followers (John 10:14–15). He kept God’s commandments perfectly, and that righteousness has been imputed to Christian believers. He died in the place of sinners to bring about their forgiveness. Last, Jesus Christ conquered death, and that state of immortality will be granted in its fullness to God’s children at their own resurrection.

State

Prince Krishna either survives in mere legend only or is dead. The Hindu stories record his physical death without anything occurring afterward. Krishna claims to be the supreme deity, but he fails to do what only God can do in raising the dead.

Unlike all other religious leaders, the Lord Jesus Christ has been resurrected from the dead and reigns as eternal King (John 20:24–31). Jesus does the very things that only God can justifiably do: forgive sin, raise the dead, answer prayer, receive worship, and judge humanity (see chapter 1).

Life

Krishna’s theistic-oriented Bhakti message provides more stability and continuity after death than does the Vedanta school with its view that the world is illusory and that human beings lose their conscious existence at moksha. Yet even with Bhakti Hinduism, moksha constitutes an escape from the impersonal karma-samsara reality principle. As a result, even Bhakti Hinduism seems less than fully world and life affirming.

Christ’s message is uniquely world and life affirming. The divinely created world is real and benevolent. Human life made in the image of God is morally and spiritually transformed. Both in his birth and in his resurrection, Jesus had a real physical body (Matt. 1:18–23; Luke 24:39). Thus, the Christian worldview provides genuine hope and encourages full participation in the world and life.

Future

Bhakti Hinduism cannot assure faith, hope, and love for the Krishna devotee. Krishna’s coming into the world remains uncertain, and therefore hope of eternal life after death with Prince Krishna may be equally mythological. Plus, even if Krishna is a reality, he hasn’t accomplished anything to provide evidence that he can be trusted in the future.

The man of history—the Lord Jesus Christ—offers redemption from sin, a physical resurrection for the dead, and eternal life with God in the unending age to come. In the future, all that is crooked will be made straight, and God’s children will enjoy his presence forever and ever (Rev. 21:1–5).

Bhakti Hinduism offers a convoluted, uncertain hope of life after death with the potentially mythological Prince Krishna. Historic Christianity, by contrast, promises a real hope of salvation from sin through the historical person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated his lordship by rising from the dead.

Table 5.3. Comparison of the Prince and the Lord

| The Prince | The Lord
History | Based on speculative Hindu mythology | Rooted in facts of history
Nature | An appearance or the descent of a deity | God incarnate
Character | Morally imperfect | Morally perfect
Mission | Divine hero | Redeem sinners
Role | Avatar | Lord and Savior
State | Legend or dead | Resurrected
Life | Less than fully world and life affirming | World and life affirming
Future | Uncertain | Eternal life with God

Reflections on Hinduism

With approximately one billion adherents or about 15 percent of the world’s population,23 Hinduism is the world’s third largest religion behind Christianity and Islam. But even with those large numbers, Hinduism is not a missionary religion per se. Most of its converts come primarily through the population growth of India. Hinduism would be much larger, but it has been the source for three other Eastern world religions: Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism.

McDermott describes Hinduism as “the world’s oldest set of religions.”24 This description of Hinduism as a “set of religions” seems correct since Hinduism has many religious perspectives that cannot be reconciled. As noted earlier, Hinduism holds polytheistic, henotheistic, pantheistic, and theistic perspectives of God side by side without offering any way of ultimately integrating them.

The Bhakti Hinduism Appeal

Among the diverse forms of Hinduism, what makes Bhakti (devotional) Hinduism so popular? Let’s consider five reasons people favor this theistic type of Hinduism.25

Love relationship over pragmatic practice. All human beings want and need love. We want to give it and receive it. What could be better than encountering the unconditional love of a god? Think of the excitement of being in a loving relationship with a god who receives and gives love. Bhakti Hindus often speak of Krishna as their lover.

Personal over impersonal. Human beings by nature are attracted to the personal dimensions of life over the impersonal. Bhakti Hinduism offers a relationship with a personal deity whom one can know. This is different from the philosophical writings in Hinduism in which one is left ultimately with an impersonal, unknowable being.

Devotion over work, meditation, and knowledge. Devoting oneself to another personal being is preferable to following the working rules of one’s caste. Personal devotion is also more fulfilling than losing oneself in meditative techniques. Relationships are even more satisfying than the insights gained from the pursuit of abstract, philosophical knowledge.

Ecstasy over apathy and passivity. People are attracted to excitement and activity over indifference and inactivity. Bhakti Hinduism offers an opportunity to work oneself into a frenzy of activity by worshiping one’s personal god and possibly entering into a mystical union with Krishna.

Simple over complex. Bhakti Hinduism involves simple religious devotion without a complicated theological system. One’s devotion to god is expressed in simple and practical ways. Such an act of devotion is known as a bhakti. Singing, chanting, and offering gifts (food or flowers) are typical ways that a bhakta (a person of devotion) expresses love for their personal deity. This approach is much simpler to practice than the philosophical form of Hinduism.

Strengths of the Bhakti Hindu Theology

Though many Westerners view Hinduism as essentially pantheistic at its core, the multitudes within Hinduism normally identify one god as their highest deity. As Corduan notes, “Bhakti is at the heart of most of contemporary Hinduism.”26 And as this complex system of religions goes, Bhakti Hinduism is by far the closest to a Christian theistic perspective.

This approach to Hinduism views Krishna as a supreme personal being with whom people can have a relationship both now and after death. Also, Bhakti Hindus believe that Krishna made some kind of appearance in the flesh. Therefore, this form of Hinduism, which believes in a personal God who became incarnate to help and save human beings, is similar to historic Christianity. As such, this basically theistic theological perspective is a strength, but it also poses a challenge to the Christian faith.

Bhakti Hinduism’s Common Ground with Christianity

Along with a basic belief in a personal God, three other aspects of Bhakti Hinduism are similar to Christianity.27

First, both Krishna devotees and Christians believe in a personal God who functions as their Lord and Savior in the context of a personal, trusting relationship.

Second, both Krishna devotees and Christians talk about their relationship with God—placing considerable importance on the condition of the human heart (a reference to the core of the human being where basic beliefs are formed).

Third, both Krishna devotees and Christians understand the human heart’s deep yearning to form a substantive personal relationship with God in which humans can experience his love.

In this manner, then, Christian believers and Krishna devotees have some rich areas of common ground to explore in honest and respectful discussion with one another.

A Christian Response to Three Bhakti Hindu Claims

We touched briefly on these three issues earlier in the chapter, but it is important to summarize how historic Christianity differs from the beliefs of Krishna devotees in these important areas of similarity.

Avatars (an appearance of a god upon the earth) seem similar to the incarnation.

Krishna extending favor to his devotees seems similar to grace.

Krishna forgiving his devotees seems similar to the atonement.

Incarnation

Regarding the theological concept of a divine incarnation (God coming in the flesh), Christians affirm a single historical incarnation in the specific person of Jesus Christ. That incarnation took place in space-time history. Jesus Christ was born under the historical reign of Augustus Caesar and died under the historical reign of Tiberius Caesar. Jesus was executed under the authority of the Roman governor of Judea Pontius Pilate.

For Christians, there is no other incarnation—neither past nor future (though Jesus Christ will return to earth at his second coming in possession of both his divine and his human nature, which he retained after his incarnation on earth was complete).

Jesus Christ is the God-man. His single person is a union of his divine and human natures. The natures remain distinct without mixing or blending.

The incarnation made the atonement possible. The incarnation revealed God to the world and accomplished an atonement for human sin that results in salvation for all who believe. The truth of the atonement is backed up by Christ’s bodily resurrection, which is evidenced by eyewitness testimony. On the other hand, avatars are said to appear many times in various forms and without historical verification.

Grace

Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection save a person both by fulfilling the person’s righteousness before God’s law and by forgiving the sin the person has committed. Salvation in historic Christianity is accomplished completely by God’s grace (unmerited favor). Human beings as fallen sinners do not deserve salvation, and left to ourselves, we could never earn it. McDermott explains how Bhakti grace differs: “[Bhakti] grace is in the context of an impersonal law of the universe (karma), which even the gods cannot change.”28 In other words, Krishna’s “grace” to help devotees achieve salvation is limited by the universal law of karma-samsara. It thus seems that Krishna’s grace (in delivering the bhakta) is inconsistent with the broad Hindu belief that everyone must pay for their own karmic debt.

Atonement

Jesus Christ’s atonement came at great cost to the Triune God. The Son, who took sin upon himself, was separated from the Father and suffered the excruciating and shameful death of Roman crucifixion. In contrast, through Bhakti Hinduism, Krishna forgives sins at no great price to himself. There is thus no true redemption in the Bhakti system. Jesus Christ’s role in the salvation of his people came with incomparably greater involvement and cost than did the salvation offered by Krishna to his devotees.

Other Differences between Hinduism and Christianity

Following are two additional big-picture differences between Christianity and Hinduism.

Ultimate Reality (God)

Christianity: According to historic Christianity, God is an infinite, eternal, immutable, morally perfect, and tripersonal spiritual being (triune)—the transcendent Creator and sovereign Sustainer of all things. In the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity—the Son and Word—took on human nature and became the God-man. Historic Christianity’s God can be described in ways that do not violate logic. This traditional theological perspective carries broad explanatory power and scope for many realities about the world and human beings.

Hinduism: Because Hinduism reflects a set of religions, God or ultimate reality is viewed from very different theological perspectives: polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, and monotheism or monolatrism (see table 5.4). Some have suggested that all the gods are mere expressions of a single being who is either personal (monolatrism or theism) or impersonal (pantheism).

Table 5.4. Hinduism’s Complex Religious Belief System

Monotheism | Belief in one God | Bhakti Hinduism
Henotheism | Belief in one god without denying the existence of others | Rig Veda Hinduism
Monolatrism | Exclusive worship of one god without denying the existence of others | Bhakti Hinduism
Polytheism | Belief in many gods | Temple Hinduism
Pantheistic Monism | Belief that all reality is one and that one reality is god | Advaita Vedanta Hinduism

Bhakti Hinduism is a modified or functional monotheism, though monolatrism may be the better description. In some forms of Bhakti Hinduism (ISKCON), Krishna is viewed as the expression or fulfillment of all other deities. Hinduism’s morass of god views raises serious problems concerning logical coherence and has limited explanatory power and scope.

Human Nature and the Human Predicament

Christianity: Human beings were created in the image of God (as rational, moral, and spiritual beings) but misused their freedom to sin and need redemption in Christ. A Christian anthropology gives dignity to human beings via the imago Dei and possesses broad explanatory power by seeing human beings the way Christian thinker Blaise Pascal described them, as an enigmatic combination of greatness and wretchedness.29

Hinduism: Again, Hinduism’s multiple religious ideas present differing views on the exact nature of human beings (creatures or god). Are people really created human beings, or is god suffering from amnesia? A human being’s basic problem is ignorance, and thus a person faces a possible never-ending cycle of rebirths (reincarnation). However, there are multiple ways of reaching salvation (or liberation), which is called moksha.

In Bhakti Hinduism, people worship a single deity in hope of being delivered or saved in an eternal relationship with their god. However, as noted previously, Bhakti Hindus and Christians differ on a number of critical issues concerning just how this salvation takes place. Because Hinduism consists of multiple religions, it is difficult to categorize. Table 5.5 reflects some of the diversity of the worldviews of Hinduism and of Christianity.

Table 5.5. Worldview Differences between Hinduism and Christianity

| Hinduism | Christianity
Cosmos | Divine or illusory | Created ex nihilo, contingent
Ultimate Reality (God) | Multiple god views | Trinitarian theism
History | Cyclical and mystical | Linear and factual
Human Beings | Creature or god | Creature, imago Dei
Human Predicament | Ignorance, karmic debt | Sinful rebellion
Solution | Moksha, devotion | Salvation
Death | Reincarnation | With God or excluded from his presence
Final State | Moksha | Heaven or hell

Suggestions for Evangelistic Encounters with Bhakti Hindus

Most Hindus pursue Bhakti Hinduism with its emphasis on devotion to a single god over the Vedanta approach, which stresses pantheism. That being the case, what follows focuses on an encounter with a Bhakti Hindu.

Emphasize Common Ground

Acknowledge and affirm that both Bhakti Hindus and Christians are devoted to a single God. Bhakti Hindus and Christians agree that human beings have a deep desire to know and love God and in turn to have God know and love them. Both sides also believe that a relationship with God should take priority in one’s life. Explain to your Hindu friend that Christians have a great God and Savior in the person of Jesus Christ, who did great things for us in his life, death, and resurrection. Also explain that Christians believe in and receive Jesus into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9–11). Share Scripture with your Hindu friend, especially passages that speak of Christ as the Lord and Savior who saves his people solely by grace (see below).

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. (Titus 2:11–14)

Explain What Jesus Christ Did as the Savior

In dialogue with a Bhakti Hindu, explain that through Jesus Christ’s perfect life, sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection from the dead he accomplished salvation. Thus, when a person trusts in Jesus and in what he did on the cross and in his rising from the tomb, the believer receives salvation as a gift. The believer in Christ can possess an assurance of salvation. Emphasize the depth of the gift of salvation that Jesus Christ achieved for those who believe in him. Ephesians 2:4–5 says, “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.”

Emphasize the Supremacy of Jesus Christ as the Ultimate Lord

Talk with your Hindu friend about Jesus Christ’s ultimate lordship and how that lordship places him above all other religious figures, including Krishna.

The New Testament writers used “Lord” (Greek: kyrios) in place of the name Yahweh, often inferring that name’s meaning in context by calling Jesus Lord (Rom. 10:11–13; Phil. 2:9–10). The lordship of Christ therefore implies that Jesus is Yahweh, and he is recognized as Creator, Sustainer, and sovereign Ruler over all things.

Christ’s unique claim to be the Lord means that he possesses the prerogatives of deity and can engage in actions reserved exclusively for God. Christ forgives sins, hears and answers prayer, receives worship, claims power over life and death, and holds the authority to judge humanity. According to the Old Testament, only God can perform such actions.

Proclaiming “Jesus is Lord” not only acknowledges his deity but also grants him absolute supremacy in and over all things, including the physical universe, the unseen spiritual realm, human history, the church, and one’s individual life and death. Jesus’s lordship does not mean he is one Lord among many. Rather, he is Lord to the exclusion of all others who make such claims, including pagan deities, Rome’s caesars, secular authorities, Satan, and even Krishna (Rom. 10:12–13; 1 Tim. 6:15).

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (Rom. 10:9–11)

Emphasize Jesus Christ as the Ultimate Savior of Grace

Christianity affirms that salvation comes by God’s grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus Christ’s unique life, death, and resurrection. Thus, it is God’s benevolence that secures salvation. This undeserved blessing is freely bestowed on human beings. God’s grace stands as the true, abiding, and unearned cause of human salvation.

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4–7)

Table 5.6. Comparison of Bhakti Hinduism and Christianity

| Bhakti Hinduism | Christianity
Problem | Karmic debt | Sin (rebellion)
Need | Moksha | Reconciliation
Solution | Devotion | Faith and repentance
Goal | Attachment to god | Personal redemption
Assurance | No | Yes

Hinduism is a complex set of religions. Of all the Hindu varieties, Bhakti Hinduism is the most like historic Christianity, but that comparison must be viewed in context. When Krishna, as a historical person, is compared to Christ, it is clear who is more like what one would expect God in human flesh to be.

Further Suggested Reading

Knott, Kim. Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World’s Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

Hindu Sources

The Bhagavad Gita. Translated by Juan Mascaró. London: Penguin, 1962.

Vanamali, Mataji Devi. The Complete Life of Krishna: Based on the Earliest Oral Traditions and the Sacred Scriptures. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2012.

Christian Sources

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Purtill, Richard L. Thinking about Religion: A Philosophical Introduction to Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Yamamoto, J. Isamu. Hinduism, TM, and Hare Krishna. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Discussion Questions

What are the three stages of Krishna’s life, and what do they reveal about him?

What is an avatar, and how does Krishna function in this role?

How is Jesus’s incarnation different from the Hindu concept of an avatar?

Regarding Jesus and Krishna, who acts more like what you would expect if God were to come in the flesh? Explain your answer.

What are the most significant ways in which Jesus differs from Krishna?

6
The Buddha (Gautama) and the Christ

Buddhism is a faith of taking refuge; the one who wishes to become a Buddhist has to declare:

I take refuge in the Buddha (the Enlightened one)

I take refuge in the Dhamma [dharma] (the teaching)

I take refuge in the Sangha (the community).

Quite clearly a parallel declaration could be worked out for the novice in the Christian faith:

I take refuge in the Christ (the light of the world)

I take refuge in the Gospel (the sacred teaching)

I take refuge in the fellowship (the body of Christ the Lord).

The first triad is a summary of what it means to be a Buddhist. The second forms a surprisingly complete summary of what it means to be a Christian.

Stephen Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus

Among the world’s great religious leaders, only two had such a profound impact that contemporaries apparently inquired into the very nature of their being.1 People wondered whether Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) and Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) were more than mere human beings. Both lived extraordinary lives, and both offered intriguing answers to life’s deepest questions. Yet while both are known as great teachers and profound souls, the identities, missions, and messages of these two men could not be more different.

Let’s learn about the life and accomplishments of the one known as the Buddha2 (literally, “the Enlightened One” or “the Awakened One”). Then we can compare and contrast the Buddha with the one Christians call the Christ (“the Anointed One” or “the Messiah”).

The Buddha (Gautama)

Like Christianity, the religion of Buddhism is traced to a single individual. That person is Siddhārtha Gautama, who according to tradition lived in the sixth century BC. While mixtures of myth and legend make it impossible to completely reconstruct the life of the Buddha, a historical core of information is reliably known about him.3 Yet it should be recognized that in relaying the “historic account” about Buddha, mythical stories are sometimes used to communicate accepted Buddhist truths.

Siddhārtha was born into the Indian Sakyas clan that was part of the ruling and warrior (Kshatriya) caste of ancient India. His birthplace was in the town of Kapilavastu, which at the time was in northeastern India but is now in Nepal, near the border of India. Siddhārtha’s mother, Maya, died just a few days after his birth. His father, Suddhodana, was the feudal lord of the Sakyas people. As the story goes, fortune-tellers informed Suddhodana that his son was destined to be either a great ruler or a great monk. As a result, Suddhodana intentionally sheltered his son, hoping to influence his destiny so that he would follow in his family’s footsteps.

Siddhārtha enjoyed a life of luxury and privilege. He received a cultured education that included studies in the arts, warfare, and philosophy. Siddhārtha was a handsome young man, and at nineteen years old he married a neighboring princess named Yashodhara. The couple had a son together named Rahula. Siddhārtha was a man who therefore enjoyed wealth, prestige, social standing, inheritance, and strong family connections. Seemingly having everything, Siddhārtha nevertheless would grow discontented with his life of affluence and ease.

Turning Point 1: Renunciation

Siddhārtha’s father continued to shelter his son by removing from his vision any evidence of the harsh realities of life in terms of sorrow and suffering. However, while taking impromptu chariot rides into the city, Siddhārtha encountered what became known as the Four Passing Sights: an old man, a diseased man, a dead man, and a monk who was dressed in a robe, had a shaved head, and was holding a beggar’s bowl. These sights were Siddhārtha’s first glimpses of human misery, and they profoundly affected him. For the first time, he began to reflect on the problem of suffering. He realized that the life he was leading, as well as all life, inevitably ends in death and decay. He could think of little else as he walked around the palace where he lived.

At age twenty-nine, he abruptly renounced the pleasures of the princely life, mounted his favorite horse, and rode away into the forest in pursuit of a life of austerity, leaving his family and privileged position behind. His hope was that he would discover the truth of the universal human dilemma. He was determined to uncover the causes and cure of the universal mystery of human suffering and find permanence in a world of relentless change.

Siddhārtha’s search for enlightenment lasted six or seven years and moved through three phases. First, he studied Hindu philosophy and meditation from the Indian yogis. Second, he encountered some wandering monks and adopted their extreme form of asceticism (self-denial). His attempt at self-mortification included living on a single grain of rice a day. Nearly starving himself to death, he found asceticism no more revealing than his former life of affluence. Third, now fatigued and desperate for genuine enlightenment, he sat in the lotus position before the Bodhi (wisdom) tree in meditation at a place now called Bodh Gaya (a site today of Buddhist pilgrimage in India). He decided he would remain in this “immovable spot” until he was enlightened or died of starvation.

Turning Point 2: Enlightenment

In this position of meditation, Siddhārtha began experiencing spiritual warfare. In order to break his meditative concentration and prevent him from attaining a higher state, Mara (called “the evil one”) used various means of temptation and assault, yet to no avail, for on the forty-ninth day, Siddhārtha Gautama experienced the ultimate transformation of consciousness (nirvana) and became the Buddha—“the Enlightened One” or “the Awakened One.” The groping-in-the-dark pilgrim Siddhārtha Gautama had ceased to be, for he had awoken from his meditation as the Buddha. The Buddha lived another forty-five years after his enlightenment, so nirvana was for him a present state of consciousness.

Nirvana, a challenging concept to comprehend, is nevertheless the supreme goal of Buddhism, for it breaks the cycle of rebirths (reincarnation). Buddhists consider nirvana to be the only permanent reality. Table 6.1 offers a number of descriptions and characteristics of nirvana.

Table 6.1. Descriptions and Characteristics of Nirvana

permanent | deathless | happiness
stable | unborn | secure refuge
imperishable | unbecoming | the shelter
immovable | powerful | unassailable safety
ageless | bliss | real truth
the good | supreme reality | incomprehensible peace
Source: Adapted from Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 77.

The word nirvana literally means “blowing out” the flame of passion (so human desires or attachments are eliminated). Understood as a type of extinction (nothingness, the void), nirvana is a continuation of consciousness in a present mystical state. Yet nirvana is not a separate dimension of reality or even a future state of consciousness but rather a mental state that can be attained in this present life (just as the Buddha did).

Christian specialist on Eastern religions Jerry Yamamoto helps clarify the experience of nirvana:

For Buddhists, nirvana is not the extinction of self, since there is no self or soul to annihilate. Rather it is the annihilation of the illusion or false idea of self. In order to achieve nirvana, one must eliminate the main root of dukkha (“suffering”), which is tanha (“craving”). When craving is totally extinguished, nirodha [nirvana] occurs.4

World religions scholar Winfried Corduan notes, “Nirvana is not being with Buddha, but is a state in which everything that you have associated with your personhood up to now no longer exists. Many Buddhists insist that it is not synonymous with ‘nothingness,’ but it is certainly not something to which actual words can be applied in a meaningful way.”5

Turning Point 3: Wisdom and Compassion

Another defining moment in the life of the Buddha relates to the decision he made after experiencing enlightenment. He could have retreated from human contact with his newfound knowledge of nirvana. Instead, the Buddha chose to share his knowledge with others via his teachings. This concern for the unenlightened reflects a genuine sense of compassion on the Buddha’s part. Yamamoto notes, “Thus the Buddha established the Buddhist faith both on his wisdom and compassion.”6

According to the Buddha, who was now awakened, this enlightened state allowed him to understand the causes of and solution to the human cycle of suffering and the impermanent nature of all things. The Buddha’s first sermon took place at Deer Park, near the city of Benares in northern India, where he began to unpack his core teachings, known as the Four Noble Truths.7

The Buddha’s Teachings

The Four Noble Truths

The First Noble Truth asserts that the true nature of existence is suffering (dukkha) and that this misery is especially reflected in life’s most vulnerable moments of birth, illness, old age, and death.

The Second Noble Truth declares that suffering is rooted in desire or craving or attachment (tanha), especially for private fulfillment, to things that are ever changing and transitory in nature (anicca).

The Third Noble Truth insists that liberation (or cessation) from suffering comes through abolishing desire or attachment to the ephemeral. In other words, when the desire stops, the suffering stops.

The Fourth Noble Truth proclaims that following the Noble Eightfold Path can eliminate desire or attachment and thus put an end to suffering. Table 6.2 summarizes the Four Noble Truths.

Table 6.2. The Four Noble Truths

| Definition | Description
First Noble Truth | The universality of suffering | To live is to suffer.
Second Noble Truth | The source of suffering | Suffering is caused by desire or attachment.
Third Noble Truth | The overcoming of suffering | To eliminate suffering one must eliminate desire or attachment.
Fourth Noble Truth | The cessation of suffering | One can eliminate desire or attachment by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Buddha is often commended for his careful abductive reasoning as he approached the problematic human condition like that of a medical diagnostician. He first noted and examined the symptoms (universal state of human suffering). He then proceeded to form a diagnosis (suffering is rooted in human desire or attachment). Next, he offered a hopeful prognosis (desire or attachment can be eliminated). And finally, he prescribed a treatment that can lead to a cure (a course of training found in the Noble Eightfold Path).8

The Noble Eightfold Path

Pursuing the cessation of suffering through the Noble Eightfold Path represents what is called the Middle Path. It avoids the unsuccessful extremes that Siddhārtha Gautama followed in pursuit of fulfillment prior to his enlightenment. Those two extremes are affluence (pleasure through abundance) and extreme asceticism (stark self-denial).

Stopping desire or attachment comes via concentrated, full-time effort that, in effect, is preparation for nirvana. The eight principles are not successive but rather reflect a complete way of life. The Noble Eightfold Path (summarized in table 6.3) consists of a philosophical, moral, and disciplinary development leading to enlightenment or liberation (to a fully transformed consciousness). As Corduan describes the Noble Eightfold Path, “Buddhism is a religion that combines moral earnestness with deep philosophical speculation.”9

Table 6.3 categorizes and explains the Noble Eightfold Path.

Table 6.3. The Noble Eightfold Path

Wisdom | The first two steps call for philosophical reflection about the human condition and involve conceptualizing the goal of liberation.
1. Right understanding | The Four Noble Truths provide an overall philosophical game plan for approaching liberation.
2. Right thought | A single-minded focus on liberation is necessary.
Ethical Conduct | These three steps require a change in personal ethical conduct.
3. Right speech | Words need to reflect truth and charity.
4. Right action | The Five Precepts prohibit killing, stealing, lying, sexual promiscuity, and use of intoxicants. (These precepts reflect the Buddhist version of the moral elements of the Ten Commandments.)
5. Right livelihood | There is a need to choose a vocation that is consistent with the Buddhist world-and-life view.
Mental Discipline | The final three steps demand strong mental discipline.
6. Right effort | Liberation requires maximum moral exertion.
7. Right mindfulness | Ultimately, we are what we think.
8. Right concentration | Meditation is absolutely essential to achieve liberation or enlightenment.

What Was the Buddha Like?

After achieving nirvana, the Buddha conducted a forty-five-year missionary career of seeking to convert people to his religion of mystical enlightenment. While his early attempts at spreading the message did not bring much success, the Buddha was ultimately able to draw a significant and dedicated following. Converts to the religion included the monks who traveled with him before enlightenment as well as family members such as his wife, son, and stepmother. He died at about eighty years of age. His last words were, “Behold now brethren, I exhort you, saying, ‘Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your salvation with diligence!’”10

World religions scholar Huston Smith describes the Buddha as having that rare mixture of “a cool head and a warm heart.”11 Smith also views the Buddha as one of the great rationalists who was given to “cool, dispassionate analysis.”12 Yamamoto says that many people were attracted to the Buddha, “who was calm, reasonable, gentle, and who possessed a sense of humor.”13 Smith says that reading the accounts about the Buddha led him to conclude that the Buddha was “one of the greatest personalities of all time.”14 Yet most scholars, including Buddhists, would say that the Buddha saw himself as an enlightened sage but also as merely a human being. The Buddha was aware of his imperfections as a human being and did not attempt to “conceal his temptations and weaknesses.”15

The Buddha was a significant reformer of society and rejected India’s discriminatory caste system as unjust. He opened the Sangha (Buddhist community) to individuals of all castes, an act that showed great independence from traditional Indian society and was evidence of the Buddha’s bold rejection of certain religious distinctives of the Hindu religion.

Though reluctant at first to allow women to be part of the Sangha, the Buddha later relented and allowed women to join the community and to serve as Buddhist nuns. Yet he set up strict rules that placed the nuns under the direct authority of the male monks. Yamamoto offers an assessment of the Buddha’s view of women:

Heated debate currently rages in Buddhist circles over the Buddha’s teaching concerning women in the Sangha. Certainly women had great difficulty being accepted into the Buddhist community. Some say the Buddha was deeply suspicious of women: since he taught against the physical temptations of the world, he must also have denounced the sensual attraction that women exercise on men. Therefore, the Buddha continually warned his disciples against the sinister guile of women.16

Although people believe the Buddha had a low view of women, to be fair, given the ancient culture of India, the Buddha’s decision to accept different social classes, including women, in the Sangha was extraordinary. Due to these reforms and important differences in philosophical beliefs between Buddhism and Hinduism, Buddhism emerged as a dynamic religious alternative to the traditional religion of Hinduism.

The Buddha and the Christ

As previously mentioned, the title Buddha means one who has awakened from an illusory state of consciousness. The title Christ is Greek for the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning “the Anointed One”—the special one who would do God’s bidding. Let’s briefly compare the Buddha and the Christ by focusing on eight important areas.

History

The historic life of the Buddha is wrapped in legend and evolving speculation. While there is certainly a legitimate core of historic information about his life, written records about the Buddha’s actions and teachings emerged four centuries after his death.17 And though the oral tradition present in early Buddhism could be trusted to preserve much of what the Buddha genuinely accomplished and taught, the excessive time span between when the Buddha lived and when the written records emerged causes problems. For example, this lengthy period between historic event and written record allowed schisms to arise in the Sangha about the specific details of the Buddha’s teachings. Yet we should note that as an Eastern mystical religion, Buddhism is less concerned about historical chronology than are the biblical religions of Judaism and Christianity.

Jesus Christ is a historical figure whose life, death, and resurrection are rooted in facts of history (Luke 2:1–7). And as explored in chapter 4, the time span between when Christ died and when the first eyewitness writings appeared is two to three decades. This is an amazingly brief period of time, especially when compared to that of the Buddha (see table 6.4).

Table 6.4. Historical Time Span Comparison: The Buddha and the Christ

The Buddha: Time from Death to Earliest Writings
The Christ: Time from Death to Earliest Writings

The Buddha’s death: c. 483 BCa
Jesus Christ’s death: AD 30b

Pali Canon: AD 29
Paul’s earliest letter: AD 48

Buddhacarit (biography of the Buddha): AD 200
Earliest Gospel: AD 55–65

The time between the Buddha’s death and the earliest recorded writings about his life and teachings is between 512 and 683 years.
The time between Jesus Christ’s death and the earliest recorded writings about his life and teachings is between 18 and 35 years.

aThe Buddha’s traditional dates are c. 563–483 BC.

bI am going to use AD 30 as the date for Jesus Christ’s death, but many scholars believe Jesus died in AD 33. See Yamauchi, “Jesus outside the New Testament,” 215.

The historical basis for the Buddha is far less secure than it is for Christ. And in addition to this data, a controversy exists concerning in which century the Buddha actually lived. Christian scholars Keith Yandell and Harold Netland explain:

Scholars are not agreed even about the century in which he lived. Dates of his birth range from 624 BC to 446 BC. Western scholars traditionally adopt the dates 563–483 BC for the Buddha’s life. . . . Recently, however, many scholars have begun to place his life in the fifth century BC, with the Japanese scholars Hakuju Ui and Hajime Nakamura accepting the dates 466–386 BC.18

In the case of Jesus Christ, scholars are not exactly sure when he was born (with dates typically ranging between 7 BC and 4 BC) or what year he was crucified (with dates typically ranging between AD 28 and AD 34). However, many scholars believe Jesus Christ was born in 5–4 BC and died in either AD 30 or AD 33.

Dates for the Buddha’s birth and death vary by a couple of centuries. In contrast, dates for the birth and death of Jesus Christ vary by just a couple of years. Similarly, the first writings about the Buddha appeared a few centuries after his death. But in the case of Jesus Christ, the first writings appeared a few decades after his death.

The case is clear. Evidence allows most scholars to be confident about the historicity of Jesus Christ. However, the little evidence about the Buddha’s life leads scholars to be far less confident of the historicity of his life.

Nature

Though the Buddha apparently achieved an awakened and enlightened state of consciousness, he was merely a human being and did not consider the question of God to be relevant because in his mind it was not directly connected to the issue of liberation from suffering. Later, more speculative branches of Buddhism deified the Buddha, but in the earliest sources, he is human.

In the case of Jesus Christ, the situation is very different. The New Testament Gospels reveal a person who claimed to be both God and human (John 8:58–59; according to Christianity’s creed, a single person with both a divine and a human nature). Also, Jesus claimed to do the things that only God can do.

Character

The Buddha, even with an enlightened consciousness, had moral weaknesses and limitations. Part of the Buddha’s appeal was that he was honest about his imperfections. Though arguably one of the world’s most extraordinary people, he was, in his mere humanity, flawed.

Christ, on the other hand, according to all accounts, was morally perfect. He made the seemingly outrageous claim that he always fulfilled God the Father’s will: “I always do what pleases him” (John 8:29). Even certain opponents of Christ viewed him as ethically faultless. So while Jesus was fully human, he had no fallen nature and thus no sin and no brokenness that accompany a sinful nature.

Mission

The Buddha’s mission was to help others achieve nirvana. He offered all the wisdom and compassion he could muster, and he pursued his goal with great determination and zeal. Buddhism learned to be a missionary religion from its zealous founder.

Christ’s mission was to rescue sinners by providing a sacrifice for sin on the cross. Jesus Christ came into the world specifically to purchase redemption for lost sinners. His life, death, and resurrection form the gospel message that Christians spread around the world.

Role

The Buddha himself is not essential to the core of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths constitute the heart of the Buddhist philosophy. The Buddha serves in the valuable roles of example, inspirer, and teacher. But the truths of Buddhism stand independent of the pathfinder.

On the other hand, historic Christianity is all about Christ—emphasizing his person, nature, life, death, and resurrection. Jesus Christ reconciles God and humanity because he is both God and human. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6) and therefore the very essence of the faith.

State

The Buddha died and remained dead. His body was cremated and his ashes spread about. Primitive Buddhism contained no belief that the Buddha would meet his followers somewhere beyond the grave. Reincarnation in the Buddhist system is definitely not belief in a bodily resurrection.

In conquering death through his bodily resurrection, Jesus Christ stands supreme in comparison to all other prophets and sages. Jesus Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead three days after his death on the cross is the heart of the Christian gospel. Apologists throughout the centuries have reasoned from five basic strands of evidence that attest to the historical and factual nature of Jesus’s resurrection: (1) the empty tomb, (2) postcrucifixion appearances, (3) the apostles’ transformation, (4) the emergence of the Christian church, and (5) the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as a day of worship.

Life

The Buddha’s message is world and life denying. Nothing in the world or in life, including the self, has any enduring substance. Everything is characterized by transience and flux. Thus, the Buddhist worldview encourages passive indifference with regard to the world and life.19

Christ’s message is world and life affirming. The divinely created world is real and good, and human life, by means of reflecting the imago Dei (“image of God”), is filled with meaning and hope. Thus, the Christian worldview encourages an active participation with regard to the world and life.

Future

In response to human suffering, the Buddha offers too many (perhaps a billion) lives of still more suffering in ignorance and deception through reincarnation. The only hope is extinction and the void (nirvana) for those who eliminate suffering through disciplined resignation. There is no permanent self, and there is no world where all the injustices of life have been corrected and humans find lasting love and fulfillment. Even if a person achieves nirvana, there is not an enduring “I” or individual to finally and forever grasp stability and see authentic desire fulfilled. Buddhism seems long on discipline but short on hope.

In response to humanity’s greatest suffering (being separated from God because of sin), Christ offers forgiveness of sin, resurrection for the dead, and eternal life with God in the age to come. In the eschaton (final end of history), all injustices will be made right and God’s children will see the face of God and enjoy his presence in a world that will never end. With evil and suffering finally and forever removed, believers will enjoy the God they were made to know and love and be fulfilled in (Rev. 21:1–5).

Table 6.5. Comparison of the Buddha and the Christ

| The Buddha | The Christ
History | Wrapped in legend and evolving speculation | Rooted in facts of history
Nature | Merely human | God incarnate
Character | Morally imperfect | Morally perfect
Mission | Lead others to nirvana | Redeem sinners
Role | Enlightened teacher | Lord and Savior
State | Dead | Resurrected
Life | World and life denying | World and life affirming
Future | No permanent self and no world of justice | Eternal life with God

Yandell and Netland conclude, “The Buddha or the Christ? The dharma or the gospel? These are not simply variations on a common theme, or different ways of expressing the same spiritual insight. The choice here is between two radically different perspectives on reality, on the nature of the human predicament, and the way to overcome it.”20

Some people find profound parallels between the lives of the Buddha and the Christ21 (both started their ministries at roughly age thirty, both taught in parables, both were tempted by evil forces to abandon their mission, both appealed to similar moral principles, etc.), but in reality, their characters, claims, and credentials are fundamentally different. Jesus Christ presents a vision of life and reality that is both far different from and far superior to that of the Buddha.

As Buddhism evolved over the years to include other branches or denominations, perspectives on the nature and attributes of the Buddha evolved as well. To advance an understanding of how the Buddha is viewed by successive Buddhist schools, we now look briefly at what is known as Buddhology.

Buddhology

Paralleling Christology, the term Buddhology refers to the study of the Buddha’s nature and attributes. As Buddhism grew rapidly in numbers, its theological views on the nature of the Buddha himself evolved. As a result, the simple Buddhology of the early Theravada schools gave way to a much more complex and speculative perspective in the later Mahayana schools.

Theravada’s Vision of the Buddha

Reflecting the earliest schools of Buddhism, Theravada is nonspeculative in nature. That is, primitive Buddhism minimizes metaphysics (beliefs about the supernatural). So the one historical Buddha (Siddhārtha Gautama, also called Shakyamuni—the wise man, or sage, of the Shakya clan) is merely a human being and therefore offers no assistance as a god in terms of helping people find liberation. Experiencing nirvana is exclusively reserved for the highly dedicated religious saints or monks (arhats). Therefore, Theravada is known as the “little raft” (i.e., the small vehicle that accommodates the selective few in the journey to liberation or enlightenment). The Buddha is viewed as a saint (a perfected human) and as the supreme teacher and guide to the path of liberation. The scriptural authority is found in the authentic teachings of the Buddha that are reflected in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka). Thus, Theravada Buddhism places unique emphasis on the specific teachings of the Buddha.

Mahayana’s Vision of the Buddha

Emerging later, Mahayana evolved as a new and distinct Buddhist movement that reflects various and diverse viewpoints. In many ways, Mahayana is a contrast to what came earlier in Buddhism’s history. Mahayana is highly speculative—with belief in many simultaneously existing Buddhas and bodhisattvas (beings who have attained enlightenment but delay nirvana for themselves with the goal of helping others find liberation). Mahayana’s elaborate metaphysics is seen in the deification of the Buddha and the belief that all sentient beings can achieve Buddhahood (deity). Thus, Mahayana is known as the “big raft” (i.e., the large vehicle that is able to accommodate even laypeople in the journey to liberation). This form of Buddhism emphasizes the Buddha’s life and example and views him as a type of savior. The scriptural authority is found in the sutras that were composed five hundred years after the Buddha’s death. So instead of connecting authority to the Buddha’s historic teachings, this form of Buddhism connects authority to whatever is useful in helping a person move toward enlightenment.

The Trikaya Doctrine

Theological perspectives on the Buddha’s nature grew in philosophical complexity within Mahayana Buddhism. Over time, the Yogacara school (within Mahayana) developed the teaching of Trikaya (“three bodies” or states of existence of the Buddha). Considered the heart of Mahayana Buddhism, this evolved form of Buddhism describes three bodies or phases of the Buddha’s being. Trikaya represents the high point of Buddhology, and it emerged in its present form in the fourth century AD. These three bodies or states of the Buddha are complex and thus challenging to understand.

1. The Historical Buddha: Nirmanakaya (“Created Body”). This body, which appears within the time-space world, is physical, temporary, and decomposable. Typically, this body or phase of existence denotes the historical Buddha (Gautama or Shakyamuni), whose material existence was in the world and who attained enlightenment while on earth. Shakyamuni is considered the last recorded Buddha.

2. The Eternal Buddha: Sambhogakaya (“Mutual Enjoyment Body”). This body is the symbolic or archetypal manifestation of the Buddha. This represents the Buddha as fully enlightened (the ideal Buddha). This blissful body is free from desire and attachment but is nonetheless temporary, for according to Buddhism, there is no permanent world (anicca) to contain permanent entities. This body or stage represents the potential of all beings to attain enlightenment.

3. The Universal Buddha: Dharmakaya (“Reality Body”). This body constitutes the unmanifested aspect of the Buddha. It reflects the very principle of enlightenment and thus has no limitations or boundaries. It is the true, spiritual body of the Buddha that extends beyond rational and finite categories.

It is evident that Mahayana Buddhism transformed the mere human Buddha of the primitive Theravada school into a being of a fundamentally different category. The differences in belief among the various branches of Buddhism are profound, and they extend beyond the differences found among the various denominations within Christendom.22

Table 6.6 offers a comparison between the Theravada schools and the Mahayana schools on important concepts in Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism is especially diverse, and therefore the table reflects a schema or model.

Table 6.6. Two Major Branches of Buddhism

| Theravada Buddhism | Mahayana Buddhism
Known As | “Little raft” | “Big raft”
Buddhist Tradition | The way of the elders (original, primitive Buddhism) | The way of the people (evolved Buddhism)
Relation to the Buddha | Follow explicit teachings of the Buddha | Follow the Buddha’s life and example
Focus | Individual (alone) | Community (with help)
Number of Buddhas | One human Buddha (without gods) | Many Buddhas (Buddha essence)
Attribute | Wisdom | Compassion
Group | Sangha (monastic order) | Laypeople (priests sometimes marry)
Ideal | Arhat (concentrate on enlightenment) | Bodhisattva (compassion for the unenlightened)
Nature of the Buddha | Saint, supreme teacher | Savior
Metaphysics | Minimizes metaphysics | Elaborates metaphysics
Ritual | Minimizes ritual | Emphasizes ritual
Practice | Centered on meditation | Includes petitionary prayer
Geographical Focus | Southern countries: Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand | Northern countries: mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam
Canon | Closed canon: Tripitaka (Pali Canon) | Open canon: sutras

This brief exploration of the life and events of the historical Buddha along with an understanding of the development of the more evolved forms of Buddhism shapes the basis for examining Buddhist philosophy in more general terms. What follows reveals both its positive and negative features.

Reflections on Buddhism

It is challenging to come away with a distinct view of the historical Buddha (Gautama or Shakyamuni), but what we do know about him as a man makes him one of the most reflective, honest, and inspirational of the world’s religious leaders examined in this book. The Buddha had a strong philosophical mind and sought answers to the big questions of life. With that strength of mind and character, it is not surprising that he drew many people to his philosophy of life.

Strengths of the Original Buddhist Philosophy

The original Buddhist model, as seen in the Theravada tradition, made a number of insightful philosophical discoveries. Here are two.

First, the Buddhist recognition of the significance of suffering in life is a meaningful insight. Yamamoto explains, “Whereas all religions have something to say about human suffering, this issue is central to all Buddhist philosophies.”23 Of all the world’s major religions, Buddhism and Christianity give the challenge of suffering a central focus. Thus, the Buddha’s diagnosis that life is filled with suffering strikes a deep existential chord as a philosophical-religious worldview.

Second, the recognition that temporal, impermanent realities do not satisfy human beings existentially and spiritually is something that all people, and especially Christians, can affirm. Christians, however, do not appeal to the same metaphysical reasons that Buddhists appeal to for justification.

Buddhism’s Common Ground with Christianity

As noted earlier, Buddhism and Christianity share some similar moral principles, though the two religions ground their ethics in vastly different views of ultimate reality. Buddhism accepts many of the moral prohibitions found in the Old Testament Ten Commandments (with some important differences):

No killing (of any kind, as opposed to no murder in the Ten Commandments)

No stealing

No immoral sexual behavior

No lying

No intoxicants (intoxicants are not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, but the Old Testament condemns their excessive use)

Buddhism and Christianity also affirm that spiritual disciplines hold great value for those who practice them, although again those spiritual practices are based on fundamentally different views of the nature of reality. Here are some of those mutually respected observances:

Seeking a moral life

Self-discipline

Meditation (however, this practice means something radically different in Buddhism than it does in the Bible)

Compassion

Having noted some positive features of Buddhism and some common ground it shares with Christianity, we will now look at three Buddhist ideas that clash with the Christian faith.

A Christian Response to Three Buddhist Claims

According to Buddhism, three features characterize the world and therefore the human condition within:

Dukkha: All life is suffering, and human beings bring it upon themselves through desire or attachment.

Anicca: Everything is impermanent; therefore without substantial realities, everything is in a constant state of change and flux.

Anatta: Human beings lack a permanent, continuous self or soul.

Dukkha (All Life Is Suffering)

At least five points can be made in offering a Christian, theistic response to the Buddhist idea of dukkha.

First, it is true there is much suffering in the world, but there is also an extraordinary amount of joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment to be had in life. Thus, the negative side of suffering needs to be properly balanced with the (arguably greater) experience of blessing and contentment.

Second, often suffering is defined as the absence of such positive experiences as happiness, pleasure, and joy. So suffering seems to affirm the reality of a positive state with which it is contrasted.

Third, not all suffering experienced by a person is caused by the self. In many instances, people are innocent victims of suffering (abuse, crime, persecution, natural disasters, etc.).

Fourth, while significant suffering is never easy or desirable, it frequently produces moral and spiritual character in the sufferer. Suffering often carries with it outcomes for the greater good.

Fifth, not all human desire or attachment leads to suffering. Many good and noble things in life and in the world are worthy of human desire and investment and produce positive spiritual, intellectual, and physical results.

According to the Christian gospel and worldview, God uses suffering to bring about good things in the lives of believers, and in fact God promises to work all things for the good of those who love him (Rom. 8:28). The greatest good for human beings resulted from the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross, through which a permanent atonement for human sin was made (1 Pet. 3:18). Also, God promises to comfort those individuals who suffer (2 Cor. 1:3–5) and will one day put an end to the suffering of his people (Rev. 21:3–4).

How might thoughtful Buddhists react to this historic Christian response? They might reply that the abhorrence of suffering in the Buddha’s teachings only comes out completely when placed into the context of samsara (the virtually endless cycle of birth, misery, and death caused by negative karma; see table 6.7 for the definition of karma).24 Given Buddhism’s belief in the potential of billions of human lifetimes, Buddhists could say that the superficial consolations offered by Christians no longer remain meaningful. However, Christians could point out that the Buddhist impersonal system of karma-samsara lacks the personal-moral qualities to provide the necessary consolations that are uniquely offered by the Triune God of the Bible. For example, Buddhists don’t affirm a personal God and may not know what they did wrong in a previous life.

In evaluating these two competing religious systems, it appears that the Christian world-and-life view is both more practical and more hopeful in responding to the formidable challenge of human suffering.

Table 6.7. What Is Karma?

The word karma means “doing, deeds, action, or work.”

The law of karma refers to a cosmic principle of justice.

The effects of a person’s actions, both good and bad, follow a person from one lifetime to the next.

Anicca (Everything Is Impermanent, Changing, and in Flux)

The Buddhist teaching that everything is impermanent and undergoes constant change and flux is, when applied broadly, logically inconsistent with other Buddhist truths, which are said to be permanent and unchangeable. Let’s look at three examples.

First, the principle of anicca conflicts with the principle of dukkha:

Life is impermanent (anicca). Life is suffering (dukkha).

The logical problem is that anicca applies to dukkha; thus, not even suffering is permanent.25

Second, the principle of anicca conflicts with the principle of enlightenment:

Everything is impermanent (anicca). The enlightened state is permanent (nirvana).

The logical problem is that everything changes and not everything changes.

Third, the principle of anicca conflicts with the principles of the Noble Eightfold Path:

Nothing is enduring (anicca). Certain principles are enduring (the Noble Eightfold Path).26

The logical problem is that nothing endures and yet something endures.

Buddhist thinkers may attempt to qualify these terms in order to avoid logical conflict. But Buddhism’s core teachings, when analyzed broadly and carefully, seem to be at least in conflict if not self-referentially absurd.27

The Christian worldview, on the other hand, affirms that God’s being, personhood, and attributes are immutable and eternal (Mal. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:17). And even though the entire created realm is contingent (dependent), it is sustained by God’s eternal power (Col. 1:17).

Anatta (Human Beings Lack a Self or Soul)

Consider two points.

First, anatta (no soul) seems inconsistent with nirvana (the enlightened state). Here again Yamamoto delivers cogency: “A human being, however, cannot be without a soul, self, or ego and still enjoy the sensations that accompany nirvana.”28

Second, Buddhism asserts that no soul is passed on to the next life through reincarnation. Rather, five aggregates (material form, feeling, perception, dispositions, and consciousness) pass through to the next life.29 However, the five aggregates seem to reflect the particular operations of the human soul as described in the Bible. Human beings were created to form a body-soul dualism (Gen. 2:7). The Old Testament Hebrew word for soul (nephesh) and the New Testament Greek word for soul (psyche) both convey the inner person and the life principle within human beings.

Let’s now examine some broader areas where the Buddhist and Christian worldviews differ.

Buddhist and Christian Cosmologies

If the religions of the world make claims about the origin, nature, and structure of the time-space world, then science can serve as a powerful tool to test the veracity of those claims. In light of this, we can examine what Buddhism and Christianity affirm about the cosmos.

Buddhist Cosmology

The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) is the spiritual leader of Tibetan or Vajrayana Buddhism. He is considered by the Tibetan people to be the fourteenth reincarnation of the Buddha. He serves as the international ambassador of the Tibetan people and a living symbol of their particular branch of Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama (meaning “Ocean of Wisdom”) is very interested in science—especially astronomy—and has visited many of the world’s leading observatories. Drawing on his insightful and provocative book The Universe in a Single Atom, we can identify the following basic Buddhist cosmology.30

According to the Dalai Lama, Buddhism’s two main mythical cosmologies conflict with the modern scientific consensus on cosmology.

The Dalai Lama believes “multiple world systems” (realms or universes) exist whose number extends toward the infinite. The individual worlds are “in a constant state of coming and passing away” and include stages of formation, endurance, destruction, void, and reformation. In regard to ultimate reality, the absolute universe, so to speak, is infinite as well as beginningless and endless.

According to the Dalai Lama, Buddhism finds “the idea that there is a single definite beginning” to all things to be “highly problematic.”31 Furthermore, he states that an absolute beginning would leave only two viable options—theism (God exists and created and governs the universe) and a form of quantum naturalism (the laws of nature caused the universe to come into being)—both of which “Buddhism rejects.”32

The Dalai Lama boldly states that if scientific analysis were to falsify certain Buddhist claims, then one would be obligated to accept science and abandon Buddhist beliefs.33 However, he believes the evidence is inconclusive as to whether there was an absolute beginning to all things. Finally, the Tibetan spiritual leader maintains that Buddhism and science are “different but complementary investigative approaches” that rely heavily on empirical factors and have the same goal of seeking truth.34

Christian Cosmology

Historic Christianity’s view on cosmology, creation ex nihilo35 (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6; Prov. 3:19; Rom. 4:17; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3), is as follows:

The cosmos had an absolute origination (coming into being).

The cosmos had an absolute beginning (start in time).

God alone called all things (material and spiritual) into existence from nothing. (This nothing should not be understood as being an actual something—it is literally no thing.)

God alone is infinite, eternal, transcendent, and independent—while all creation is finite, temporal, and contingent.

Though the cosmos is independent from God, it nonetheless continually depends on God’s intervening and sustaining power for its continued existence (Acts 4:17–28; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3).

The Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo does not assert that God created the universe out of preexisting materials (such as matter and its constituent realities), nor that he made the world out of his own being. Also, this doctrine does not claim that God “wound up” the cosmos so that it could then run on its own power.

Critical Points of Difference

The two most important ways in which the Christian position on cosmology differs from that of Buddhism are that (1) all created things had an absolute origination and (2) creative origination came directly from the Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier God of the Bible, who is an infinite, eternal, and tripersonal Spirit.

Scientifically speaking, the fact that the big bang model of the universe’s origin and any other possible worlds in the state of expansion requires a causal explanation36 as well as extraordinary fine-tuning tends to point toward theism as the best cosmological explanation. Historic Christian theism, buttressed by rigorously tested scientific data, best accounts for our amazing universe.

Other Differences between Buddhism and Christianity

Touching on some additional philosophical and theological areas of disagreement between Buddhism and Christianity helps fill out a comparison.

Ultimate Reality (God)

Christianity: According to historic Christianity, God is an infinite, eternal, immutable, morally perfect, and tripersonal spiritual being (triune)—the transcendent Creator and sovereign Sustainer of all things.

Buddhism: The historic Buddha did not deem the question of God’s existence worthy of his reflection. He considered theological issues to be speculative in nature and therefore irrelevant to the question of liberation. Theravada Buddhism follows the Buddha on this matter and is either atheistic or agnostic in orientation. Mahayana Buddhism, reflecting a more-evolved and later-emerging branch of Buddhism, does affirm deities and even grants the Buddha divine status.

Human Nature and the Human Predicament

Christianity: Human beings were created in the image of God (as rational, moral, and spiritual beings) but misused their freedom to sin and thus need redemption in Christ.

Buddhism: Human beings possess no eternal soul and are ignorant about reality and enslaved by desire or attachment. Thus, human beings experience constant suffering, and their only hope is liberation in nirvana.

History

Christianity: The linear direction of historical events is ordained by God and unfolds according to his sovereign will (including creation, fall, redemption, glorification, and the new creation).

Buddhism: History is cyclical. People experience many lives through reincarnation in the samsara cycle.

Table 6.8 summarizes these two religions in regard to various worldview categories. Regarding Buddhism, the chart brings together the conclusions of various schools of Buddhism. No single Buddhist would necessarily believe all of what is in the Buddhism column.

Table 6.8. Worldview Differences between Buddhism and Christianity

Buddhism
Christianity

Cosmos
Multiple world systems in a constant state of coming and passing away (beginningless and endless)
Creation ex nihilo: the eternal Triune God called all contingent, finite, and temporal realities into existence from nothing

Ultimate Reality (God)
Sunyata (“emptiness”)a

Nirvana: an abstract void (Theravada)

An undifferentiated Buddha essence (Mahayana)

Trinitarian monotheism: an infinite, eternal, perfectly moral, and loving tripersonal God, the world’s sovereign Creator and gracious Redeemer

History
Cyclical
Linear

Human Beings
A soulless, impermanent collection of aggregates
Created in God’s image as a personal union of body and soul

Human Predicament
Suffering is caused by the desire for temporal realities that cause the illusion of the existence of an individual self.
Humans rebelled against God and are alienated from him because of their sin.

Solution
Cease desiring through following the Noble Eightfold Path and realize the nonexistence of the self and thus discover permanence
Receive the gift of salvation through trusting in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

Death
Reincarnation of aggregates (no soul: anatta)
Eternal life or eternal punishment

Final State
Nirvana
Heaven or hell

aFor a discussion of sunyata (“emptiness”), see the website “Mahayana Buddhism, Part 8.”

Suggestions for Evangelistic Encounters with Buddhists

Emphasize Common Ground

When talking to a Buddhist, acknowledge and affirm the important commonalities that Buddhists and Christians share, especially moral values. Explain to the Buddhist that according to the Bible the Triune God created all things, and people are specifically made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27). Given this image, it is not surprising that people have moral convictions (Rom. 1–2). The Buddhist instinct to follow a spiritual path and to seek to follow moral precepts is what the Bible says can be expected of people made in the image of God.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:26–27)

Take a Different Perspective on Desire

According to Buddhism, desire or attachment is humanity’s greatest problem. Yet in historic Christianity, humankind’s greatest and most sublime desire is to know and love God. Even in a person’s sinful condition—separated from God—that person still expresses desire for God. Because human beings were made in the image of God, their desires were made to be fulfilled specifically by God.

Here are two passages from two of Christianity’s most influential thinkers, one ancient and one modern, expressing this powerful concept of humanity’s innate desire for God. The first is from Augustine of Hippo (354–430), and the second is from C. S. Lewis (1898–1963).

Man is one of your creatures, Lord, and his instinct is to praise you. . . . The thought of you stirs him so deeply that he cannot be content unless he praises you, because you made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.37

God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on gasoline, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.38

Explain That the Triune God Is Uniquely Self-Existent and Independent

Buddhists are taught to deny the world because it offers no permanent substance. In Christianity, the world is good but contingent on God’s providential sustaining. Share with your Buddhist friend that the Triune God is self-existent and independent. God’s attribute of aseity means that God neither needs nor depends on anything outside himself (such as creation) for his continued existence. Unlike all creatures, God finds the source of his eternal or everlasting existence within himself (self-sufficiency). Because God is the only uncreated and uncaused being, everything else (the entire created order) depends on his creative and sustaining power. This absolute independence places God in a different category of being than everything else.

The Creator is qualitatively different from the creature and is a necessary being (God must exist or cannot not exist). Theologian J. I. Packer contrasts God’s existence with that of humans: “He exists in a different way from us: we, his creatures, exist in a dependent, derived, finite, fragile way, but our Maker exists in an eternal, self-sustaining, necessary way.”39 Scripture reveals God’s self-existence (Exod. 3:14; Isa. 40:13–14; 44:24; Jer. 10:10; John 5:26; Rom. 11:34–35; Rev. 4:11). Acts 17:25 informs us that God “is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.”

Share That Salvation Is a Gift of God through Faith in Jesus Christ

Buddhists rely on moral exertion to conform themselves to the challenging standards of the Noble Eightfold Path. Share with your Buddhist friend clearly and carefully that salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation can be attained by repenting of (turning away from) one’s sins and believing (having confident trust) that Jesus Christ is the divine Messiah, that he died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, and that he rose bodily from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3–4). Salvation is a direct, exclusive gift of God’s grace (unmerited kindness), apprehended through faith alone, and totally on account of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).

The Christian gospel stands at odds with all other religions of the world and with the so-called spiritual consensus of humanity. The New Testament explicitly teaches that salvation is not earned by human moral effort but is a divinely imparted gift or endowment. The apostle Paul summarizes the gracious formula of salvation:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8–10)

Table 6.9. Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity

| Buddhism | Christianity
Problem | Karmic debt (desire, attachment) | Sin (rebellion)
Need | Emptiness | Reconciliation
Solution | Resignation | Faith and repentance
Goal | Nirvana | Personal redemption
Assurance | No | Yes

The Buddha’s diagnosis of humankind’s illness is philosophically insightful and, among the Eastern religions, appears the closest to being true. However, Buddhists retreat from the world and are not able to account adequately for the good things in life—beauty, sacrificial love, and human longing. In addition, the Buddha’s treatment or cure for the illness is speculative, incoherent, world denying, unlivable, and historically uncorroborated.

On the other hand, the historic Christian world-and-life view is uniquely reasonable, testable, viable, workable, livable, and hopeful. The Buddha should be given his place as one of the profound individuals of history, but he pales in comparison to Israel’s divine Messiah.

Further Suggested Reading

Carrithers, Michael. The Buddha: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World’s Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

Buddhist Sources

Dalai Lama XIV. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2005.

Rahula, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught. 2nd ed. New York: Grove, 1974.

Christian Sources

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Yamamoto, J. Isamu. Beyond Buddhism: A Basic Introduction to the Buddhist Tradition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982.

———. Buddhism, Taoism, and Other Far Eastern Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Yandell, Keith, and Harold Netland. Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Discussion Questions

List the three turning points in the life of Siddhārtha Gautama. Why are they important?

Why is Buddhism called the Middle Path?

List the Four Noble Truths. Why are they important?

In what ways are the Buddha and the Christ most alike, and in what ways are they most different?

What do Buddhism and Christianity share in common, and what are their biggest differences?

7
The Teacher (Confucius) and the Savior

For over two thousand years Confucius’ teachings have profoundly affected a quarter of the population of this globe.

Huston Smith, The Illustrated World’s Religions

Confucius (551–479 BCE) is probably the most influential thinker in human history, if influence is determined by the sheer number of people who have lived their lives, and died, in accordance with the thinker’s vision of how people ought to live, and die.

Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr., The Analects of Confucius

Confucius focused on life here on this earth. Jesus focused on life in eternity.

Patrick Zukeran, “Confucius—A Christian Perspective”

Among the world’s great religious leaders, two especially became far-reaching moral instructors of humanity. Their ethical insights have yielded treasures of “silver and gold” for generations to follow in living wisely. Confucius (the Teacher) laid down the ethical foundation for much of Asian civilization. He was known for emphasizing morality’s Silver Rule of Reciprocity. Jesus of Nazareth (the Savior) taught moral lessons that distinctly shaped the ethical nature of Western civilization. He was known for emphasizing morality’s Golden Rule of Benevolence. Yet though both were great moral teachers, the identities, missions, and messages of these two influential men stand in powerful contrast.

Let’s scan the life and achievements of the one known as the Master Teacher. Then we will be in a place to properly compare and contrast the Chinese sage with the one Christians refer to as the Savior of the world—Jesus Christ.

The Teacher (Confucius)

K’ung-fu-tzu (Kongfuzi or Kongzi) was born in 551 BC in the ancient state of Lu (present-day Shandong province in northern China). His students called him Grand Master K’ung (or Master Kong).1 He became known in the West by his Latinized name Confucius, which was provided by sixteenth-century Jesuit missionaries. The story of his life is mixed with myth and legend (for example, a unicorn is said to have foretold his birth), and the reports about his life and teachings were assembled a couple of centuries after his death. Yet basic facts are credibly known about Confucius’s life and accomplishments.2 This historical imprint is due to his significant influence on Chinese history and culture.

Confucius was born into a noble and educated family that had nevertheless fallen on hard times. His father, a distinguished soldier and an official, died when Confucius was only three years old, so Confucius experienced an impoverished upbringing. His mother worked multiple jobs to support the family, and Confucius also performed manual labor. As a teenager, Confucius devoted all his energy to the pursuit of learning by first studying under a village tutor and then, according to tradition, under a famous Taoist philosopher. Possessing an extremely bright mind and deep diligence, he excelled in his academic studies.

At age nineteen, Confucius married, and he and his wife had a son and a daughter. Unfortunately, the marriage soon ended in divorce—something Confucius would regret for much of his life.3 Though the exact details of his family life are less than clear, it seems that Confucius had an aloof relationship with both of his children. So the man who would famously go on to define proper family and social relationships for virtually all Asian people apparently had strained relationships in his own household. It seems quite possible, however, that someone with Confucius’s strong character would use his own family challenges as motivation to define proper relationships.

Confucius entered civil service at an early age. He held a number of government jobs during his twenties, but his great passion was teaching, particularly in the areas of Chinese ritual and political thought. Unbeknownst to him at the time, history would later acknowledge him as one of the world’s greatest and most influential teachers.

Confucius was the Renaissance man of his age, and his intellectual curiosity and depth of understanding motivated him to open a private school, where he served as tutor. Arguably the first of its kind, the school was open to all social classes, though it was reserved for young men only. Confucius exhibited extraordinary teaching gifts and attracted many excellent and ardent disciples. World religions specialist Huston Smith describes Confucius as a teacher:

Prepared to instruct in virtually all the disciplines of the day, he was a one-man university. His method of teaching was Socratic. Always informal, he seems not to have lectured but instead to have conversed on problems his students posed, citing readings and asking questions.4

In Confucius’s forties and fifties, he worked in public offices and held the position of government magistrate. Eventually, he was granted the prestigious cabinet position of minister of justice in the state of Lu. However, court intrigue quickly ended his political career in government. At age fifty-six, when he recognized that the government leaders were uninterested in his political reform principles, Confucius left the palace and the state of Lu and sought another feudal state that would consider implementing his policies.

For thirteen years he visited various states and offered unsolicited advice to leaders on how to reform government and build the ideal state. He preached justice and peace in a society that had very little of either. But no leaders were receptive to his offer to serve as an ambassador. Smith offers a reason why: “Rulers . . . were too afraid of his candor and integrity to appoint him to positions that carried power.”5

During Confucius’s time of self-imposed exile, he became an itinerant teacher with a significant following of dedicated disciples. Grand Master K’ung—always the educator extraordinaire—provided instruction in such fields as history, poetry, government, propriety, music, philosophy, and divination. Confucius devoted the final years of his life to teaching and editing what would become the Chinese classics. His collection of influential teachings was later compiled into a book called The Analects (Lún Yǔ: “Conversations”).6 Table 7.1 summarizes the Confucian canon.

Table 7.1. The Confucian Canon

Five Classics | Four Books
Confucius edited or interacted with the five classics below: | The Analects reflect Confucius’s four dialogues listed below:
     Book of Odes | The Great Learning
     Book of Documents | The Doctrine of the Mean
     Book of Rites | The Analects
     Book of Changes | Mencius
     Spring and Autumn Annals |

Discouraged and disillusioned that his grand mission to reform the state and society had failed, Confucius died in 479 BC at the age of seventy-three. However, after his death, some of the men he had taught were able to gain positions of governmental power. His disciples shaped and adapted his ideas and contributed their own perspectives (see table 7.2), and within three centuries, the Confucian world-and-life view had become the official imperial philosophy during the Han Dynasty (206 BC–AD 220). Though thinking himself a failure in death, Confucius would become “the most important figure in China’s history.”7

Table 7.2. Two Influential Confucian Philosophers and Schools of Thought

Disciple of Confucius | Philosophical Tradition | Understanding of Human Naturea
Mencius (Mengzi; fourth century BC) | Idealist tradition | Stresses natural goodness of human nature
Xunzi (Hsun Tzu; fourth century BC) | Realist tradition | Stresses evil impulses of human nature
aScholar Yamamoto notes, “Both schools of thought taught that perfectibility of the individual can be achieved through education and virtuous conduct” (Buddhism, Taoism, 20).

Confucius’s Teachings

Confucius’s central teaching focused on developing a system of ethics that would transform Chinese society from top to bottom. In light of China’s then-catastrophic cycle of anarchy, brutal mass executions, and civil war, it appeared that the fabric of the culture was being torn apart. Confucius lived in between the turbulent eras known as the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period.8 At that time, people wondered if something could be done to keep Chinese society from disintegrating. Author Thomas Leung describes Confucius’s monumental task: “By the time of Confucius (551–479 BC), this culture had collapsed, taking virtue and social order with it. This collapse gave rise to the problem of how to reconstruct the ideal cultural-political order.”9

Confucius, striving for an efficient and benevolent form of government that would lead to a morally ideal state, turned to China’s ancient past, where he sought a golden age to serve as a much-needed cultural model. He appealed to the tradition of what he called the Ritual-Music Culture. Confucius believed this culture had existed five hundred years earlier during the early phase of the Chou Dynasty. World religions specialist Winfried Corduan explains, “In simple terms Confucius wanted all people to return to the basic model of the ideal state as it was supposedly lived out in the golden age a long time ago under the original emperors. If everyone studied exactly how people behaved back then and emulated their ways, then harmony, peace, and prosperity would result.”10

How does a person actually go about re-creating a flourishing society? Confucius was convinced that it could be accomplished through moral education. He tried to define a system of conduct that could be applied to all aspects of society. He believed that the introduction and internalization of certain moral principles would build relationships that would operate like concentric circles. The change in the individual would then influence the family, which would then influence one’s neighbors, then the village, then society, and then ultimately the world. Smith explains the comprehensive nature of Confucius’s educational plan: “Moral ideals were to be imparted by every conceivable means—temples, theatres, homes, toys, proverbs, schools, history, stories—until they became habits of the heart.”11

Confucius’s Moral Ideals

Five moral ideals form the basis of Confucius’s educational system of reform.

Ren (or Jen)

Ren lies at the heart of Confucius’s ethical system, for it defines the ideal relationship that should exist between individual people. Ren can be defined as reciprocity—seeking the welfare of other people (cohumanity). People should care for and respect others without interfering in their affairs. Ren further conveys such qualities as compassion, benevolence, goodness, human-heartedness, and man-to-man-ness. An application of ren is seen in what Confucius called shu (a general principle for relating to others)—referenced as either the Golden Rule or the Silver Rule: “What you don’t want done to yourself, don’t do to others” (Analects 12:2).12

Ren serves as a powerful moral principle for shaping human interactions. However, Corduan offers an important qualification of ren: “The core concept in Confucius’ teaching is the principle of ren (jen), which can be roughly translated as ‘the attitude of seeking the welfare of other people.’ The meaning of ren stops short of altruistic love—it does not include sacrificing one’s own aims completely for other people.”13

Ren reflects humanity at its best. In light of this, Confucius held a high view of humanity’s moral nature. Believing that human nature is basically good, he thought people are responsible moral agents who are capable of moral self-transformation. As a result, Confucius believed that moral order could be restored to society through the exchange of goodness and respect among human beings.

Li

Li conveys the idea of propriety, etiquette, courtesy, rites, and ritual. It involves acting in the right way at the right time (an ideal standard or norm of conduct). In fact, everyone has an acceptable role to play depending on the situation or social occasion. Li has been described as the glue for society. Philosophers and Confucian specialists David Hall and Roger Ames describe li as “the underlying syntax of community.”14

Confucius believed that bringing together the dynamic qualities of ren and li could produce the ideal society he was seeking in order to save China from complete collapse. These two powerful moral features involved two reform components. (1) The reification of names (considering the abstract as concrete): since people need to recognize reality in order to reform their actions, language must correspond to the truth of reality. (2) Five basic relationships: For Confucius, these five relationships reflected the roles people play in society. Commitment to fulfilling one’s proper roles in relationship can transform society for the better. For example, harmonious family relationships lead to harmony in society. Patrick Zukeran provides a description of these five relationships:15

“Kindness in the father and obedient devotion in the son”

“Gentility in the eldest brother and humility and respect in the younger”

“Righteous behavior in the husband and obedience in the wife”

“Humane consideration in elders and deference in juniors”

“Benevolence in rulers and loyalty of ministers and subjects”

Filial piety is a sacred virtue of respect, honor, care, and obedience in regard to one’s parents (especially the father) and by extension one’s elders and ancestors. More broadly, it involves kindness, respect, and loyalty among family members. Smith calls the unconditional obligation of filial piety “the fountain from which all virtues spring.”16 The practice of something like filial piety gave rise to ancestor worship in China long before the time of Confucius.

Junzi (Chün-Tzu)

Junzi describes the superior man (or magnanimous man) or humanity at its best as evidenced in an individual person. Junzi is sometimes described as the “Chinese gentleman” who is noble by character rather than by birth. This virtuous individual is poised and respectful and lives by the highest possible ethical standards.

The Chinese gentleman possesses the benevolent quality of ren, which serves to make a person truly human. This superior or magnanimous individual reflects the five esteemed virtues of self-respect, generosity, sincerity, persistence, and benevolence. As a result, the Chinese gentleman is a model for his students and others to follow in society. Some scholars compare the Chinese gentleman to the Buddhist bodhisattva (see chapter 6), in that both are models for their respective moral and religious traditions.17

De (Te)

De is the moral “power by which men are ruled.”18 For Confucius, it is the moral character of a leader that engenders respect and ultimately compels obedience. Government leaders must lead by moral example. Confucius thought de was greatly lacking in the leaders of his day, as evidenced by the great social unrest of the period.

Wen

Wen is known as “the art of peace” and involves such art forms as music, poetry, literature, and painting. Wen reflects the aesthetic, intellectual, and spiritual modes of culture. The arts can have a peaceful influence on human beings.

Table 7.3. Confucius’s Moral Ideals

Ren | Concern for the welfare of humanity
Li | Propriety
Junzi | Magnanimous man
De | Moral character
Wen | The art of peace

Having examined the five moral teachings of Confucius, let’s now look at him as a person.

What Was the Teacher Like?

Reports about Confucius’s personality emerged long after his death and were written by devoted followers. Some historians think the accounts are either unreliable or excessively praiseworthy. Yet even though these historical challenges exist, some authentic knowledge is available of what Confucius was like.19

The moral principles examined earlier reflect a man who was extraordinarily thoughtful. Confucius was a world-class moral philosopher. In light of Alfred North Whitehead’s famous quotation about the whole history of philosophy being a series of footnotes to Plato, Confucian scholars Ames and Hall state, “All of Chinese thinking is a series of commentaries on Confucius.”20 Some Western philosophers categorize Confucian ethics as a cross between virtue ethics (emphasis on moral character) and deontology (rule-oriented ethics).21

Yet Confucius was not merely a brilliant thinker. He also genuinely cared about people. His emphasis on the necessity of moral integrity, especially in a leader, is refreshing and inspiring. Gerald McDermott relays how some of Confucius’s followers viewed him: “The disciples of Confucius described him as one who neglected his meals in a spell of work, forgot his worries when overcome by joy.”22 Smith states that Confucius “loved to be with people, to dine out, to join in the chorus of a good song, and to drink, though not in excess.”23 Smith also says that Confucius never saw himself as a sage but rather “presented himself to his students as their fellow learner.”24 Confucius’s influence on the world, especially Asia, is wide and deep, and given his inherent wisdom and strong moral character, that influence is well deserved.

Confucius was one of the great reformers of society and education. He defended the rights of common people against the oppressive and brutal governments of his day. He did the unimaginable by starting a school that allowed people of all social classes to attend. However, women were excluded. Surely that was the common sentiment of the age. As Confucius imagined his ideal society, clearly women were not going to play a significant role. McDermott comments, “Confucian society is male-oriented. Women are to submit to their fathers, then their husbands, and, if they live with sons after their husbands die, even to their sons. Only male ancestors are venerated.”25

Having gained some understanding of Confucius’s life and teachings, we can now do some comparing and contrasting between Confucianism’s Teacher and Christianity’s Savior.

The Teacher and the Savior

The title Teacher is granted to those who are revered for their wisdom and good judgment. Confucius stands as China’s greatest philosopher and religious teacher. The title Savior is a New Testament designation given to Jesus Christ (Luke 2:11) because his atoning death on the cross saved sinners from God’s just wrath (1 John 4:10). The Teacher and the Savior differ in eight ways.

History

The historic life of Confucius is mixed with myth and legend. The earliest written records of him (in the writings of The Analects and in the biography of historian Sima Qiam) date from at least a couple hundred years after his death. Still, some basic facts are credibly known about Confucius’s life, teachings, and accomplishments.26

In contrast, Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are reliably attested to in both the early historical texts of the New Testament (including apostolic Epistles and Gospels) and certain extrabiblical works of history explored in chapter 4. The historicity of Jesus Christ was also supported early on by the credible practice of oral tradition within primitive Christianity.

Nature

Though Confucius was one of the world’s great teachers, philosophers, and educational reformers, he was merely a human being who never made divine claims for himself. While Confucianism later deified him, history reveals that he lived and died as a mere mortal man.

The Savior, on the other hand, revealed himself to be God in human flesh and conquered death by his historical bodily resurrection from the grave. New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg offers the following seven points as evidence in support of the resurrection:27

All alternative naturalistic explanations for the resurrection prove false.

The Pauline Epistles contain at least eleven references to the resurrection of Christ that were written no later than the 50s (Rom. 4:24–25; 6:4, 9; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:10).

Only the resurrection of Jesus explains why Christians moved their day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.

No one would invent a myth like the resurrection and then make the first witnesses women, whose credibility within that culture was questionable in court.

The New Testament accounts of Jesus’s resurrection are dramatically different from the strange apocryphal images of resurrection invented in the second century and afterward.

No tomb was ever venerated in the early centuries of Christianity.

A mere crucified Messiah would be viewed by all Jewish Christians as cursed by God.

Character

Though the Teacher believed in the basic moral goodness of human beings and in the perfectibility of human nature, he failed to achieve those lofty goals in his own life, as he wrestled with moral weaknesses and a failed marriage. Confucius never claimed he had attained ren. Rather, he candidly described his challenge to attain virtue. For example, Confucius notes in The Analects 7:3 that “having virtue and not cultivating it; studying and not sifting; hearing what is just and not following; not being able to change wrongdoing: these are the things that make me uncomfortable.”28

Conversely, the Savior did what no mere man has ever done—he lived a sinless life and was thus qualified to offer his life as a perfect sacrifice for sin. All the noble religious leaders examined in this book were candid about their moral imperfections. Jesus Christ stands alone as the man who had no sin to confess.

Mission

The Teacher’s mission was to forge a universal system of ethics and to help build an ideal Chinese society. He failed to accomplish this noble goal, but he left a moral impact that has influenced the entire Asian world for the good.

The Savior’s mission was to rescue sinners by providing a substitutionary sacrifice for sin by dying on the cross. Christ, through the preaching of the gospel, has influenced billions of people worldwide and continues to do so today.

Role

The Teacher himself is not essential to the essence of Confucian philosophy or religion except for providing the original ethical instruction. A valid distinction can be made between Confucius and his moral teachings. In fact, in many respects, Confucianism as a philosophy has developed beyond the early teachings of its founder.

On the other hand, Christianity is Christ. Historic Christianity is all about Jesus Christ’s saving life, death, and resurrection. Unlike with Confucianism, one cannot legitimately separate Jesus Christ from his teachings. His teachings make sense only in light of his identity as the God-man who came to save human beings from their sinful condition.

State

The Teacher was reserved or reluctant to introduce people to God and to a spiritual life. He avoided speculating about the supernatural or on questions relating to life after death. The Chinese Teacher’s focus was on this world and on the here and now. He died as a mere man and remained in the grave.

In stark contrast, the Savior revealed himself as Immanuel (“God with us”), whose self-sacrificing love initiated salvation. Jesus Christ both points the way to salvation and accomplishes it through his actions. The Savior is the only man who permanently conquered death through a historic resurrection from the dead.

Life

The Teacher was definitely world affirming in his philosophy of life. He tried to transform his world from a place of tribal hatred and violence into an honorable society of justice and peace. The Teacher aimed his laser-like focus on this present human kingdom.

The Savior was also world and life affirming in his teachings. But he reminded people that this world is not the end of existence. Jesus Christ lived in Caesar’s temporal kingdom but taught about an eternal realm called the kingdom of God.

Future

It seems the Teacher believed in a spiritual realm beyond death called heaven (t’ien or tian), but if he knew what happened beyond death, he didn’t provide specifics. Confucius’s eschatology (teaching about future things) is limited and has been left unexplained.

The Savior Jesus Christ came into the temporal world at his incarnation to reveal his kingdom and to provide a way of salvation through his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus Christ alone offers redemption from sin, a physical resurrection for the dead, and eternal life with the Triune God in the unending age to come.

Table 7.4. Comparison of the Teacher and the Savior

| The Teacher | The Savior
History | Mixed with myth and legend | Rooted in facts of history
Nature | Merely human | God incarnate
Character | Morally imperfect | Morally perfect
Mission | Build moral society | Redeem sinners
Role | Ethical teacher | Lord and Savior
State | Dead | Resurrected
Life | Present world affirming | World and life affirming
Future | Unexplained | Eternal life with God

The Teacher or the Savior? Confucius was truly an extraordinary man who helped a civilization avert collapse, but the Savior is the example of what humanity was meant to be.

Reflections on Confucianism

Confucianism is unique among the world’s religions. It is untraditional in the sense that it is largely nonspeculative concerning the big metaphysical questions of life (e.g., questions about God, the afterlife). Confucius spoke of heaven, but his focus was on the ethical considerations of this life. Confucianism does affirm the reverence of spirits and approves of ancestor worship, but it has no priesthood or divine revelation and does not advocate such common Eastern practices as asceticism and monasticism.

Because Confucianism has little formal theology and makes virtually no claims to dogma, it can be religiously tolerant, inclusive, and pluralistic. For example, Confucianism is not typically a stand-alone religion like Christianity or Islam. Rather, it is common in Chinese popular religion to hear people proclaim, “I’m a Confucianist, a Buddhist, and a Taoist.” This synergistic three-religion mix may allow people to derive their basic ethics from Confucianism, their view of death and reincarnation from Buddhism, and their mystical beliefs from Taoism.29

Confucianism may be better defined as a moral philosophy of life that serves as the value system for most East Asian people. It has been especially influential in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures. Worldwide general adherents number about four hundred million, but if a count were taken of all the people who in some way or another are influenced by Confucianism, the number could be 1.5 billion.30

Strengths of the Confucian Philosophy

Confucius carved out an extraordinary philosophy of life. The greatest strength of his untraditional (for the time) religious philosophy is its profound intuition that life is to be lived ethically. Confucius sought to combat the terrible violence and inhumanity of his time with a universal moral philosophy. He met gross immorality with a sterling morality. He believed that if human beings could be transformed morally, then society could become peaceful and just once again.

This Confucian philosophy of life embraced a positive code of conduct. The abiding values of this system include a deep commitment to family, a universal respect for one’s human neighbors, and a strong work ethic. These practical values have contributed to the huge economic growth since the end of World War II seen in countries especially influenced by Confucian principles.

Confucianism’s Common Ground with Christianity

The Confucian life view has at least three powerful areas of agreement with the historic Christian worldview.

First, Confucians and Christians share a broad common value system. Confucianism affirms a noble ethical system that shares with Christianity such core values as truth, goodness, and beauty. Individual values such as loyalty, honesty, and a general concern for the welfare of others are also shared by both religious traditions.

Second, Confucians and Christians both work to reform society. Each wants a culture that reflects justice and peace for all people. Each religious perspective believes that human moral choices and responsibilities result in societal peace or conflict.

Third, Confucians and Christians share a common appreciation for a moral education. Both sides believe that a true education must have a moral foundation. Furthermore, both religious founders affirmed that this moral foundation must be spiritual.

A Christian Response to Three Confucian Claims

We touched briefly on these three issues earlier in the chapter, but it is important to summarize how historic Christianity differs from the beliefs of Confucians in the following important areas of similarity.

Ren/Jen

Christians can agree with what Confucians affirm about the teaching of ren (compassion, benevolence, and human-heartedness toward others), but ren is not the equivalent of the New Testament word agape (agapē). Agape conveys the idea of self-sacrificing love. Someone with this kind of love is willing to risk everything for the benefit of another. Therefore, the robust idea of ren falls short of the agape love that Jesus Christ showed in dying for sinners on the cross (Rom. 5:8). Also, Christians have a good objective reason to love others based on the truth that all people are made in God’s image.

Golden or Silver Rule of Reciprocity

Though Christians can agree with the Confucian teaching of shu (the Silver Rule: “What you don’t want done to yourself, don’t do to others”), again, it is not the same standard as the New Testament Golden Rule. The Golden Rule goes further. For a Christian, it is not enough to avoid treating people badly; a believer in Christ is to aspire to treat people graciously (Luke 10:36–37; Rom. 15:1–2; Gal. 6:9–10; 1 John 3:17–18).31

Relationships

Confucius’s five basic relationships are similar to Christian beliefs about the importance of family and social connections. However, Christians possess a personal relationship with God (Acts 17:27), and that bond is the foundation for all other relationships in life.32

In summary, though there is much in the Confucian system that Christians can positively support, in the three examples addressed the Christian ethical and theological systems extended much deeper than those of Confucius and his followers. The Confucian system admirably affirms the moral features that God reveals generally through the created order (a moral conscience and respect for other people; see Rom. 1). But the Confucian moral philosophy did not have the benefit of the special teaching that came through humankind’s only morally perfect person––Jesus Christ (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5–7).

Other Differences between Confucianism and Christianity

Following are other areas in which Confucianism and Christianity differ.

Ultimate Reality (God)

Christianity: According to historic Christianity, God is an infinite, eternal, immutable, morally perfect, and tripersonal spiritual being (triune)—the transcendent Creator and sovereign Sustainer of all things. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, took on human nature and was incarnate in the historic person of Jesus Christ.

Confucianism: When speaking of heaven, Confucius did not explicitly advocate the worship of God or gods, nor did he speculate about death and the afterlife. Corduan notes, “Anyone looking for new religious doctrines in the teachings of Confucius looks in vain. There are no new gods, acts of worship or revelations in his message.”33

Some have suggested that Confucius was an atheist or an agnostic, but it is more likely that he believed in the supernatural and simply viewed religious beliefs and rituals as secondary in importance to the need for social reform and order.34 Others view Confucianism as a type of religious humanism. However, some scholars affirm that Confucius’s reference to heaven (tian) was to a personal God.35 If that is indeed the case, then Confucius would have been a theist.

Revelation

Christianity: In Christian theology, revelation refers to God’s personal self-disclosure to his creatures. He took the initiative and actively and decisively revealed himself in two ways: through general revelation (the knowledge of God that comes via the created order) and through special revelation (the knowledge of God that comes via redemptive history). Protestant theologians sometimes call this dual view of revelation the “two-books theory.”36 God is the author of both the figurative book of nature (God’s world) and the literal book of Scripture (God’s written Word).

Confucianism: Confucius seemed to imply that the supernatural realm (“the Mandate from Heaven”) might serve to ground the ethical sphere of life. Smith states this about Confucius’s thought concerning a cosmic morality: “Somewhere in the universe, he believed, there is a power that is on the side of right.”37 However, in Confucianism, the supernatural realm does not deliver a specific revelation and therefore does not speak verbally or propositionally and remains unknown. None of Confucianism’s books serve as a type of scriptural revelation given from God like the Torah, the New Testament, or the Qur’an.

Human Nature and the Human Predicament

Christianity: Human beings were created in the image of God (as rational, moral, and spiritual beings) but misused their freedom to sin and need redemption in Christ. The image of God makes people noble, but the fall makes them flawed.

Confucianism: Confucius affirmed the basic goodness of human nature but found himself incapable of fulfilling his moral ideals (ren).

The Master said: “I have never seen one who really loves ren or really hates non-ren. If you really loved ren you would not place anything above it. If you really hated the non-ren, you would not let it near you. Is there anyone who has devoted his strength to ren for a single day? I have not seen anyone who has lacked the strength to do so. Perhaps there has been such a case, but I have never seen it.” (The Analects 4:6)

The Master said: “In literature, perhaps I am equal to others. But I cannot manifest the behavior of the noble man.” (The Analects 7:33).

The question of humankind’s nature (good or malevolent) is debated in Confucianism. Traditionally, man’s core problem is identified as a lack of moral education.

Salvation

Christianity: The New Testament teaches that salvation is not earned by human moral effort but is a divinely imparted gift or endowment. Historic Christianity affirms that salvation comes by God’s grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus Christ’s unique life, death, and resurrection.

Confucianism: Confucianism does not affirm an official view of salvation. However, human nature is capable of being morally transformed through education combined with rigorous self-effort and self-reflection. Wrongdoing is defined as improper, inexpedient, or antisocial behavior but not as morally responsible guilt before God as in Christianity.

Worldview

One final area of difference is that Confucianism does not reflect a fully formed worldview. For example, very little is said about such foundational topics as metaphysics, God, revelation, the cosmos, and humankind’s origin and destiny. As was communicated earlier, Asian people tend to look to other religious philosophies outside of Confucianism for answers to questions about God and the afterlife.

Confucianism’s ethical system is a positive feature. But this reputable Chinese moral philosophy offers no ultimate solution to humankind’s grave problem of moral depravity (more on that shortly). That hope is uniquely found in Christianity, which offers its own Teacher who is, more importantly, a divine-human Savior. For further comparison of Confucianism and historic Christianity, see tables 7.5 and 7.6.

Table 7.5. Ethical Systems of Confucianism and Christianity

Confucianism | Christianity
Moral philosophy: ethical focus, way of life, atheological | Theistic, redemptive: focus on God as Creator and Savior
Nonrevelatory: no supernatural unveiling | Revelatory: divine unveiling, propositional disclosure (Scripture)
Syncretistic: sharing and assimilating different religious beliefs | Traditional: distinct truths
Tolerant: allowance of different beliefs and practices | Uncompromising: truth is narrow, discriminating
Pluralistic: acceptance of many religious perspectives | Exclusivistic: one ultimate religious perspective

Table 7.6. Worldview Differences between Confucianism and Christianity

| Confucianism | Christianity
Ultimate Reality (God) | Unknown, though Confucius may have been a theist | Triune God
Revelation | No special revelation | Book of nature and book of Scripture
Human Beings | Good by nature but flawed in practice | Noble but flawed
Human Predicament | Taming humankind’s incivility | Sinful rebellion
Salvation | Unknown | Faith in Christ’s death and resurrection

Christianity’s Explanatory Power and Scope vis-à-vis Confucianism

Two areas that are critical to the moral philosophy of Confucianism are morality and the human condition. Yet because of Confucianism’s glaring silence on metaphysics, it has great difficulty grounding these two spheres. In contrast, Christianity scores high when it comes to accounting for these fields.

Christianity Uniquely Accounts for the Reality of Objective Ethical Values

Moral values are a fundamental part of human life, every bit as real as the law of gravity. People intuitively recognize their moral obligations. The human heart experiences the pull of moral duty and obligation. This sense of moral oughtness is indeed prescriptive in nature, and it transcends mere subjective feelings and individual considerations.

Basic moral intuitions such as “It is wrong to murder” and “It is right to be loving, truthful, courageous, and compassionate” testify to the truth of objective moral values. These values appear to stand as distinct from and independent of the human mind and will. In other words, they are discovered, not invented.

But what accounts for the existence of objective, universal, unchanging moral principles? What guarantees their validity? And what is their source?

The ethics of Christian theism are grounded in the morally perfect nature of God, who has specifically revealed his will to humankind. God therefore stands as the foundation for objective moral values. Absolute moral law extends from the cosmic moral Lawgiver. The God revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures serves as the morally perfect person who stands behind the objective moral order discovered in the universe.

Without appealing to God, how can objective morality be explained? Confucius sought an objective morality that could be used to reform society. However, for him and Confucianism, the moral sphere of the universe is unexplained. While he believed in objective ethics, Confucius’s limited worldview did not have the robust metaphysical capital to ground objective morality. Table 7.7 summarizes the differences between ethical subjectivism and ethical objectivism.

Table 7.7. Two Views of Ethical Foundations

Ethical Subjectivism
Ethical Objectivism

Whatever a person thinks or feels is morally right is right for him.

The rightness or wrongness of actions depends on a person’s thoughts, opinions, intentions, and desires (moral truth is relative to the individual).

A binding moral order exists independent of human opinion and/or approval.

Universal and valid ethical principles exist outside and distinct from the minds and wills of human beings (moral truth stands apart from human convention).

Moral Values Are
Moral Values Are

Subjective
Objective

Invented
Discovered

Conventional
Nonconventional

Relative
Absolute

Descriptive
Prescriptive

Consequential
Nonconsequential

Particular
Universal

Source: Samples, World of Difference, 192.

Christianity Uniquely Accounts for the Enigma of Humanity

Human nature poses a puzzling paradox. Capable of monumental achievement in mathematics, science, technology, philosophy, the arts, humanitarian and charitable acts, and so forth, humanity is also equally capable of shameful and evil acts—rape, robbery, racism, slavery, and mass murder. Explaining human nature poses an extraordinary philosophical, psychological, and spiritual challenge.

Yet the Bible seems to hold the secret to unraveling the enigma of humanity. The Christian theistic worldview asserts that humanity’s greatness is a direct result of the imago Dei. As creatures made in the image and likeness of God, humans reflect the glory of their Maker. Thus, they are Godlike in many respects, especially when compared to animals.

The wretchedness of humanity, on the other hand, can be traced to the fall into sin of the first human beings (Gen. 3). Adam misused his freedom to rebel against God, and as a result, he suffered alienation from God and became pervasively sinful. Adam’s sin, however, affected more than just himself. Biblical doctrine makes clear that the entire human race inherited moral corruption from the first human, Adam (Rom. 5). In this present state of sin, humans are capable of using their gifted qualities for evil purposes. Humans are, as Blaise Pascal has said, “the glory and refuse of the universe.”38

If one cannot appeal to belief in God, how can one explain the enigma of humanity? Neither atheism nor the alternative religions of the world do as good a job as the Bible of explaining the world’s greatest riddle.

Confucianism strains to explain a creature who is capable of producing The Analects yet is also capable of creating the Laogai (Mandarin for “reform through labor”)—the Chinese system of labor prisons, detention centers, and reeducation camps that were modeled after the Soviet Gulag.

Confucius sought and discovered an objective morality that he attempted to use to reform ancient Chinese culture. The problem was, however, that even with his alleged good, moral nature he couldn’t live by his exalted moral standards.

Suggestions for Evangelistic Encounters with Confucianists

Emphasize Common Ground

Grant and affirm the critical common ground that Confucians and Christians share on ethical values. Explain to the Confucianist that objective morality needs some kind of explanation or grounding. The Christian perspective is that morality flows from God’s personal and ethical moral nature.

Objective moral principles are not only compatible with the Christian worldview but also exactly what would be expected in a world made by an infinite, eternal, personal, holy, just, and loving Creator. The source for the ethical absolutes reflected in Christianity is found in the God of the Bible. Moral ideals stem from his perfect character and are unchanging in nature.

God’s moral standards have been revealed through the created order (for example, in the human conscience) and through explicit historical and revelatory statements in Scripture (as in the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount). As the infinite and necessary Good, God is the objective and fixed ground on which ethical values rest.

Without God, such characteristics as inherent human dignity, moral worth, objective human rights, and personal moral responsibility and obligation have no basis. Christian philosopher Paul Copan notes that a “natural context for moral values and human dignity is the theistic one—in which we’ve been made by a personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God to resemble him in certain important ways.”39

Scripture reveals that all people are morally accountable to God:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. (Rom. 2:14–15)

Talk about the Christian Concepts of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude

If Confucius could not keep his own moral ideals, then it follows that Confucians today have a hard time living according to Confucian principles as well. Share with them the gospel and how Christians approach the questions of grace, faith, and works.40 The Reformed tradition refers to the three Gs of salvation: guilt, grace, and gratitude.41

Guilt. God’s law shows us both the holiness of God’s character and that we have failed to meet his moral standards. This awareness—made possible through the Holy Spirit—leads us to confession of sin and a desire for genuine repentance.

Grace. The gospel (Good News) teaches that Jesus Christ died on the cross on our behalf to take away all our sins. This awareness leads to an understanding that God loves us and views us through the prism of Christ’s perfect righteousness. (Christ did meet those moral standards.) We therefore stand securely pardoned of our sin and are righteous in the Lord’s presence.

Gratitude. Knowing that Christ has freely given us salvation that we don’t deserve and could never earn motivates us to live lives that reflect sincere gratitude to God for his grace. We then seek to please God with our lives, not to earn or retain God’s love but because we already know God’s love and forgiveness in Christ Jesus.

Share with your Confucian friend that God saves people on the basis of grace instead of works of the law.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Rom. 3:21–24)

Emphasize the Supremacy of Christ above All Spirits

Because Confucianism involves belief in spiritism and ancestor worship, people often feel oppressed and afraid of spiritual realities. Emphasize the biblical truth that Jesus Christ is supreme over all spiritual entities. Invite your Confucian friend to receive Jesus Christ as their unique, protective Lord and Savior.

Here are two Scripture passages that speak of the exalted nature of Jesus Christ:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Col. 1:15–16)

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth. (Phil. 2:9–10)

Emphasize the Exclusive Claims of Jesus Christ

Confucianism is in many respects a tolerant and inclusive religious philosophy. As we saw earlier, Confucianism is not typically a stand-alone religion. Share with your Confucian friend that Jesus Christ makes exclusive claims to truth. Emphasize that Jesus Christ stands out among the world’s merely human religious leaders. He takes a definite stand of being the only way, as he says in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” and in John 11:25–26, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.”

Table 7.8. Comparison of Confucianism and Christianity

| Confucianism | Christianity
Problem | Moral incivility | Sin (rebellion)
Need | Moral reform | Reconciliation
Solution | Moral transformation | Faith and repentance
Goal | Civilized society | Personal redemption
Assurance | No | Yes

Confucius was a great moral philosopher and one of the most influential religious thinkers in the world. However, compared to Jesus Christ, even he begins to pale. Confucius is to be respected for his candid admission that he was not able to keep his own moral principles. How much more is that true for the rest of us who are far from being the wisest of sages? Like the great Confucius, we are all sinners in need of a great Savior.

Further Suggested Reading

Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World’s Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

Confucian Sources

Ames, Roger, and Henry Rosemont Jr. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine, 1998.

Confucius. The Analects. Translated by D. C. Lau. New York: Penguin, 2014.

Gardner, Daniel K. Confucianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Rainey, Lee Dian. Confucius and Confucianism: The Essentials. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Christian Sources

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Halverson, Dean C., ed. The Compact Guide to World Religions. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

Yamamoto, J. Isamu. Buddhism, Taoism, and Other Far Eastern Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Discussion Questions

How is the Confucian idea of ren similar to and different from the New Testament idea of agape?

How are Confucius and Jesus most alike, and how are they most unalike?

How are Confucianism and Christianity similar, and how are they most different?

Is Confucianism a religion or a philosophy? Defend your answer.

If it is possible to be a Confucianist, a Buddhist, and a Taoist, is it possible to be a Jewish Christian Muslim? Why or why not?

8
The Prophet (Muhammad) and the Son of God

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History

Islam speaks of a revelation from God, where Christianity speaks of a revelation of God.

Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity

Jesus made superior claims to those made by Muhammad. Jesus claimed to be God. Muhammad claimed only to be a mere man who was a prophet.

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

Among the world’s great religious leaders, only two founded religions whose adherents now number well beyond a billion people—Muhammad and Jesus Christ. As of 2012, researchers estimated world totals of approximately 1.6 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians. Therefore, combined, Muslims and Christians now constitute approximately 55 percent of the world’s population.1 The 2015 Pew Report estimated that by 2050 the number of Christians and Muslims will be approximately equal, at close to three billion people per religion.2

While Muhammad (AD 570–632) and Jesus Christ (c. 4 BC–AD 30) loom as arguably two of the most influential people in history, the identities, missions, and messages of the two leaders are fundamentally different. We will first explore the life and thought of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, and then we will be ready to compare him with Jesus Christ, who among Christians is known as the Son of God.

The Prophet (Muhammad)

The Life of Muhammad

Muhammad was born into the Hashemite clan of the Quraish tribe in the vicinity of Mecca (in modern-day Saudi Arabia) in AD 570. He immediately faced extremely difficult family circumstances. His father, Abd-Allah, died before Muhammad was born. Muhammad’s mother, Amina, died when he was six years old. Orphaned early in life, he was first raised by his grandfather and then later by his uncle Abu-Talib, who was chief of the feudal tribe.

Muhammad was also illiterate. Without formal education, he served as a camel driver in the Arabian Desert, where he experienced cross-cultural interaction with members of the Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian (Parsee) religions. The Christians with whom Muhammad interacted probably did not hold an orthodox view of Christ. He likely encountered advocates of the monophysite heresy (the belief that Christ held one hybrid nature; see chapter 3). This early religious interaction had a large impact because Muhammad apparently never had a clear understanding of what historic Christianity teaches about such doctrines as the Trinity and the incarnation.

At twenty-five years of age, Muhammad met a wealthy widow named Khadija, who was fifteen years his senior and who owned the camel caravan business in which Muhammad worked. Muhammad and Khadija married, and they had several children. Of their two sons and four daughters, only one daughter survived after Muhammad’s death. Khadija was a strong supporter of her husband and later became a convert to the religion her husband founded. Through marriage Muhammad became a rather well-to-do merchant. His modest affluence allowed him to freely pursue his spiritual and theological interests.

Muhammad entered a period of spiritual quest and apparently rejected the polytheistic religion that was so common in the Meccan landscape of the time. Instead, he was attracted to an original Arabian monotheism. World religions specialist Gerald McDermott offers a possible explanation concerning Muhammad’s newfound interest in religion: “Perhaps because of his own heartbreaks, Muhammad became a religious seeker, often retreating to mountain caves above Mecca to meditate.”3 It was in one of those caves at about forty years of age that Muhammad claimed to have had a religious experience. It turned his life upside down and subsequently changed the entire world.

Islam’s Prophet

According to Islamic tradition,4 while meditating in a mountain cave on the outskirts of Mecca (Mount Hira) around AD 610, Muhammad fell into a trance and was greeted by the voice of one who claimed to be the biblical angel Gabriel. Muhammad’s initial reaction to this encounter was one of terror. He told Khadija and her cousin Waraqa, an Ebionite Christian, that he was afraid he had either become a madman or been possessed by a demon. He even had thoughts of suicide.5 However, the women encouraged him to consider the experience in a positive religious light. Eventually, subsequent voices and visions convinced Muhammad and Khadija that they came from the monotheistic God, Allah. Muhammad claimed to receive revelations the rest of his life, sometimes accompanied by ecstatic seizures.

Through these extraordinary angelic encounters, Muhammad was apparently called to receive divine revelation that he would memorize and later “recite.” These revelatory encounters propelled Muhammad to the status of conduit of Allah, and the specific messages formed the content of the Qur’an. As a result, Muhammad became the final and supreme prophet (seal of the prophets) of Allah according to Islamic tradition.

The content of Muhammad’s message focuses on God’s absolute unity (radical monotheism) and the impending divine judgment facing humanity. That message is succinctly summarized in what Muslims refer to as the shahadah (Islamic creed): “There is no god but the God [Allah], and Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

Muhammad’s importance in Islam is not limited to his prophetic or revelatory role. For Muslims (“those who submit to Allah’s will”), he is also the principal moral example. Muslim scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr explains, “The Prophet is seen by Muslims as the most perfect of all of God’s creatures, the perfect man par excellence . . . whom the Quran calls an excellent model.”6 According to Islam, Muhammad was merely a human being, but some Muslims revere Muhammad’s moral example highly enough to call him the “living Quran.”7

Table 8.1. Roles of Muhammad

1. Orphan

2. Caravan Driver

3. Husband and Father

4. Spiritual Seeker

5. Prophet

6. Soldier

7. Governor

8. Ruler

The Prophet’s Teachings

Muhammad began boldly preaching his uncompromising monotheistic message in the midst of a polytheism-oriented culture. World religions specialist Winfried Corduan defines the essence of Muhammad’s teaching:

His message encompassed three main points: (1) there is only one God; (2) human beings are obligated to submit to God’s will; (3) there will be a day of judgment when all people will be assessed on whether or not they have obeyed God.8

Muhammad initially experienced discouragement and hostility as he sought to spread his newfound religion. He even faced opposition in Mecca from those who supported the popular idol-worship business. During the first ten years of his religion, his followers numbered in the thousands. But in AD 622, Muhammad fled Mecca out of fear of the polytheistic merchant class and migrated to Medina (called the hijra: “flight”). This historic migration from Mecca to Medina, by which Muslims date their calendars (A.H., anno hegirae), led to the establishment in Medina of the first independent Muslim community. Muhammad later returned to Mecca with his army, purged the city of its idolatry, and claimed it in the name of Islam. Mecca and Medina are today the two holiest cities for Muslims.

Upon his death in AD 632, Muhammad was the undisputed religious and political leader of the Arabian people. He headed a religion that would one day dominate the entire Middle East and beyond. As noted earlier, at least one historian has ranked Muhammad as the most influential person in history because he was uniquely successful as a religious, political, and military leader.9

Despite his influence, Muhammad made no arrangements for a successor after his death. None of his male children had survived into adulthood. The hotly debated question of the proper successor of Muhammad sparked the greatest and most enduring division in the history of Islam—the division between the two major branches of Muslims: the Sunnis and the Shi’ites.

Table 8.2. Muhammad’s Message

There is only one God (Allah).

All people must live in submission to God.

Humans will be held accountable at the last judgment.

Muhammad and the Qur’an

Since Muhammad’s greatest contribution to the religion of Islam was being the revelatory conduit for Islam’s holy book, let’s review what Muslims believe about the Qur’an.

Islam holds that Allah sent many prophets to humankind in order to convey his will. This revelation included the critical truth of monotheism, the human need to submit to God’s laws, and the warning of future divine judgment. According to Islamic belief, some of those prophets were also apostles (rasul) who produced scriptural or revelational writings for their communities. These early revelatory prophets and apostles included Zoroaster (Avesta), Moses (Torah), David (Psalms), and Jesus (Gospels).10

Islam teaches that all these scriptural books convey the same basic message of monotheism and the need to perform good works in obedience to God. These religious communities are referred to as “People of the Book,” and the Qur’an encourages people to believe in the truth of these previous scriptural writings (4:136).

However, with the coming of the Qur’an as a new revelation, it became apparent that these earlier writings conflicted with the revelation that came through Muhammad. Islamic theology explains these differences by saying that following the prophets’ deaths, extraneous and false beliefs infiltrated the biblical texts, thereby corrupting them. This distortion allowed heretical and false doctrines to arise within both the Jewish and the Christian community.

Christian theologian and scholar of Islam John Esposito explains the Muslim view of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures: “The current texts of the Torah and the New Testament are regarded as a composite of human fabrications mixed with divine revelation.”11 Muslims believe that the Bible as originally given completely agreed with Islamic theology, but Jewish and Christian corruption caused these writings to conflict with the Qur’an. From the Islamic viewpoint, the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are incomplete and corrupted (tahrif). However, the Qur’an stands as the complete, final, and perfect revelation from God par excellence.12 Islamic theology proclaims that “the Qur’an is the foundation of Islam.”13 Nasr explains this holy book’s prominent position: “The Quran is that central sacred presence that determines all aspects of Muslim life and the source and fountainhead of all that can be authentically called Islamic.”14

According to Islamic theology, the content that makes up the Qur’an was revealed through the angel Gabriel to Muhammad over a twenty-three-year period. Muhammad then relayed these revelations orally (Qur’an means “reciting”). Later, they were written down and became a single volume of sacred scripture. Tradition holds that those who served as Muhammad’s scribes (including his adopted son, Zayd) wrote the content on “pieces of paper, stones, palm-leaves, shoulder-blades, ribs, and bits of leather.”15 Paper was undoubtedly scarce in the Arabian Desert in the seventh century.

The Qur’an16 is approximately four-fifths the size of the New Testament. It includes 114 chapters (called suras) with a total of about 6,000 verses (called ayat). The chapters are arranged according to length (long to short) rather than chronologically or topically. The longer ones contain the later Medinan revelations, whereas the shorter chapters contain the earlier Meccan revelations, both allegedly given to Muhammad.

For all Muslims, the Qur’an is the literal word of God (dictated by God in Arabic to Gabriel, then by Gabriel to Muhammad) and therefore eternal, absolute, and irrevocable. Allah spoke in the first person, an extensive feature in this holy book. The literary form of the Qur’an reflects a type of Arabic poetry and prose. Characteristically theological and ethical in nature, each chapter except one starts with what is called the bismillah, which reads as follows: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.”17

Having highlighted the life of Muhammad and the holy book he recited, let’s now look at his personality.

What Was the Prophet Like?

According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was pure hearted and beloved and possessed a sweet and gentle disposition. However, like that of most people, including extraordinary ones, his personality had both positive and negative characteristics. A more objective analysis reveals a man who was devoted, exceedingly driven, and highly intelligent, though in his roles in the military and in politics, he was, at times, vicious and vengeful. So though Muslims view Muhammad as a nearly perfect person, a fairer assessment indicates that he was morally flawed. Even Muhammad himself would agree that he was a broken and disobedient man.

Theologian Stephen Neill offers this assessment of Muhammad’s character:

Out of these sources it is possible to construct a rather clear picture of a great man; less attractive, perhaps, than the Buddha, but a leader of men—vigorous, decisive, authoritarian, not always very scrupulous, but clear of purpose, and with an intense sense of knowing the will of God and being called to declare it.18

In his roles as prophet, military leader, and political ruler, Muslims view Muhammad as a great religious, social, and political reformer. Yet when Muhammad gained power, he tended to use force in a ruthless manner against non-Muslims and especially against his former enemies. Sometimes he appealed to alleged revelations to support his decisions.19

With regard to women, Muhammad did not view the sexes as equal. For example, he did not regard a woman’s testimony as equal to that of a man’s.20 Also, according to the Qur’an, a husband may use physical and spiritual discipline against a disobedient wife.21 Muhammad was devoted and faithful to his first wife, Khadija, to whom he was married for twenty-five years, but after her death he took at least twelve wives. Though the Qur’an allows a man to have four wives,22 Muhammad claimed he had been given divine revelation that allowed him to have more.23 The ages and circumstances of some of Muhammad’s wives reflect self-indulgence and reckless entitlement on his part,24 although, as Muslim scholars accurately note, the standards and laws of the time tolerated such practices.

Table 8.3. Qualities and Characteristics of Muhammad

1. Devoted

2. Strong willed

3. Intelligent

4. Diplomatic

5. Courageous

6. Ruthless

7. Persuasive

The Prophet and the Son of God

Muslims view Muhammad as the supreme and final prophet in a long line of prophetic figures (some 124,000) that includes but is not limited to such biblical figures as Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, and Jesus. Historic Christianity refers to Jesus Christ as the unique Son of God—the person who shares God the Father’s divine nature and is therefore God in human flesh. These two respective leaders of the world’s largest religions profoundly differ in eight categories.

History

Current Muhammad studies have challenged the traditional Islamic story about how the Qur’an came to be, but the traditional Islamic position appeals to three basic sources for historical knowledge of Muhammad.

First, Islam’s holy book, the Qur’an, reveals information about Muhammad. The traditional view is that not long after Muhammad’s death, about twenty years or so, the third caliph (a successor to Muhammad) Uthman (who reigned AD 644–656) collected the sayings of the Qur’an and placed them into a canonical collection. However, serious questions have emerged in contemporary scholarship about whether important textual variations existed among the versions of the Qur’an that Uthman had in his possession.25

Second, the many volumes of the Hadith (written reports) are said to contain Muhammad’s sayings and deeds. The most respected corpus is by Ismail Sahih Bukhari, written in 870.

Third, the biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq about 150 years after Muhammad’s death. It is considered the most reliable history of his life.

Despite these relatively early sources, some non-Muslim scholars nevertheless believe that there is extensive myth and legend in the materials and that the sources came at least a century after Muhammad’s death.

Jesus Christ, in comparison, is a historical person whose life, death, and resurrection are grounded in the early texts of Scripture, which were written by eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4). And, as explored in chapter 4, the time span between when Christ died and when the first eyewitness accounts appeared is merely two or three decades.

Nature

Though viewed by Muslims as history’s greatest person, Muhammad never claimed to be anything other than a mere human messenger (Qur’an 7:188; 17:95). Neill explains, “No one in the Islamic world has ever dreamed of according to him divine honours—he would have been the first to reject any such suggestion as blasphemy.”26

In contrast, Jesus Christ proclaimed himself the Son of God who possessed both a divine and a human nature (see chapter 3). As Alister McGrath notes, Muhammad delivered a revelation from his God, but Jesus Christ as God in human flesh was a revelation of God in person.27

Character

Muhammad, while highly intelligent, courageous, and persuasive, was––from an objectively historical perspective––not a morally perfect man. He was a polygamist, he ordered civilian caravans to be plundered in war, and as a ruler he gave in to the darker impulses of revenge and retaliation.28

By contrast, in Western civilization, the greatest moral compliment a person can pay in regard to morals is that a person is Christlike in character. Jesus even fulfilled in his life the great moral ideals he taught about in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7).

Mission

Muhammad’s mission was to persuade the people of Arabia to submit their wills completely to the one God, Allah, because they would soon encounter divine judgment. Muhammad served in the roles of prophet, soldier, and politician to accomplish his divinely motivated goal.

Jesus Christ’s mission, on the other hand, was to rescue sinners by providing a permanent sacrifice for human sin on the cross. As the Son of God in human flesh, Jesus Christ came to earth to reconcile God and human beings. So while Islam is a religion of good works, Christianity is a religion of divine rescue (though good works are expected to flow from God’s redemptive grace).

Role

In Islam, Muhammad plays the critical roles of prophet and reciter of the Qur’an, but he is not the center of Muslim worship and devotion. Therefore, Muhammad is the most important prophet in a long line, but he only points the way and models a Muslim lifestyle.

In sharp contrast, historic Christianity is all about Jesus Christ—emphasizing his person, nature, life, death, and resurrection. As the unique Son of God, Jesus Christ points the way, is the way, opens the door, and accomplishes salvation by his actions. Jesus Christ is absolutely indispensable to historic Christianity.

State

Muhammad died at sixty-two years of age at the height of his power as a great spiritual, military, and political leader, but he remained in the grave. The place of Muhammad’s tomb was well known by his followers. Death is the great equalizer even for the most influential human beings in history.

Unlike all others, including the great leaders of the world’s religions, Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave at his resurrection. Jesus has the power that no mere human being holds—to come back from what is for all others permanent physical death.

Life

The prophet Muhammad was world affirming in his monotheistic religious vision for Arabia. Islam affirms a good and genuine creation. Life is to be lived in this physical world in anticipation of Allah’s impending judgment.

The Son of God is world and life affirming in his vision of truth and reality. This world was made by God and pronounced divinely good. But this world will be followed by another one. This realm is the proving ground for the eternal age to come.

Future

Islam’s eschatology focuses on Allah’s final judgment of all human beings. A Muslim’s hope is that things will go well in that divine judgment. Islam is not a religion of redemption, so human beings must conform their lives in obedience to Allah’s will.

Christianity’s eschatology involves the literal, physical return of Jesus Christ to earth. The Son of God will raise all human beings from the dead. Then human beings will undergo the judgment of God. Christ will grant eternal life to all who believe in him as the Son of God. He will grant eternal suffering to all who fail to believe. Then Christ will rule in a kingdom that will never end.

Table 8.4. Comparison of the Prophet and the Son of God

| The Prophet | The Son of God
History | Mixed with myth and legend | Rooted in facts of history
Nature | Merely human | God incarnate
Character | Morally imperfect | Morally perfect
Mission | Promote submission to Allah | Redeem sinners
Role | Prophet and example | Lord and Savior
State | Dead | Resurrected
Life | World affirming | World and life affirming
Future | Divine judgment | Eternal life with God

Muhammad lived one of the most extraordinary lives in history. He rose from orphan beginnings in the medieval Arabian Desert to become the undisputed leader of the entire Arabian people. He is the only individual in history who founded a world religion and served as a major military leader and a major ruler. Given the growth and world influence of Islam since his death, Muhammad must be considered one of the most influential persons in history. His influence is at least comparable to that of Confucius, Gautama, and perhaps even Jesus. Yet as a spiritual seeker, he was highly devoted but also spiritually undiscerning. As a warrior, he was courageous but also morally ruthless. And as a ruler, he was persuasive and skilled but also brutal, especially toward those he viewed as his enemies.

Reflections on Islam

Islam is the fastest-growing world religion. And as the Pew Report revealed earlier, its rapid rate of growth is expected to continue through the next several decades. Although many Muslims live in the Middle East, the largest populations are found on the continent of Asia. The largest number of Muslims in any country is currently found in Indonesia (more than two hundred million). The next three in order are Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; no other countries come close.

Islam is a significant and influential belief system whose collective world-and-life view continues to influence the world economically, politically, culturally, and religiously. Nasr notes, “Islam is both a religion and a civilization, a historical reality that spans over fourteen centuries of human history.”29 Its growth and influence make Islam Christianity’s primary competitor in the marketplace of religious ideas.

The Five Pillars of Islam

Some Muslim scholars assert that the Qur’an stresses deeds over creeds. This emphasis on obedience and devotion to the law of God over doctrine makes the basic religious practices engaged in by Muslims crucial in terms of Islam’s answers to the big questions of life. These essential and obligatory practices in Islam are known as the Five Pillars (arkan).30 Upon this foundation “rests the whole ritual structure of the [Islamic] religion.”31

The following five practices characterize the religious lives of Muslims all over the world.

PROFESSION OF FAITH (SHAHADAH)

“There is no god but the God [Allah], and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” This brief creedal statement is probably the best-known creed among all the world’s religions. Scholars say that in the Muslim world the shahadah is usually the first words a person hears at birth and the last words one hears at death. World religions scholar Huston Smith says, “The shahadah is the ultimate answer to all questions.”32 Reciting this proclamation is the way a person professes faith and becomes a Muslim.

Religious creeds usually express in a few words the very essence of a religion. The shahadah succeeds in that task, for it stresses two foundational theological beliefs—“the alpha and omega of the Islamic message.”33 First, the creed affirms Islam’s uncompromising commitment to absolute or unitarian monotheism. Allah is the one and only God. This affirmation excludes not only polytheistic religions but also Christianity. (Muslims misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity as a compromise of monotheism.) Second, the creed underscores the important conviction that Muhammad stands as the last and greatest of Allah’s prophets or messengers to humankind.

Smith explains the significance of reciting the creed: “At least once during his or her lifetime a Muslim must say the shahadah correctly, slowly, thoughtfully, aloud, with full understanding, and with heartfelt conviction.”34

PRAYER (SALAT)

Muslims are expected to pray five times per day (canonical prayers). Prior to prayer, Muslims engage in a ceremonial cleansing whereby they wash their face, mouth, hands, and feet. While praying, they face east toward the holy Islamic city of Mecca, where Muhammad first received the revelation from Allah.

Prayers involve bowing, prostrating, and kneeling before God. They can be done alone or in a group, at home or in a mosque (known as “the place of prostration”).35 Recited in Arabic at dawn, midday, midafternoon, sunset, and nightfall, these prayers express gratitude to God. Considered “the most central rite of Islam,” prayer gives a proper perspective on life.36 Muslim men usually gather for congregational prayer at the mosque on Friday, though that day is not considered a Sabbath.

ALMSGIVING (ZAKAT)

Muslims have an obligation to assist the poor and help in the spread of Islam’s message. Adherents are expected to give one-fortieth (2.5 percent) of their net worth to assist the less fortunate. This money is often collected at the mosque and held in a public treasury. Earlier in Islam’s history, almsgiving provided a type of social welfare for poorer Muslim communities.

FAST OF RAMADAN (SAWM)

During the ninth month of the Islamic calendar—Ramadan—all healthy adult Muslims are expected to fast during the daylight hours. From sunrise to sunset, Muslims abstain from food, drink, and sex. This fasting commemorates the Night of Power (the twenty-seventh day of Ramadan), when the prophet Muhammad supposedly was visited by Gabriel and received the first revelation from Allah that eventually became part of the Qur’an.

Muslims view Ramadan as a time of spiritual reflection and physical discipline. Many read enough of the Qur’an each evening to finish the book by Ramadan’s end. The fast of Ramadan culminates with a grand celebration that lasts several days and is comparable to Christmas for Christians.

PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA (HAJJ)

The end of Ramadan marks the beginning of the season of pilgrimage. All Muslims who are physically and financially capable are expected to take a trip to Mecca at least once during their lives. This seasonal pilgrimage is intended to heighten spiritual awareness and commitment to God and to reinforce the importance of human equality. The rituals involved in visiting Mecca (located in Saudi Arabia) center on the historical events of Muhammad’s life that led to the founding of the Islamic community in the seventh century. Nasr remarks, “The hajj signifies a return both to the spatial center of the Islamic universe and to the temporal origin of the human state itself.”37

A Christian Perspective on the Five Pillars

While Islam features a number of critical beliefs, it seems fair to say that overall the religion emphasizes deeds over creeds. To fare well in the impending judgment, Muslims must submit their lives to Allah. Practicing the Five Pillars is a Muslim’s way of expressing that submission.

Given this emphasis on practice over belief, even law over theology, Islam seems closer to Judaism in this regard than to Christianity. Judaism, especially in its Orthodox expression (with the keeping of kosher laws), is very much a religion of practice. While Christianity shares a deep commitment to the spiritual disciplines (for example, prayer, reflection, service), the Christian faith is unique among its monotheistic competitors in emphasizing the critical importance of belief, doctrinal truth, and an overall theological system.

Strengths of the Islamic Religion

Reflecting a religion, a culture, and a world-and-life view, Islam has at least the following three worldview-oriented strengths.

First, Islam as a broad historical religion values human reason, argumentation, and legitimate tests for rationality (coherence). Islamic civilization experienced a powerful intellectual and cultural renaissance in the ninth and tenth centuries that for a time threatened to outpace the Christian civilization of the West. Muslim thinkers through the centuries have made significant contributions in mathematics, philosophy, and medicine.38

Second, Islam scores high marks in logical correspondence because it affirms the real and independent existence of the physical universe (scientific realism).39 In addition, Muslims view Allah as the divine craftsman who stands behind the world’s complexity and design. Appreciation for a theistic (even Islamic) approach to science40 has characterized Islam for much of its history. Muslim scholars and apologists sometimes argue that the religion of Islam either birthed or significantly advanced the scientific enterprise.

Third, Islam’s historical background makes it possible to test (verify or falsify) at least some of its truth claims. For example, Islam’s tenets are much more open to rational evaluation than the claims of Hinduism’s pantheistic monism worldview.

Islam’s Common Ground with Christianity

Christianity and Islam are both Middle Eastern religions in origin. Along with Judaism, both claim to be part of the biblical tradition, and both are theistic in philosophical-theological orientation.

Islam shares some important beliefs with the historic Christian faith. Both religions believe in a single God who is the transcendent Creator of the universe. And though Islam denies the deity of Christ and his role as Savior (critical truths of Christianity), Muslims do affirm that Jesus was a historical figure born of a virgin. They consider him a human prophet who lived a sinless life and performed miracles.

A Christian Response to a Major Islamic Claim

The religion of Islam claims to be part of the biblical tradition. Muslims assert that, like Jews and Christians, they are “People of the Book.” They attempt to trace their religious lineage back to the Old Testament prophet Abraham (through Ishmael instead of through Isaac), thus also claiming to be children of Abraham and affirming Abrahamic monotheism.

The Qur’an itself encourages people to accept and believe the Scriptures—the Bible’s Old and New Testaments—that preceded the so-called revelation given to Muhammad. Islamic truth appears tied to biblical truth, for Islam teaches that the revelation in the Qur’an via Muhammad completes the revelation that began with such prophets as Moses (Torah) and Jesus (Gospel). According to Muslim scholars, the writings of the Jewish Torah and the New Testament Gospels confirm Muhammad’s unique prophetic role (Qur’an 7:157).

However, Islam also claims that the Old and New Testament Scriptures are incomplete and corrupted (tahrif). This assertion raises a serious question about the logical consistency of the overall Islamic position concerning revelation. On the one hand, Islamic theology teaches that Islam is part of and dependent on the truth of the biblical revelation (finding justification within it and building on it). But on the other hand, Islamic theology considers biblical revelation largely inadequate and untrustworthy. These claims are at best inconsistent and at worst logically incoherent.

Muslim apologists try to sidestep the revelatory criticisms of inconsistency and logical incoherence by arguing that what the biblical prophets originally wrote was indeed consistent with later Islamic teaching found in the Qur’an. Jews and Christians who came after the prophets’ deaths corrupted the biblical texts and invented false doctrines that now conflict with what Allah’s prophets always taught.

In effect, Islamic theology sees Islam as coming before Judaism and Christianity and yet also fulfilling and correcting these two religions. Esposito explains:

Islam is not a new religion with a new Scripture. Instead of being the youngest of the major monotheistic world religions, from a Muslim viewpoint it is the oldest. Islam represents the “original” as well as the final revelation of the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.41

However, the historical facts concerning the biblical texts do not support Islam’s grand claim to be the first and last revelation. Judaism and Christianity both have extensive collections of biblical manuscripts that span centuries. Text-critical studies have demonstrably shown that the biblical texts, even with the problem of transmissional errors, were not substantially corrupted throughout the centuries.42 If we look backward, we see that the biblical texts from the time of Muhammad (seventh century AD) are no different from the texts that appeared earlier, during the years of Christianity’s greatest expansion in the first three centuries after Christ. Also, the Old Testament manuscripts are the same at the time of Christ, and even before, as they were in the seventh century.

Therefore, no evidence exists to support Islam’s claim that the biblical texts were substantially corrupted. At the same time, the writings of the Christian church fathers show that such doctrines as the Trinity and the deity of Christ (considered perversions by Muslims) actually had a very early origin in the history of Christianity and were drawn from the canonical writings produced by Jesus’s apostles.43

Ironically, Islam’s claim of textual corruption appears to backfire. Though an examination of the biblical texts disproves the Muslim allegation of corruption over time, the same cannot be said for the Qur’an. The third caliph—Uthman (AD 644–656), following in the authoritative line of Muhammad—selected one version of the Qur’an and burned all the others. Common sense seems to indicate that Uthman would burn the other texts only because clear textual variations were involved. Therefore, it is historically and textually impossible to restore the Qur’an to the state it was in before Uthman.

The destruction of all but one version raises the question, How do Muslim scholars objectively know whether Uthman picked the Qur’anic text in its purest and most authentic form? (In fact, early copies of the Qur’an have been discovered that conflict with Uthman’s authorized version.)44 Shi’ite Muslims protest that Uthman eradicated the parts of the Qur’an that taught Muhammad’s true successor was his relative Ali. In light of Uthman’s action, the Muslim claim to have one original version45 of the Qur’an can be neither historically nor textually supported. The Bible stands in a much stronger position than the Qur’an when it comes to textual authenticity.

Islam is a religion intended to restore the biblical faiths, but textual and doctrinal history with regard to the Bible show no sign that they ever needed such restoration. The truth claims of Islam appear to rest, at least to some degree, on the scriptural writings of Judaism and Christianity. Yet Islam simultaneously dismisses the essential truth of those two religions. Although Islam builds on the borrowed theological capital of Judaism and Christianity, it nevertheless rejects the historical, theological essence of the biblical religions, namely, their clear redemptive focus.

One may wonder if Christianity does to Judaism what Islam attempts to do to both of these biblical religions in terms of restoration. However, Christianity’s relationship to Judaism is quite different. Historic Christianity accepts and embraces the complete reliability and truth of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christianity also embraces, for the most part, the central theological system of Jewish theology but insists that there has been progressive revelation. In addition, the Christian faith affirms that Jesus of Nazareth was Israel’s Messiah who came to fulfill the laws of Judaism, not to abolish them. In effect, Christians affirm much of the truth of Judaism, even believing that the Hebrew Scriptures have been fulfilled by the Jewish Messiah.

Because Islam cannot prove its grand revelatory claims of corruption, it seems reasonable to embrace the initial revelation—one with objective, historical support for its reliability: the Bible.

Other Differences between Islam and Christianity

Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic religions, but ultimately their views of God, humans, and salvation differ considerably.

Ultimate Reality (God)

Christianity: According to historic Christianity, God is an infinite, eternal, immutable, morally perfect, and tripersonal spiritual being (triune)—the transcendent Creator and sovereign Sustainer of all things. The doctrine of the Trinity46 reflects the Christian belief that God eternally and simultaneously exists as three distinct and distinguishable (though not separate) persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As theologian J. I. Packer notes, “God is not only he but also they.”47 In light of the Trinity, Christianity affirms the incarnation—that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, took on human nature and became man in Jesus Christ (see chapter 3).

Islam: Islam affirms a simpler version of monotheism than does Christianity. According to Islamic monotheism, God is one being and one person. Islam avers a strict unitarian form of monotheism that stresses the absolute indivisible unity of God (tawhid). Allah has no partners, equals, rivals, companions, or associates. Unlike the Triune God of Christianity, Allah is not begotten, nor does he beget (therefore Allah has no Son). This vigilant commitment to an absolute form of monotheism is the reason that any attempt to identify God with another being or finite creature is viewed as blasphemy or idolatry (shirk). To do so is regarded as one of the worst sins in Islam.

Jesus Christ

Christianity: The person of Jesus Christ is at the very core of the Christian faith. Therefore, understanding his identity and nature is crucial for embracing this belief system. Scripture presents Jesus of Nazareth as none other than God incarnate. The biblical doctrine of the incarnation48 teaches that the eternal Logos (“Word”), the Second Person of the Trinity, took unto himself a genuine human nature without in any way diminishing his divinity. Jesus, one undivided person, nevertheless has both a divine nature and a human nature. These two natures were united in the historical person of Jesus Christ, making him the divine-human person: fully God and fully man.

Islam: Islam denies the deity of Christ and rejects the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. Also, adherents do not believe that Jesus died on a cross as a sacrifice for human sin. However, Muslims do view Jesus as a historical figure and a great human prophet who was born of a virgin, performed various miracles, and lived a sinless life.

Human Nature and the Human Predicament

Christianity: Human beings were created in the image of God (as rational, moral, and spiritual beings) but misused their freedom to sin and thus need redemption in Christ. Christian anthropology gives dignity to human beings via the imago Dei and possesses broad explanatory power by seeing human beings as an enigmatic combination of greatness and wretchedness.49

Islam: God created human beings good and with free agency (but not in the divine image). Humans as limited and weak creatures (but not fallen sinners) will face judgment.

Salvation

Christianity: The New Testament explicitly teaches that salvation is not earned by human moral effort but is a divinely imparted gift or endowment. Historic Christianity affirms that salvation comes by God’s grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus Christ’s unique life, death, and resurrection.

Islam: Islam is not a redemptive religion. Muslims are told to obey the laws of the Qur’an and to practice the Five Pillars in the hope that they will be found worthy of paradise (an earned reward). Muslims deny the very essence of historic Christianity, including the Trinity, Christ’s deity, original sin, Christ’s atonement, and humankind’s creation in the image of God. Thus, for Islam to be true, historic Christianity must be false and vice versa.

Table 8.5. Worldview Differences between Islam and Christianity

| Islam | Christianity
Ultimate Reality (God) | Unitarianism (tawhid: indivisible oneness of God) | Trinitarianism
Jesus Christ | Human | God-man
Human Beings | No image of God; good | Image of God; fallen
Human Predicament | Facing the judgment | Out of sync with God
Salvation | Obedience | Grace

Having examined the differences between these two highly influential world religions, let’s now look further at the historic doctrine of the Trinity, for that may be the greatest gift that Christianity offers the world. And Islam vehemently rejects this understanding of God.

The Triune God Is Love

According to the New Testament, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). But according to historic Christian theology, God is love only because God is a Trinity. In fact, Christian theology asserts that God can only be a supreme independent being because God is a Trinity. This insight led British evangelical theologian Bruce Milne to state that “just about everything that matters in Christianity hangs on the truth of God’s three-in-oneness.”50

Traditional Monotheism

In traditional monotheism (classical Judaism, Islam, and Unitarianism), God is one being and one person, or, philosophically, God is one “What” (essence) and one “Who” (person). Thus, the one God is a single, solitary person. But this common conception of monotheism raises serious theological difficulties. If God is a single, solitary person (like the traditional Jewish conception of Yahweh and the Islamic conception of Allah), then traditional monotheism must answer two fundamental questions:

Whom did God love in eternity before he created the world?

Is God in desperate need of the creation to fulfill himself?

If God is a single person, then before God created, he was alone in eternity. God had no one to love but himself. But self-love can be toxic, and it is certainly not as rich and vibrant as having love for someone else. Therefore, in traditional monotheism, God had to create other persons (angels or humans) to have someone to love. But if this were true, then God is dependent on the creation for fulfillment.

British evangelical theologian Michael Reeves uses the example of Allah and his title as “The Loving” in Islam to show the problem. “If Allah needs his creation to be who he is in himself (‘loving’), then Allah is dependent on his own creation, and one of the cardinal beliefs of Islam is that Allah is dependent on nothing.”51

Trinitarian Monotheism

Historic Christianity’s trinitarian monotheism holds that God is one being and three persons, or, philosophically, God is one “What” (essence) and three “Whos” (three distinct but not separate persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Thus, the one God has eternally existed as a community of persons.

In Christianity, God is principally a Father who forever loves his coequal Son and Spirit in eternity before the creation of all contingent things. The Triune God has existed forever in an eternal community of loving relationships. That love then spilled over when God created all things. Therefore, God is love and is capable of loving his creatures precisely because God is a Trinity.

One of the most beloved, gospel-summarizing Bible verses takes on new meaning when understood through a trinitarian prism: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Let’s now look at how God’s triune nature affects salvation.

No Trinity, No Salvation

Contemporary heretical sects or cults all claim to have the proper theological system to replace historic Christianity as the true heir of biblical revelation. They also deny two essential Christian doctrines: the Trinity and salvation as the free gift of God’s grace through faith.52 Why these two in particular? The answer is that these two essentials of historic Christianity are inextricably tied together.

To understand how the Lord is uniquely involved in salvation, we need to define what historic Christianity means when it says that God is triune.

The doctrine of the Trinity sets historic Christianity apart from all religions, including other monotheistic faiths such as Judaism and Islam. It is not a mere human convention or a construction of the church, for the Bible itself reveals a God who possesses a plurality of personhood within the one divine essence (trinitarian monotheism).53 As stated previously, the one true God has forever been, is now, and shall ever subsist as three distinct persons. None of the divine persons came into being or became divine at a given moment in time. God is one in essence or being but three in personhood or subsistence. Because there is no subordination or inferiority of essence or nature among the members of the Trinity, the three persons are coequal in nature, attributes, and glory.

So how does the Trinity affect salvation? We can think of salvation as provided by the three divine persons in three logically ordered steps. First, motivated by agape (self-sacrificing) love, God the Father sends his only begotten Son into the world to save sinners (1 John 4:9–10). So the Father initiates salvation.

Second, God the Son, also known as the incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, accomplishes our salvation by dying in the place of sinners on the cross. Just before his death, Jesus proclaimed his soteriological accomplishment by saying, “It is finished” (John 19:30). So the Son achieves salvation.

Third, God the Holy Spirit, also called the Advocate or Comforter, applies salvation through his threefold work of convicting people of sin (John 16:8), regenerating hearts (Titus 3:5), and enabling people to confess Christ as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). So the Holy Spirit employs salvation.

Reeves explains why salvation is a gift: “It means that this God makes no third party suffer to achieve atonement. The one who dies is the lamb of God, the Son. And it means that nobody but God contributes to the work of salvation: the Father, Son and Spirit accomplish it all.”54

Why is the Trinity doctrine so important to historic Christianity? Because there is no gift of salvation without it!

Having discussed the Trinity’s significance in the context of the religion of Islam, we now tackle a vital question about the three great Middle Eastern religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

A Jewish Christian Muslim?

In the last chapter, we discovered that it is common in Chinese popular religion to hear people proclaim, “I’m a Confucianist, a Buddhist, and a Taoist.” While these belief systems can exist together without necessarily contradicting one another, can the same be said of all religions?

In 2012, Sean Stone, son of famous moviemaker Oliver Stone, made headlines when he declared, “I am a Jewish Christian Muslim.”55 Is such a provocative religious claim justifiable?

Stone comes from a Jewish family but was baptized in the Christian tradition and then converted to Islam. However, he doesn’t think he technically “converted” to Islam because according to him all three of the monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) worship the same God. Here is Stone’s statement:

Conversion is an interesting word because I don’t believe you can convert from one God—from the same God. . . . I’ve also believed in the same Judeo-Christian God. I think it’s a misunderstanding of Islam to say that Allah is a different God. It’s a different name for the same one.56

Two points come to bear on Stone’s bold theological claim. First, it is possible to be culturally connected to one religious tradition but then to convert to another religion. For example, a person can be culturally or ethnically Jewish and then accept Jesus as the divine Messiah and convert to historic Christianity. Messianic Jews have embraced Jesus (or Yeshua, to use his Hebrew name) as their Messiah but have chosen to retain their Jewish culture. Such groups as Jews for Jesus are culturally Jewish but theologically Christian. Jews for Jesus is thoroughly trinitarian in theological orientation and explicitly affirms Jesus Christ’s deity.57

Second, traditional Judaism (excluding Messianic Jewish groups) and Islam categorically reject the historic Christian claim that Jesus Christ is God incarnate (God in human flesh). Regardless of how much the three monotheistic religions have in common, by denying an essential Christian truth claim, Judaism and Islam hold a view of God contradictory to that of Christianity.

But Islam does not just deny what Christianity necessarily affirms. Islamic theology also declares that Allah is definitely not the Triune God of Christianity. As stated earlier, Allah has no partners, equals, companions, or associates. He is not begotten, nor does he beget, nor does anyone proceed from him. Thus, Allah has no coequal Son and Spirit.58 For Islam to be theologically true, historic Christianity must be theologically false and vice versa.

So when Stone says that Allah is the same God as that of Christianity, he will not receive any support for that claim from Islamic theology, for again, Islam denies the theological heart of historic Christianity: the Trinity, the incarnation, original sin, and Christ’s atonement on the cross.

Therefore, when it comes to the theological truth claims of these three important monotheistic religions, it is logically contradictory to claim to be a Jewish Christian Muslim.

Having discussed some relevant theological issues, this book would suffer a detriment by failing to touch on an issue relating to Islam that everyone hears about virtually every day on the news.

Reflective Thinking: The War on Terrorism

Because my philosophy studies have taught me to value reflective thinking, I deliberately take time to think as clearly and as carefully as I can about issues I deem important. To think about Islam today is to consider the challenge of the war on terrorism.

I teach a comparative religions course in Biola University’s master’s program in Christian apologetics. The course examines the world’s major religions, including Islam, in light of the historic Christian worldview. I tell my students that I believe only a small percentage of the world’s Muslims have adopted the radical political-religious philosophy that promotes jihadist terror against innocent people. Of course, given the worldwide population of 1.6 billion Muslims (approximately 23 percent of the world’s population), even if only 5 percent of Muslims have adopted a radical form of Islam, like that of al-Qaeda or ISIS, the numbers are staggeringly ominous.59 Ironically, many or most of the victims of radical Islamic terrorist acts are themselves Muslims.

Since the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, the US government, via the military and law enforcement, has taken some effective measures to make America safer from terrorist acts. No doubt people question some of the difficult judgments and decisions made by Presidents Bush and Obama in the war on terrorism, but overall I believe America has been successful in navigating this new and difficult type of defense.

However, to defeat radical Islam, Western democracies must also use a force more formidable than rockets and drones—namely, the force of ideas. An ideological conflict can be won only by presenting a superior philosophy of life.

In 2010, I wrote an article titled “Ideas, Ideology, and Islam,” in which I highlighted the Pakistani-British citizen Maajid Nawaz, a former Muslim extremist who now works to combat jihadist ideology. Once a chief recruiter for the Islamic extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (“Party of Liberation”), Nawaz eventually concluded that radical jihadist Islam is closer to a form of fascistic totalitarianism than to traditional Islam. Nawaz, a courageous and moderate Muslim, dialogues with and debates radical Muslims on college campuses and seeks to demonstrate that their understanding of Islam is convoluted.60

Western democracies should solidly support such efforts. These radical Muslims must come to view Islam differently if we want to effect real change. After all, the war on terrorism is, at its core, an ideological conflict—thus also a spiritual one.

Some Christians with whom I have shared my views suggest that supporting and promoting moderate voices within the Islamic world will fail. Why do they feel this way? Because they view Islam as inherently violent. To them, Islam possesses no truly moderate voices.

Yet no religion is a monolith. It is possible to disassociate radical political ideologies from the traditional practice of Islam. Granted, it is not easy to change minds formed by fascist-like philosophies, but with such high stakes, we must make every effort to support moderate Muslims in the war against radical Islam.

With nearly a quarter of the world’s population embracing Islam, we better hope that a majority of these Muslims are moderate Muslims who affirm peace and tolerance. Otherwise the world is in for an even greater tribulation than the one described by the eschatological views held by some Christians. The best scenario from a historic Christian perspective would be for Muslims to come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The great challenge is that most nations with an Islamic majority do not allow Christian proselytization.

I encourage liberty-loving individuals to view the war against radical Islamic terrorism as similar to the Cold War: a long twilight struggle that will require military might and sound ideas as well as concerted prayer. And I hope liberty-loving Muslims who have suffered the brunt of many of these brutal attacks will join in this effort.

Suggestions for Evangelistic Encounters with Muslims

Emphasize Common Ground

Acknowledge and affirm the important common ground that Muslims and Christians share, especially concerning monotheism and the broader biblical tradition. Explain to your Muslim friend that Christianity affirms monotheism. In fact, the word Trinity comes from tri-unity (three in one: the three persons are the one God). Also explain that the three divine persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You can refer to several verses that affirm the Christian belief in one God, including Romans 3:30, which mentions that there is “only one God,” and 1 Corinthians 8:6, which emphasizes that there is “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Emphasize That the Triune God Is a Unique God of Love

Ask this question of your Muslim friend: “As a single, solitary, personal God, whom did Allah love in eternity before he created angels and humans?” Since there was no one for Allah to love in eternity besides himself, was Allah desperate to create in order to give and get love? This is not a problem for the Triune God because the Father loved the Son in the Spirit from all eternity before creation (John 3:16). Explain that the Triune God of historic Christianity accounts for love without need from the outside. Second Thessalonians 2:13 affirms that from the beginning God chose us, the Lord loved us, and the Spirit was at work to sanctify us. The entire Trinity was present in community before creation.

Explain That Only the Triune God Saves

Nobody but the Triune God contributes to salvation. The Father sent his only begotten Son into the world to save us, the Son accomplished our salvation on the cross of Calvary, and the Holy Spirit renews our hearts and grants us faith and repentance. Salvation was initiated by the Father, was accomplished by the Son, and is applied by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2). Thus, the Trinity is the ultimate God of grace (2 Cor. 13:14).

Explain That Jesus Is More than a Prophet

Explain to your Muslim friend that Jesus Christ is more than a prophet—he’s the Son of God, the Lord and Savior.

The high priest said to [Jesus], “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.” (Matt. 26:63–65)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad offers a message of moral reform and submission to Allah’s will with the hope that a person will gain paradise in the hereafter. Muslims must exhibit obedience to Allah by following the Five Pillars. Islam includes some basic beliefs about God and prophets and revelation, but the religion emphasizes deeds over creeds.

The Son of God, Jesus Christ, secures for those who trust in him salvation from sin and eternal life through his victory over death. Christianity is a set of beliefs, a collection of values, and a way of life that is rooted in belief in the Triune God and unveiled to the world in the incarnation of Christ, through whom the Trinity now showers the love it has forever shared.

Table 8.6. Comparison of Islam and Christianity

| Islam | Christianity
Problem | Human weakness | Sin (rebellion)
Need | Moral guidance | Reconciliation
Solution | Submission | Faith and repentance
Goal | Paradise | Personal redemption
Assurance | No | Yes

Next, we turn to part 3, where we will examine Christianity’s relationship to the world’s religions.

Further Suggested Reading

Brown, Jonathan A. C. Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Islamic Sources

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.

Guillaume, A., trans. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Christian Sources

Geisler, Norman L., and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Halverson, Dean C., ed. The Compact Guide to World Religions. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2013.

Discussion Questions

How should a Christian evaluate Muhammad’s religious experience in the cave?

Explain Muhammad’s religious message. Why has this Islamic message been so successful in attracting adherents?

Describe the Qur’an. How is it like and unlike the New Testament?

In what ways are Jesus and Muhammad most alike and most unalike?

Compare and contrast the Triune God with Islam’s view of Allah. How is the Trinity able to uniquely ground love?

Part 3: Christianity and the World’s Religions

9
Truth, Tolerance, and the Plurality of Religious Claims

In whatever way men approach me, I am gracious to them; men everywhere follow my path.

Prince Krishna, Bhagavad Gita

In the sphere of matters subject to individual thought and decision, pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas that are matters of taste rather than matters of truth.

Mortimer J. Adler, Truth in Religion

Pluralism is one of the three or four most serious threats to the integrity of the Christian faith at the end of the twentieth century.

Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?

In the days following the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, then-president George W. Bush called for a national day of prayer, urging Americans of all faiths to pray for America and especially for those devastated by the terrorists’ reprehensible actions. Interfaith religious services were nationally televised from the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, and Yankee Stadium in New York City. These services included clerics from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Prayers were offered to God, collectively addressed as “the God of Abraham, the God of Muhammad, and the Father of Jesus Christ.” The service held in New York City was led by popular television personality Oprah Winfrey, who declared during the event that all people pray to the same God.

Was Oprah right? Do we all pray to the same God? Are all religions equally valid spiritual paths? Is religious pluralism then a sound spiritual option when it comes to the complex claims made by the world’s religions?

This chapter explores the provocative topic of whether all religions can be true. First, we will identify and critique religious pluralism from a logical and a biblical perspective. Second, we will evaluate the issue of tolerance in light of religious truth claims.

Pluralism

Religious Pluralism

Given our present cultural milieu of globalism, multiculturalism, relativism (in both truth and morality), and especially the postmodern spirit, the growing climate of religious pluralism poses a serious challenge to the truth of the Christian faith. Religious pluralism is the view that all religions, certainly all major or ethical religions, are equally valid paths to God or to ultimate reality. For the pluralist, there are many religious roads that all lead to God and salvation.

Social Pluralism versus Metaphysical Pluralism

The United States embodies significant ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious diversity. Urban and suburban dwellers come from all parts of the globe. One’s next-door neighbors to the right might come from Southeast Asia or Australia. The neighbors to the left might originate from India, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. The United States, as a democratic nation, places great value on the principle of tolerance, especially the tolerance of religious expression. The Bill of Rights guarantees US citizens the right to free exercise of religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”1

Unfortunately, some people take the notion of tolerance of religious expression to mean that all religions are equally true, thus equally valid paths to God. In effect, democracy has been applied to ultimate truth.2 This politically correct approach to religion, though popular in this culture, represents deeply convoluted thinking. The acceptance of social pluralism (tolerance of diverse religious expression) does not logically imply the truth of metaphysical pluralism (that all religious truth claims are equally valid and simultaneously true).

Table 9.1. Two Types of Pluralism

Social Pluralism | Tolerance of diverse religious expression
Metaphysical Pluralism | All religious truth claims are equally valid and simultaneously true

A Three-Point Response to Metaphysical Pluralism

The popular notion that all religions are true ignores three critical considerations. In order to think through and respond to the issue of religious pluralism, we must recognize and understand each of these points.

THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS ARE DIVIDED

Although the religions of the world do share some common beliefs and especially moral values, fundamental and irreconcilable differences divide them on many crucial issues. These differences include the nature of God, the source and focus of revelation, the human predicament, the nature of salvation, and the destiny of humankind.3 A plethora of views exists just concerning the nature of God (or ultimate reality). Some religions affirm monotheism (one God); others, polytheism (many gods); still others believe in pantheism (all is God); and some even affirm atheism (no God).4 In Judaism5 and Islam, God is personal (and singular); in Christianity, God is clearly more than personal and singular (superpersonal and triune); while in particular strands of Hinduism and Buddhism, God is less than personal and singular (impersonal and diffuse).6

Table 9.2. Different Views of God and Ultimate Reality

Views of God | Monotheism, monolatrism, polytheism, henotheism, pantheism
Views of Ultimate Reality | Personal, impersonal, undifferentiated, consciousness, nothingness

Some of the world’s religions view God as wholly transcendent (beyond the world), others view him as wholly immanent (within the world), and still others see him as both transcendent and immanent. Some religions view God as infinite in nature and not identifiable with the world, whereas in other religions God is finite and identified with the world. Clearly no universal agreement exists among the world’s religions as to who or what God really is. As missionary scholar Harold Netland states, “Careful examination of the basic tenets of the various religious traditions demonstrates that, far from teaching the same thing, the major religions have radically different perspectives on the religious ultimate.”7 In other words, the world’s religions are deeply divided about God.

Table 9.3. What Is God?

One | Judaism, Christianity, Islam
Many | Popular Hinduism (330 million gods)
All | Philosophical Hinduism
None | Theravada Buddhism

Table 9.4. Who Is God?

A Personal Being | Judaism, Islam
A Superpersonal Being (Triune) | Christianity
An Impersonal Entity | Some forms of Hinduism, Buddhism

Identifying humankind’s ultimate problem (sinful rebellion, unenlightenment, desire), the necessary human response (faith, meditation, devotion), and how that dilemma must be resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment) reveals other stark contrasts between religions. Fundamental differences exist between the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, and one of the dominant religions of the East, Hinduism. Consider the following dramatic contrast.8

Christianity affirms that humanity’s ultimate problem is separation from God due to the willful disobedience of Adam and Eve (humankind’s original parents), with guilt and moral corruption being passed through them to the rest of the human race (original sin). Forgiveness of sin and reconciliation to God come only through the loving, redemptive sacrifice of the God-man Jesus Christ. That gift of forgiveness, however, must be received through personal repentance and faith. Salvation for the believer culminates in an eternal, personal relationship with God in the afterlife.

Philosophical (Vedanta) Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms that humanity’s ultimate problem is not sin but rather ignorance and unenlightenment. Human beings must undergo a cycle of rebirths in order to eliminate karma (acts of injustice in previous lives). These successions of lives will ultimately lead to moksha, the absorption of one’s individual consciousness into God or ultimate reality (impersonal Brahman). From this perspective, all is one and that one is God and that God is impersonal. However, as chapter 5 revealed, most Hindus are not pantheists. Rather, most Hindus embrace Bhakti Hinduism, which involves belief in monotheism or monolatrism and rejects a monistic (all is one) form of moksha. In fact, Hindus can affirm pantheism or monolatrism or polytheism or henotheism without the religion providing any rational explanation as to how these different views of God are coherent or integrated. Hinduism offers a smorgasbord of religious options.

Comparison of these two religions illustrates the stark difference between the worldviews of theism and pantheism. However, as noted, Hinduism in and of itself does not hold a definitive view of God or of ultimate reality. So one thing is painfully obvious. All these distinct visions of what is ultimately real and true cannot be right, for they are simply logically irreconcilable.

THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS ARE IRREDUCIBLE

The world’s religions are so diverse in belief and in worldview orientation that they defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme or essence. Indeed, the vast and complex array of religious perspectives makes religious reductionism a dubious venture altogether. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath notes, “There is a growing consensus that it is seriously misleading to regard the various religious traditions of the world as variations on a single theme.”9 Netland draws a similar conclusion about attempts to consolidate the religions according to a single salvific (relating to salvation) objective: “It is highly misleading to speak as if all religions share a common soteriological goal and simply differ on the means to reach it.”10

Attempts to reduce a variety of religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting them. Homogenizing religions is a costly price to pay to solve the problems of religious diversity, for in the end, the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place. Plus, the various religions do not easily conform to any particular reductionistic category.

Although some people rightly identify similar ethical values as a common motif, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that even the similar moral principles are motivated by and grounded in fundamentally different views of the nature of reality. Religion cannot be reduced simply to ethics, for religion makes claims about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics), to which ethics appeal for justification. Even the renowned authority on world religions Huston Smith sees difficulty with the notion that all religions are basically the same: “For as soon as [the notion of sameness] moves beyond vague generalities—‘every religion has some version of the Golden Rule’—it founders on the fact that the religions differ in what they consider essential and nonnegotiable.”11

Ethical values shared among Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, or Islam cannot be separated from the distinctive doctrines promoted by those particular religions. This distinctiveness is especially true of historic Christianity, for Christianity is not primarily a system of ethics. Instead, Christian ethics flow from a redemptive relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the ethical teachings of Jesus in the New Testament cannot be separated from the unique Christian doctrines that emerge directly from the great redemptive events of Jesus’s life (such as the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection). In other words, the truth of Christian ethics is inextricably tied to the truth of Christian theology. So even the most basic common ground that the world’s religions share (e.g., ethical principles such as the various aspects of the Ten Commandments) is viewed differently through the unique worldview lens of a particular religion. One’s view of reality (metaphysics) affects one’s perspective on proper behavior (ethics).

THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY

The formal laws of logic make it impossible that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way. For example, in Christianity Jesus Christ is God incarnate (the law of identity: A is A.). But Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam) at the same time and in the same respect (the law of noncontradiction: A thing A cannot be both A and non-A [at the same time it is A]). Contradictory religious claims have opposite truth value, meaning they negate or deny each other. Therefore, if one is true the other is false. Accordingly, Jesus Christ must either be God incarnate or not be God incarnate; there is no middle position possible (the law of excluded middle: either A or non-A).

Table 9.5. Three Foundational Laws of Logical Thought

The Law of Noncontradiction | A thing A cannot be both A and equal non-A. | Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
The Law of Excluded Middle | A thing A is either A or non-A. | Something either is or is not. A statement is either true or false.
The Law of Identity | A is A. | A thing (person, event, judgment) is what it is. A true statement is true.

Since Christians, Muslims, and Jews all conceive the identity of Jesus of Nazareth differently (e.g., God incarnate, human prophet, human teacher or blasphemer), logically speaking, their conceptions simply cannot all be true. While it is logically possible that all three positions are false (e.g., maybe Christ never existed at all, though as we saw in chapter 4, this viewpoint doesn’t fit the facts), they definitely cannot all be true. Thus, the popular claims of religious pluralism fail to comport with the self-evident laws of thought. This fact led Christian philosopher Ronald Nash to conclude that “any one who would become a pluralist must first abandon the very principles of logic that make all significant thought, action, and communication possible.”12

Table 9.6. Applying Logic to the Incarnation

1. Jesus is God incarnate (historic Christianity).

2. Jesus is not God incarnate (Judaism, Islam).

The law of noncontradiction (A cannot equal A and equal non-A) necessitates that the above statements cannot both be true.
The law of excluded middle (A is either A or non-A) necessitates that either one or the other of the statements is true.

In direct contrast to the tolerant sentiment often expressed by popular pluralists, the laws of logic insist that one must be rigidly intolerant when it comes to the morass of contradictory religious truth claims. Whenever the claims of one religion directly contradict (negate or deny) the claims of another religion, both of the claims cannot be true. Thus, love demands that we be tolerant toward people, but logic demands that we be intolerant toward contradictory ideas or claims.

Some people argue that applying logic to religion is false or misleading. They insist that ultimate truth comes only through some type of nonrational intuition. Their argument betrays them, however, because in arguing against logic, they must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. To do so is, of course, self-contradictory, for even those who claim, “Logic does not apply to God” must use logic in the formulation of that very statement.

Is it possible that the laws of logic apply to all areas of life except religion? The answer is certainly no. To divorce oneself from the self-evident laws of thought when it comes to ultimate reality is to resign oneself to irrationality. Netland explains that this is a price too great for most people to pay because it requires the “forfeiture of the possibility of meaningful affirmation or statement about anything at all—including statements about the religious ultimate. One who rejects the principle of noncontradiction is reduced to utter silence, for he or she has abandoned a necessary condition for any coherent or meaningful position whatsoever.”13

An Attempt to Rationalize Pluralism

Some philosophers and religious scholars believe there is a way of making religious pluralism intellectually tenable. For example, could it be, perhaps, that the contradictions among the world’s religions are only apparent rather than real? That is, maybe all the religions are experiencing the same divine reality but in different ways. After all, isn’t an encounter with a mysterious and unfathomable God at the core of most religions? Surely God transcends the finite human mind.

Prominent pluralist thinker John Hick14 employs a common Eastern way of illustrating this point, called the elephant analogy. In this analogy, several blind people encounter an elephant for the first time. Each feels a different part of the animal, then tries to determine truth about the essence of its being. One pats a leg and imagines the elephant as a “living pillar.” Another grasps the trunk and imagines a “snake.” The one who rubs the tusk believes the elephant to be a “sharp ploughshare.” Though each individual expresses one important aspect of the whole reality, none comprehends the complete entity.15

According to this analogy, one may attribute the differences among the world’s religions to humankind’s inability to grasp the infinite reality of God. Hick applies the famous Kantian objective/subjective distinction between the world as it is (the objective noumenal world) and the world as it appears to human consciousness (the subjective phenomenal world) to the problem of religious diversity. He argues that one must distinguish between ultimate reality as it is (the divine noumena) and ultimate reality as experienced by finite human beings (the divine phenomena).16

Hick’s pluralistic theory places the ultimate divine reality beyond the particular deities of the various religions. This divine ultimate is not experienced directly but instead is filtered through the different historical and cultural lenses of humankind. Thus, people encounter the same divine reality (Krishna, Buddha, Jesus) differently because of their differing historical, cultural, or philosophical perceptions and biases. Hick further explains, “These different personae are thus partly projections of the divine Reality into human consciousness, and partly projections of the human consciousness itself as it has been formed by particular historical cultures.”17

For Hick, each religion is valid because each faith provides a genuine (though obviously limited) encounter with ultimate reality. The world’s religions represent “different ‘faces’ or ‘masks’ or personae of God, the Ultimate Reality.”18 And since Hick thinks that religion is ultimately about existential transformation (ethics) and not about specific doctrinal beliefs, all religious paths are acceptable because all the major religions are capable of transforming a person from being self-centered to being divine-centered. Hick views religious pluralism as a much more attractive hypothesis than either total skepticism (secularism) of religion, on the one hand, or traditional religious dogmatism (such as historic, orthodox Christianity), on the other.

A Critique of John Hick’s Pluralism

Hick has been one of the preeminent advocates of a philosophical approach to religious pluralism. But though his pluralistic vision appeals to many for both its apparent tolerance and its attempted unification of religion, it is nevertheless fraught with serious problems. An examination of Hick’s views should begin with careful scrutiny of the common elephant analogy.

In thinking about the analogy, no one questions the reality of biases and limited knowledge on the part of humankind when encountering God, but these concessions do nothing to shore up this analogy’s central weaknesses as it relates to pluralism. The elephant analogy seems to imply a radical skepticism concerning one’s knowledge of God, namely, that no one, or in this case no religion, can really know God satisfactorily.19 But if God is by and large unknowable, then how is one able to know that God is unknowable?20 (In this case, knowing that God is unknowable means that one knows enough about God to know that access is denied.) For that matter, would one even know that God exists? How does Hick know so much about the inner workings of the incomprehensible ultimate reality, especially since this ultimate reality—according to Hick’s view—does not reveal itself in nature or in propositions?

Ironically, while the elephant analogy attempts to validate the truth of all religions, it really shows that all religions fail to adequately reveal God. So rather than affirming religious truth, the analogy demonstrates that all religions, at least in large measure, are false or misleading.21 Religions may indeed provide some core ethical values, but as noted previously, these similar moral values are motivated by and grounded in essentially different views of the nature of reality. In religion, ethics cannot be divorced from metaphysical truth claims. What is good must be understood in light of what is real and true. Actions do not exist in a vacuum apart from truth.

The analogy is especially flawed, however, when viewed from the standpoint of historic, orthodox Christianity. According to Christianity, God personally entered the world of time and space in the historical person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14, 18; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6–8). This same Jesus makes exclusive claims to divine authority and possesses the prerogatives of deity, both of which are incompatible with the homogenizing and accommodating views of religious pluralists (e.g., John 8:58; 10:30; see chapters 1 and 3). To accommodate pluralism’s unknowable God, Christianity would have to give up all its distinctive doctrines, including the incarnation, the Trinity, and the atonement. As McGrath notes, “The identity of Christianity is inextricably linked with the uniqueness of Christ, which is in turn grounded in the Resurrection and Incarnation.”22 If the analogy were to reflect historic Christianity, the elephant would heal the blindness and personally introduce himself, for the Christian claim is that God is personally, intimately, uniquely, and decisively disclosed in Jesus Christ.

For the elephant analogy to work and for religious pluralism to be true, the claims of historic Christianity must be false. Recall Jesus’s words in the New Testament: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), and “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well” (John 14:7). Again, central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to earth in the flesh and was personally known (see chapters 1 and 3).

The apostle Paul directly summarizes this central Christian truth: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). Also, a fair reading of the New Testament reveals that faith in Jesus Christ is considered the unique and only way of encountering God. Jesus proclaims, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter declared concerning Jesus, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Hick’s reasons for embracing religious pluralism over historic, orthodox Christianity (the faith of his youth) are found in his rejection of the Bible as a propositional revelation from God and in his conviction that the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is both unhistorical and logically incoherent.23 He argues vociferously that the incarnation is a myth.24 Hick also views Christianity’s position of religious exclusivism as intellectually narrow and morally unacceptable. But Hick’s bold rejection of the truth claims of historic Christianity creates a logical problem for his broad pluralistic claim.

Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans points out that “it is an essential part of Christian faith that Jesus is God in a unique and exclusive way. It follows from this that all religions cannot be equally true. If all religions are equally true, then Christianity is false, and therefore not all religions are true.”25 In the end, if pluralism is true, the correct position must be one of these two: (1) Christianity and all other exclusive religions are wrong, and the rest of the religions, which are inclusive, are right; or (2) all religions are metaphysically wrong. In other words, pluralism redefines religion along the lines of ethical transformation and simply dismisses any concrete truth claims that might end up creating contradictions among the religions. In a very real sense, a pluralist cannot take the truth claims of any religion seriously.

While Hick believes that the exclusive claims of historic Christianity are provincial and arrogant, in reality, his own pluralistic claims seem to dismiss virtually all of Christianity’s distinctive features. How tolerant and fair is that? In addition, Hick does not seem to be neutral or objective in his analysis of religion, for his idea of an unknowable ultimate reality is closely connected to an Eastern monistic understanding of the divine. But why monism over theism? Hick appears to be taking the position that he, unlike the religious adherents of the world, really knows the elephant. He reserves for himself the position of the independent and unbiased observer who genuinely rises above human limitation and subjectivity. Is that not greatly presumptuous to say the least? With all due respect, the claims of historic Christianity seem much more credible than Hick’s politically correct reinvention of religion.

Mythical Claims or Factual Truth?

Pluralist thinkers such as Joseph Campbell have argued that all religions can be simultaneously true because all religions make merely mythical and/or poetical claims, not historical, factual truth claims. This assertion means that the religions of the world, like mythology overall, are metaphorically true but literally false.26

Campbell, in his bestselling book The Power of Myth, is guilty of making many of the same mistakes that Hick makes. He reinvents and/or redefines all religion (even historical religions) as myth. In one fell swoop, he dismisses religious (including propositional) truth claims altogether. He ends up accomplishing the opposite of what he intended. Rather than establishing a way that all religions can be true, he shows that in the most important way, concerning universal, objective, absolute truth, all religions are instead utterly false. Although personally arguing that God or ultimate reality is wholly transcendent and unknowable, “beyond names and forms,”27 Campbell nevertheless affirms an impersonal and amoral deity not unlike the monistic and pantheistic concepts of Eastern religion. One cannot resist wondering how Campbell, like Hick, seems to know so much about what is supposed to be unknowable. In the end, how are Campbell’s broad, sweeping conclusions about all religions and ultimate reality itself any less presumptuous and arrogant than those of the exclusivistic religious fundamentalists and literalists he so chastises?

Campbell’s views fly in the face of historic, orthodox Christianity. Whether one is inclined to accept them or not, the truth claims of Christianity are historical and factual in nature. Jesus of Nazareth was born under the reign of the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus, and he suffered and died at the hands of the equally real Roman governor Pontius Pilate (concrete archaeological finds have confirmed Pilate’s historical existence; see chapter 4). The Gospels and the book of Acts are historical narratives, not poetic or mythical literature (Luke 1:1–4).

The historic Christian faith consistently resists and defies all attempts to homogenize and mythologize its central truth claims. The apostles had an empirical encounter with the resurrected Jesus and reported it as a historical-factual event (1 Cor. 15:3–8). The disciples consistently referred to themselves as “witnesses” or “eyewitnesses” of the great events of Jesus’s life (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39). As the apostle Peter proclaimed, “We did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16).

Paul’s sobering words to the Corinthian church confirm that factual truth really does matter: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Cor. 15:14). “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).

According to the laws of logic and the historical veracity of Scripture, religious pluralism, no matter how popular, appealing, or tolerant, cannot be true. Having discussed the challenge of religious pluralism, let’s now address the topic of tolerance in the context of religious truth claims.

Tolerance

Two Types of Tolerance: Virtuous and Convoluted

An awareness of past injustices has made people sensitive to the damage that intolerance inflicts on its innocent victims. However, the topic of tolerance must be thought through carefully, lest in avoiding genuine intolerance we unfortunately promote a damaging political correctness. For Christians, the right kind of tolerance can be warmly and attractively virtuous. On the other hand, a politically correct tolerance can inhibit a Christian’s attempt to practice and share their faith with others.

People are often unclear as to the meaning of the word tolerance. The term suffers from both ambiguity (multiple meanings) and vagueness (imprecision). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language offers a helpful definition of tolerance: it is the practice of “respecting the nature, beliefs, or behavior of others.”28 Christians have disagreed over the centuries as to how the church should relate to or tolerate secular or worldly society, but many evangelical Christians would accept the following three points.

Three Ways in Which Christians Can Affirm Tolerance as a Virtue

First, according to the Bible, all people are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27; 9:5–6; James 3:9–10). Therefore, each person deserves respect. Because of the imago Dei, all people possess inherent dignity and moral worth (Ps. 8:3–6), regardless of their culture, race, gender, or social class. In fact, as Christian philosopher Richard Purtill points out, the foundations for most of our contemporary views on social justice are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian religious traditions.29 Valuing the life and dignity of each individual person is a core Christian virtue.

Second, the individual right of people to think as they please and believe what they will, even if particular beliefs are irrational, morally wrong, and/or contrary to Christian teaching, also warrants respect. Human volition in a biblical context is granted such autonomy. Even the American judicial system, after all, restricts human behavior, not thought (though some current ideological positions don’t always seem to appreciate this important distinction).30 For Christians, this amounts to respecting human personhood, individual volition, and personal moral responsibility. This respect, however, leaves room for the use of persuasion to convince others of truth, especially the ultimate truth of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of humankind.

Third, in a diverse society, Christians can tolerate the practices (religious and otherwise) of others, as long as those practices are legal, moral, and promote the common good. Christians should generally afford others the same societal rights and privileges they themselves enjoy. This last point is undoubtedly the most controversial of the three, for the practices of others can be tolerated only within reasonable limits (the common good), and in a democratic form of government, the views of the majority usually prevail (though in America’s case, they must be deemed constitutional).

In summary, Christians can and do exhibit an appropriate tolerance by being respectful of the personhood and practices of others in society. The promotion of human rights and dignity is integral to the Christian theistic system of ethics (a type of moral absolutism).

Three Further Clarifications of Tolerance

Here are three helpful clarifications regarding the issue of tolerance.31

First, one does not exhibit intolerance merely by disagreeing with the position taken by another. Tolerance itself presupposes disagreement. One does not tolerate those with whom one agrees but only those with whom one disagrees. Disagreement and tolerance therefore go hand in hand. As Christian philosopher Paul Copan notes, “Religious dialogue requires equal respect, not equality of belief.”32

Second, when it comes to tolerance, one must carefully differentiate between ideas and the person who holds them. Though all people should be treated with respect and welcomed in the marketplace of ideas, that doesn’t mean all ideas or arguments are of equal merit, validity, or truth. The validity of an argument is evaluated according to the objective standards of logic, and logic is intellectually “intolerant.” Criticizing ideas and arguments is necessary and perfectly appropriate. As Christian apologist Gregory Koukl correctly concludes, “To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.”33

Third, tolerance can be a virtue only if there are moral absolutes (which themselves mandate tolerance). A universal principle requiring tolerance is inconsistent with moral relativism. Ironically, many people pushing so-called standards of tolerance as a defense of their politically correct ideology affirm moral relativism.

Having gained some perspective on the general issue of tolerance, we now turn to religious tolerance. Some people think that proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is the height of intolerance.

What Is a Proper Response to the Challenge of Religious Tolerance?

Christians can do five important things in response to the challenge of religious tolerance. First, they can point out that truth exists and that it really matters.34 Love and tolerance should never be divorced from truth, especially the concept of ultimate truth. All denials of objective truth are ultimately self-defeating.35

Second, they can point out that cold, hard logic requires that contradictory religious truth claims cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, affirming the dictates of reason does not violate any acceptable standard of tolerance.

Third, they can make their specific apologetic case for the truthfulness of Christianity. Believers can present persuasive arguments for the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3) and point out difficulties in alternative, non-Christian belief systems (2 Cor. 10:5).

Fourth, Christians can admit that Christian society has at times in the past promoted or permitted genuine intolerance (e.g., twentieth-century European anti-Semitism). Christians are justified sinners, and they should personally and corporately admit their struggle with sin. They can, however, point out that Christianity affirms genuine tolerance as a virtue.

Fifth, Christians can witness to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ with both their words (preaching) and their lives (ethical conduct). The world needs to see the power of lived truth. These two things can be accomplished when Christians are personally and socially tolerant while simultaneously being intellectually intolerant of conflicting truth claims.

At the heart of the Christian faith is the conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord (Mark 12:35–37; John 20:28; Rom. 10:9–13; 1 Cor. 8:5–6; 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The exclusive claims of Christ’s lordship are no more politically correct today in the United States (or anywhere) than they were two thousand years ago in the ancient Roman Empire.

Table 9.7. Christians Should Be Tolerant and Intolerant

Tolerant (respectful) toward people

Intolerant of false and unsound ideas

In the last chapter, we will seek to discover a biblical perspective on the world’s religions.

Further Suggested Reading

Adler, Mortimer J. Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth; An Essay in the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Beckwith, Francis J., and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Green, Michael. “But Don’t All Religions Lead to God?” Navigating the Multi-faith Maze. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.

Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.

Okholm, Dennis L., John Hick, and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Rowe, William L. Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012.

Discussion Questions

What is the difference between social pluralism and metaphysical pluralism, and why does it matter?

What are the fundamental problems with religious pluralism?

How does John Hick’s philosophical pluralism seek to rescue religious pluralism?

From a historic Christian perspective, what is wrong with the elephant analogy?

What is wrong with the claim that all religions are metaphorically true yet literally false?

10
Biblical Perspective on the World’s Religions

Is God’s grace limited to the relatively few who, often through accidents of time and geography, happen to have responded to the gospel? No, certainly not.

Clark H. Pinnock, More Than One Way?

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

John 14:6

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Acts 4:12

Billions of people adhere to a variety of belief systems all over the world. Eleven major non-Christian world religions are identifiable today: Baha’i, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.1 The so-called minor religions are too numerous to count (e.g., various basic or folk religions, Native American, South American, African, Asian).2 So just how should Christians view the world’s religions?3 And where does this morass of religious claims stand in regard to Christianity’s truth claims?

Given the present cultural perspectives of pluralism, multiculturalism, relativism, and postmodernism, these perennially perplexing questions all the more deserve careful answers. Being mindful of oversimplification, we will outline some sound biblical principles that can serve as a foundation for a Christian perspective on and response to the world’s religions.4 We will critique pluralism and inclusivism in light of the historic Christian position of exclusivism (or particularism), and we will address some objections to exclusivism.

Building a Biblical Perspective

Knowing just how to assess and classify the world’s religions from a distinctly Christian perspective is difficult. And, sure enough, not all Christians agree as to the proper perspective. However, historic, orthodox Christians can look to God’s special revelation in Scripture to find answers to such complicated issues. Fortunately, there are twelve identifiable theological principles in the Bible that can help form a proper Christian view of the various world religions. In the list below, I briefly explain the apologetic and evangelistic significance of these biblical truths and point to relevant Scripture passages. In fairness, the formulation and articulation of these theological principles at certain places reflect my general commitment to the Protestant-Augustinian theological tradition or consensus.

Twelve Scriptural Principles

1. God Has Revealed Himself in Two Forms of Revelation

God, the world’s Creator and Redeemer, has taken the initiative and has dynamically and decisively revealed himself to humankind (Ps. 19:1–4, 7–11; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:18–20; 2 Tim. 3:16–17; Heb. 1:1–3).

A central feature of historic Christianity is the doctrine of revelation. Revelation refers to the disclosure of something that was either previously unknown or not yet fully known. From a Christian standpoint, revelation refers to the self-disclosure of God. The Christian faith proclaims that God has revealed himself clearly and meaningfully to humankind. Christianity is thus a religion of revelation, and that revelation is essential if we are to truly know God. Evangelical theologian Millard Erickson explains, “Because humankind is finite and God is infinite, we cannot know God unless he reveals himself to us, that is, unless he manifests himself to humans in such a way that they can know and fellowship with him.”5

But just how, according to historic Christianity, has God revealed himself? He has done this in two distinct ways: (1) through his world (general revelation: knowledge of God via the created order) and (2) through his Word (special revelation: knowledge of God via redemptive history). Christian theologians sometimes call this dual view of revelation the “two-books theory.”6 God is the author of both the figurative book of nature (God’s world) and the literal book of Scripture (God’s written Word).

These two forms of revelation mutually reinforce and complement each other. The biblical worldview considers all truth to be God’s truth. Human interpretations of the two sources may conflict but not when properly understood and correctly applied. God’s truth by its very nature always coheres.

Scripture instructs readers to take the message of general revelation seriously (Ps. 19; Rom. 1). The created order illustrates the need for the specificity and completeness of special revelation’s message (in the Bible). In other words, general revelation points toward special revelation and provides a rational context for accepting it. Ultimately, divine revelation is one in unity. It is appropriate to distinguish between its two forms, but they should never be separated.

God’s act of revealing himself to humankind is a critical component in the formation of a Christian viewpoint regarding the world’s religions. From a biblical perspective, God is not hidden away in the heavens, leaving humans to wander and grope aimlessly in the dark as they seek to understand God’s existence, nature, characteristics, and will. In this way, there is a stark contrast between religion and revelation.7

Religion, as traditionally understood, often reflects humans’ speculative and uncertain search for an undisclosed or not fully disclosed deity (the divine mystery). The initiative to discover truth about God in religion rests with the limited and imperfect creature. Biblical revelation, on the other hand, reflects God’s search for humans, whereupon he clearly and specifically discloses himself in acts of creation and redemption. According to Scripture, the initiative to discover truth about God rests with God himself, who is infinitely perfect but nevertheless reveals himself in ways that the creature can meaningfully apprehend.

Another important feature distinguishes generic religion and biblical revelation. In many of the world’s religious traditions, especially Eastern traditions, so-called truths about God are mystical and esoteric in nature and therefore cannot qualify as propositional (factual, logical) truth claims. Because of this, logical contradictions and factual inconsistencies among the religions are viewed as inconsequential. In contrast, while the God of the Bible is mysterious and ultimately unfathomable to the finite human mind, he nevertheless has communicated, at least in part, in propositional form (statements that contain assertions that are either true or false). He also specifically made humans in his own image with a mind capable of grasping propositional truth. Therefore, in Christianity, truths about God must correspond to rational and logical categories, and God, because of his rational nature, cannot contradict himself. It follows then that contradictory religious truth claims (which abound in the world’s religions) are inconsistent with the biblical concept of divine revelation.

2. Jesus Christ Is God Incarnate of History

The person of Jesus Christ is God in human flesh (John 1:14; Rom. 1:3–4; 9:5; Phil. 2:5–6; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:2).

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation (see chapter 3) teaches that the eternal Logos (“Word”), the Second Person of the Trinity, took unto himself a human nature without in any way diminishing his divinity. Jesus, one undivided person, nevertheless has both a divine nature and a human nature. Those two natures were united in the historical person of Jesus Christ, making him the divine-human person: fully God and fully man.

The incarnation represents the apex of special revelation, whereby God revealed himself in an up-close and personal way through the incarnate person of Jesus Christ. God came to the earth through Jesus Christ to reveal the Triune God and to save fallen humanity. People can know God through the historic person of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is an inspired, propositional record or testimony of the life, teaching, healings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3. People Are Made in God’s Image (Imago Dei)

The Bible reveals that of all God’s creatures, only humans were created in the express image of God (Latin: imago Dei; Gen. 1:26–27; 5:1; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Col. 3:10; James 3:9).8

According to the Bible, the central defining characteristic of humans is that we are divine-image bearers, and this fact reflects the heart of the historic Christian view of anthropology. From a biblical perspective, what Scripture reveals about humanity’s creation and the implications of being made in God’s image affect every aspect of the way Christians see themselves and live life.

Being made in the divine image is something all human beings share and is part of God’s general revelation.

4. General Revelation Is Available to All

Basic knowledge about the existence and nature of the one true God is revealed to all people through the created order as well as through the providential ordering of history and through the human conscience (see Ps. 19:1–4; Acts 17:25–27; Rom. 1:18–21; 2:14–15).

According to Christian theology, God’s general revelation takes two forms. First, external general revelation consists of the created order or nature (reflecting God’s work as the caring, transcendent Creator of the world) and God’s providential ordering of history (reflecting God’s work as the sovereign Sustainer of the world). Second, internal general revelation includes both an innate sense (or awareness) of God and the moral law of conscience in the human person.

Internal general revelation is directly connected to the Christian understanding of the imago Dei. As the crown of God’s creation, humans reflect the image of God in their rational capacities, moral volition, relational aspects, and distinct spiritual qualities. As creatures made in the image and likeness of God, humans reflect the glory of their Maker (though certainly finite in its expression), though the fall into sin certainly tarnished the image of God.

Does a commitment to the unique veracity of Christianity imply that every feature of non-Christian religions is false? In light of general revelation, the answer to this question seems to be no. Since God created the universe and each specific human being in his image, authentic traces of him can be found in all cultures, among all peoples, and, with some important qualifications, even among all religions.9 Creation powerfully, perpetually, inaudibly, and universally reflects the Creator.

Scripture also reveals that as God’s special creation, individuals surely know in the core of their being that there is a God to whom they are morally accountable. This inherent and intuitive sense of the divine explains humankind’s deep-seated religious and moral impulse. Humans have been called homo religiosus because of their basic religious tendencies and nature. Anthropological and sociological findings have confirmed that religion has been a universal phenomenon throughout human history.10 Even avowed atheists often seek existential answers to life’s ultimate questions, sometimes in an amazingly religious-like manner (the philosophies of atheistic existentialism and Marxism provide good examples). General revelation, and specifically the imago Dei, explains the powerful phenomenon of human religiosity (often referred to today as spirituality) and illuminates why many of the world’s religions find common agreement on secondary core ethical issues.

5. Sin Produces Distortion

Humankind’s fallen (sinful) condition has impaired the noetic faculties (cognitive and/or belief-forming abilities), resulting in moral and spiritual obtuseness. Thus, humans’ natural predisposition is to suppress and distort the knowledge of God revealed in general revelation (see Rom. 1:18–25; Eph. 4:17–19).

Members of the various world religions possess a real (though rudimentary) knowledge of the biblical God via general revelation, but their present sinful state of rebellion (on account of the fall; Gen. 3) causes them to suppress this truth. Fallen human beings suffer from a type of malady one might call “spiritual schizophrenia,”11 both desiring and resisting God simultaneously. Though humans were made for the specific purpose of fellowshiping with their Creator, sinful humans nonetheless refuse to acknowledge the true God or accept their moral accountability before their Maker. As St. Augustine so insightfully declared in his prayer to God on this subject, “The thought of you stirs him [man] so deeply that he cannot be content unless he praises you, because you made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.”12

Since this powerful divine awareness within human beings cannot be completely shut down, it inevitably comes forth. But apart from divine grace, the impulse usually takes the form of an idolatrous distortion. This spiritual perversion manifests itself in the various belief systems of the world, namely, animism, syncretism, polytheism, pantheism, finite godism, occultism, and humanism. In his famous encounter on Mars Hill (Athens) in the first century, the apostle Paul described a similar pluralistic religious scenario (Acts 17:16–34).

Even though a person knows there is a God via general revelation (i.e., imago Dei, sense of the divine, conscience, natural order), apart from the special grace of God working in their life they will autonomously choose not to believe in the true God (Rom. 3:10–12),13 though in rejecting God, they may in fact exalt almost any and every idol or deity. The general consensus in Protestant evangelicalism is that general revelation in and of itself cannot save, though it can and will serve to condemn human beings for unbelief. Therefore, people in non-Christian religions have true revelation, but it is that very revelation that will ultimately hold them accountable before their Creator.

6. Satan Causes More Distortion

Though some religions may be the mere product of human speculation, other forms of religion are actually energized by Satan and his minions (Matt. 24:24; 1 Cor. 10:14–22; 2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Thess. 2:9–10; 1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:9; 12:9).

Scripture indicates that Satan and/or his demonic minions (fellow angels who followed him in rebellion) stand behind pagan idolatry and actively blind the minds of nonbelievers. Their intent is always to deceive humankind with a powerful spiritual counterfeit. Heresies and false doctrine are sometimes associated with demonic influence (1 Tim. 4:1–2). Certain hidden practices are explicitly condemned in Scripture as abominations to God (Deut. 18), and these practices are connected to demonic activity. Therefore, not all religions are the product of merely misguided human striving; some have a truly malevolent source.

In light of human sin and satanic activity, no human being stands on purely neutral spiritual ground. While the satanic dimension in connection to pagan religions can be overstated, spiritual warfare should be recognized as a reality behind the scenes of the world’s religions, especially those deeply rooted in occult practices.14

7. Christ and His Exclusive Claims in Special Revelation Are Unique

The New Testament reveals Jesus Christ as God in human flesh (John 1:1; 8:58–59; 10:29–31; 14:8–9; 20:28; Phil. 2:5–7; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1) and thus as the only Savior of humankind (Matt. 11:27; John 1:18; 3:36; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:11–12).

Special revelation, God’s more specific and particular self-disclosure, came in and through his great redemptive actions, events, and words. It is so called because this form of revelation came at special times and in special places.

According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ is not one way among many ways to God. Nor is he merely a prophet or a messenger who points others to God. Rather, Jesus is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, in human flesh, who came personally to earth to reconcile the world to himself through his sacrifice on the cross (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus Christ is not only uniquely declared to be the Lord and Savior of the world (Rom. 10:9–13; Phil. 2:5–11) but also, like Yahweh in the Old Testament, declared Lord and Savior to the exclusion of all other so-called lords and saviors of the world (1 Cor. 8:5–6; 1 Tim. 4:10). Jesus made unequivocal exclusionary remarks about other possible ways of salvation: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter buttresses this christological exclusivity with his statement, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).15

The unique identity and exclusive claims of Jesus Christ are different from those of all the other great religious leaders. Only Jesus makes exclusive claims to divine authority and possesses the very prerogatives of deity. The Christocentric doctrines of the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection lie at the heart of Christianity, and it is these same truths that set Christianity apart from all other religions.16 There can be no other Savior, for God is personally, intimately, uniquely, and decisively disclosed in the person of Jesus Christ forever. All people everywhere, regardless of culture, race, or religious heritage, must look to Jesus Christ alone for salvation. As his apostles proclaimed, “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12).

8. Faith in Christ Is a Necessary Response to the Gospel

People experience salvation by conscious faith in response to the explicit preaching of the gospel (Luke 24:46–47; John 3:15–16; 20:31; Acts 4:12; 11:14; 16:31; Rom. 10:9–10, 13–18; 1 Cor. 15:1–4; Gal. 3:2, 5, 14; Eph. 1:13; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; 2 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:23–25; 1 John 2:23; 5:12).

The way God effects salvation is through the gospel, the Good News about Christ’s sacrificial atonement for sin. People respond in conscious faith to the preached message about Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Scripture directly connects the hearing of the gospel proclamation with conscious faith on the believer’s part, which then results in salvation. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that a person can be saved apart from such explicit faith in Christ. In fact, the apostle Paul seems to argue that it is necessary for someone to actually hear the gospel proclamation in order to be saved. Consider Paul’s cogent argument on the necessity of gospel preaching and its direct connection to salvation:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” . . . Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:14–15, 17)

9. God’s Sovereign Grace Brings People to Faith in Jesus Christ

God the Father calls and supernaturally draws people to Jesus Christ (John 6:37, 44, 65; 12:32; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4), and the Holy Spirit imparts to them the gift of faith through the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 10:17; 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 6:23; Phil. 1:29; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 12:2).

Because of the fall, human beings suffer from total depravity; sin has enslaved the total person—soul, mind, will, and body (Ps. 51:5; Matt. 15:19; Rom. 7:14–15; Eph. 4:17–19). The inevitable result of total depravity is total inability;17 sinners are incapable of responding in faith to God (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Thus, it is divine grace, specifically the work of the Holy Spirit through the content of special revelation (preaching the gospel of redemption in Christ; John 20:31; Rom. 10:17), that results in a person’s response of faith (Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5). God’s grace heals the fallen human will, illumines the mind, and softens the heart, and special revelation corrects the inevitable distortions that people have about general revelation (Eph. 2:4–6; 4:17–24; Phil. 2:12–13). The human response of faith is therefore rooted in the previous regenerating power of God.

God is the author and finisher of salvation, and all whom God calls will be saved (Acts 13:48). God’s sovereign grace and will should especially be kept in mind when thinking through the fate of the unevangelized (see below).

10. Correct Belief (Truth) Is Important

Salvation depends on the objective correctness, the truth, of one’s belief (John 3:36; 8:24; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:8–9; 1 Tim. 1:3–4, 18–19; 6:3; Titus 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:22–23; 4:1–3; 2 John 7–11; Jude 3–4).

According to Scripture, salvation rests not merely on personal sincerity but on the objective correctness of one’s belief. Doctrinal correctness really matters, for false doctrine shipwrecks faith and imperils the soul. Faith in a false god or a false christ or a false gospel cannot result in salvation. To be saved, one must have faith in the real Lord and Savior; one must place their trust in Christ’s true person, nature, and work. Believers may not fully comprehend or may have misunderstandings or limited exposure to Christian truth, but there are doctrinal parameters they cannot cross without suffering apostasy and divine judgment. Paul’s warning to the Galatian church concerning a different gospel dramatically underscores the importance of sound biblical doctrine:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8–9 ESV)

The world’s religions are filled with false gods, false messiahs, and false gospels. The ultimate question rests with a person’s relationship to Jesus Christ. As the apostle John declares, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36).

11. Christianity Necessitates an Apologetic Response

In order to guide people through faith barriers and expose fallacious religions for the danger they represent, Christian thinkers must study the teachings and arguments of the world’s religions and offer a sound apologetic critique (2 Cor. 10:4–5; Titus 1:9; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3).

Christian apologists must take the religions of the world seriously. This means diligently studying their histories and backgrounds, sources of authority, categories, teachings and arguments, and worldview orientations. Effective apologists will come to know these religions and adherents with an insider’s mastery. Only then can they profoundly expose a religion’s flaws in light of essential Christian truth.18 This is not an easy task for apologists, but it is extremely powerful in effect when accomplished. It also seems to be a fair understanding of what Scripture calls for in the apologetic enterprise. “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). The serious challenge of the world’s religions deserves Christianity’s best apologetic effort in response.

12. People Deserve Proper Respect

Because all people bear God’s image, Christians should show people of other religions proper personal respect (Gen. 1:26–27; 9:6; James 3:9).

As creatures of God, all people reflect the imago Dei and therefore have inherent dignity and moral worth. Every person is therefore deserving of proper personal respect regardless of race, gender, social class, or religion. Christians should also respect the individual right of others to believe whatever they wish, regardless of whether a particular belief is wrong or contrary to Christian truth. This basically amounts to respecting human dignity and responsibility. Christians should even tolerate the practices (religious and otherwise) of others, as long as those practices are legal, moral, prudential, and do not violate core Christian values (see chapter 9). However, while treating people with respect, believers in Christ will also want to challenge nonbelievers to consider the claims of Jesus and to offer arguments for the truth of historic Christianity. While being socially tolerant, Christians must be simultaneously intolerant of conflicting truth claims. How people are treated leaves a powerful, lasting effect with regard to the gospel witness. The Bible calls believers to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15)—motivated by love and expressing love in words, actions, and attitude.

Contemporary Rivals to Christian Exclusivism

The scriptural data presented in the previous section supports what has historically been called Christian exclusivism, though some evangelicals today prefer to call it particularism.19 Three theological points define this view: (1) the Christian faith is the one exclusively true religion; (2) Jesus Christ is the only Savior of humankind; and (3) having explicit or conscious faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for a person to be saved. This is the historical position of the Christian church and can be distinguished from two competing current-day positions on Christianity’s relationship to other religions, namely, pluralism and inclusivism.

Table 10.1. Three Essential Points of Christian Exclusivism

The Christian faith is the one exclusively true religion.

Jesus Christ is the only Savior of humankind.

Having explicit or conscious faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for a person to be saved.

What follows is a brief, critical assessment of pluralism and inclusivism, followed by a defense of exclusivism.

Religious Pluralism

Because a thorough critique of pluralism is provided in chapter 9, only a brief summary of criticism is provided here.

We begin with some definitions. This position takes two forms—popular pluralism and philosophical pluralism. Popular pluralism (so called because it is popular in present-day culture) asserts that all religions are equally valid and simultaneously true. Philosophical pluralism (presented and affirmed by philosophers of religion) asserts that all major or ethical religions are equally valid paths to God or ultimate reality. Distinguished philosopher of religion John Hick has been one of the most prominent representatives of philosophical pluralism. In affirming that all major religions are true, philosophical pluralism rejects all three points that define exclusivism (see table 10.1).

First, fundamental, irreconcilable differences exist among the world’s religions on many crucial issues. Because of these differences, the religions defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme or essence. In light of this diversity, popular pluralism must be false in its assertion that all religions are simultaneously true, because the various religious truth claims contradict one another. For example, it is not logically possible that Jesus Christ is both God incarnate (Christianity) and not God incarnate (Judaism, Islam). Either Jesus Christ is God incarnate or he is not; no other logical options are available. Logically scrutinizing the claims of popular religious pluralism shows that they reduce to absurdity.

Second, philosophical pluralism’s attempt to avoid these logical difficulties nevertheless results in the following problems: pluralism implies a radical skepticism about God; it shows all ultimate religious truth claims to be false; it arbitrarily redefines the nature of religion; it refuses to take historic Christian truth claims seriously; and it contradicts its pluralistic assertion by ultimately embracing one particular religious perspective (usually a type of Eastern monism).

Third, pluralism is at odds with the historic Christianity doctrines of revelation, the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection. These doctrines simply do not comport with pluralism’s homogenizing and accommodating agenda.

Christian Inclusivism

Although religious inclusivism can be affirmed in other (non-Christian) religious traditions, this study will focus on Christian inclusivism. Differences exist among its advocates, but inclusivism seems to affirm two essential points: (1) salvation is found in its fullness in Christianity, through the Savior Jesus Christ, but (2) people can encounter the grace of God, which is active in all cultures and all religions, and be saved by Christ anonymously, that is, without knowing specifically about Christ (without exercising conscious Christian faith).20 In affirming that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for a person to be saved, inclusivism rejects the third theological point of exclusivism (though some forms of inclusivism may deny much more).21 The most prominent advocate of Christian inclusivism was the German Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, whose views influenced the Second Vatican Council’s acceptance of a form of inclusivism.22 A somewhat more “evangelically oriented” type of inclusivism is expressed by the theologian Clark Pinnock.23

Table 10.2. Two Essential Points of Christian Inclusivism

Salvation is found in its fullness in Christianity, through the Savior Jesus Christ.

People can encounter the grace of God, which is active in all cultures and all religions, and be saved by Christ anonymously, that is, without knowing specifically about Christ.

There are eight problems with Christian inclusivism.

1. Asserting that God’s saving grace in Christ is operative in non-Christian religions is counter to what Scripture reveals about the idolatrous and at times demonic nature of human-derived religion (see points 5 and 6 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”).

2. Even if non-Christian religions are viewed corporately as a mixed bag (good and bad, noble and ignoble), a criterion is needed to sort out the theologically good from the theologically bad, a role only Scripture can play (2 Tim. 3:15–16).24

3. Mixing divine grace with pagan beliefs and rituals raises serious questions as to whether inclusivism may be a trapdoor to religious pluralism. This appears to be a major problem especially in Rahner’s liberal approach to inclusivism.

4. One could reason that asserting the truth of inclusivism makes Christian missions and evangelism unnecessary or at least not mandatory. In fact, if inclusivism is true, is there any essential reason to be Christian? Rahner, in seemingly a more expansive view of inclusivism (bordering on pluralism), spoke of “anonymous Christians,” but could there be “anonymous Buddhists” or “anonymous Hindus”?

5. According to Scripture, salvation depends on correct beliefs. It is the content of one’s belief that saves, not just personal sincerity. False beliefs can lead to damnation (see point 10 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”).

6. A strong biblical case can be made that conscious and explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (see point 8 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”). If this case is correct, inclusivism is necessarily false.

7. The anthropology of inclusivists seems to have a high view of humans and a low view of sin (inconsistent with the biblical principles of total depravity and total inability; see point 5 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”).

8. Inclusivism lacks strong exegetical support from Scripture, and its major inferences seem forced on the text. We could reasonably expect this life-and-death issue to have solid backing in Scripture.

Challenges to Exclusivism (or Particularism)

Some people espouse inclusivism primarily because of the perceived weaknesses in the position of exclusivism. What follows is a list of typical objections to exclusivism along with an exclusivist response. Differences exist among those who embrace exclusivism, and the form of exclusivism defended in this chapter reflects a commitment to the Protestant-Augustinian theological tradition or consensus. Wesleyan-Arminian Protestants as well as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox exclusivists may answer some of these questions differently.25

Exclusivism implies that God plays favorites. God restricts his grace so that some people are exposed to the gospel and others are not. Isn’t this clearly unfair?

Response: Biblically speaking, all people have already rejected God through their association with Adam (original sin; Rom. 5:12, 18–19). So what people are actually demanding is a second chance at God’s grace, and he gives it, at his discretion. Yet the truth is that everyone who is ultimately punished by God gets exactly what they deserve (justice). In fact, God could have damned all people and he would still be just. God doesn’t owe anyone a second chance. God’s choices in distributing his grace may not be equitable, but that does not make them unjust. It is, after all, God’s discretion and prerogative as a sovereign King to extend his mercy and grace to whom he sees fit. This perspective may not be very popular today, but Scripture supports the idea that God’s grace in salvation is particular in focus rather than universal (see point 9 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”).

Exclusivism asserts that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. But weren’t Jews in the Old Testament saved apart from conscious faith in Jesus Christ?

Response: Believers in the Old Testament were saved under the covenant of grace. They trusted in the mercy of Yahweh and had at least a rudimentary understanding that God’s Messiah would provide a propitiatory or substitutionary sacrifice (Ps. 22; Isa. 53).26 Jews were saved prospectively (looking forward to the coming of Christ), whereas Christians today are saved retrospectively (looking back upon Christ). Further, questions relating to the progressive nature of revelation and salvation history (Old Testament to New Testament, Judaism to Christianity) should not be applied to the world’s religions as a whole because they are not based on that revelation.

Since there were some so-called holy pagans in the Bible (Melchizedek, Job, Jethro, Naaman) who lived prior to the Jewish worship of Yahweh and certainly prior to Christ, couldn’t there be some today?

Response: These people were given special revelation (not merely general revelation) by God, and they knew many things about Yahweh and his promise of redemption.27 They were a unique part of salvation history, and it is presumptuous and contrary to other scriptural statements to think that what is true of them must be true of the unevangelized today. Special revelation is, after all, given to a special few.

If salvation is exclusive to Christianity, how does one account for the saintly people in other religions (Buddha, Confucius, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc.)?

Response: Consider three points. First, an appeal to morality does not solve the truth question.28 Simply because people act morally does not mean their beliefs are true. Second, Christianity is not principally a system of ethics but rather a religion of divine redemption. The question is not how ethical one is in comparison with other human beings but whether one can stand in God’s perfect presence without sin. Scripture teaches that all have sinned and stand in need of God’s gracious forgiveness in Christ. According to Scripture, Christians can stand in the presence of the Father because they are clothed in the imputed righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Third, can any so-called saint of the world’s religions compare morally with Jesus Christ? The testimony of this book clearly answers with a resounding no.

A God of love would not allow all the people in history apart from the narrow religions of Judaism and Christianity to be lost. Nor would he condemn people today who have never heard about Christ (the unevangelized). That would not be love.

Response: The following seven theological points should be kept in mind when considering the fate of the unevangelized.

1. The world is populated by more people today than at any other time. Therefore, it is possible to reach more people with the gospel today than ever before.

2. It is unbiblical to think of the unevangelized as spiritually open and/or neutral to the things of God. Humans’ natural, sinful predisposition is to be closed and even hostile to the truth of God (see point 5 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”). An argument can be made that most people who are exposed to the gospel reject it, so what makes one think it would be any different among those who haven’t heard?

3. The unevangelized have already sinned in Adam, thus rejecting God’s grace and suffering spiritual alienation. It is unbiblical to say that the unevangelized perish through no fault of their own.

4. God’s general revelation, far from being a rescue, actually condemns the unevangelized, whose natural predisposition is to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (see point 5 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”).

5. Reports of the unevangelized having knowledge of Christ (redemptive analogies, etc.) prior to encountering Christian missionaries are highly anecdotal and do not have strong scriptural support.

6. Scripture explicitly teaches that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (see point 8 under “Twelve Scriptural Principles”).

7. Exclusivists are not in complete agreement regarding the fate of the unevangelized. Three positions remain open for consideration.

Three Types of Exclusivism

Restrictive exclusivism. Affirming that conscious faith in Christ is not merely normative but necessary for salvation, those holding this position view the unevangelized as definitely lost.

Pessimistic exclusivism. Though not certain of the fate of the unevangelized, those holding this position view people without Christ as apparently lost. God may perform an extraordinary work of grace apart from the explicit gospel proclamation, but there is no direct scriptural support that he will. According to this position, if God does something extraordinary, it will inevitably lead to an encounter with the preached gospel (missionary, evangelist).

Nonrestrictive exclusivism. Not knowing the exact fate of the unevangelized, those in this camp think that Scripture gives indications that God can and may reach out to the lost in an extraordinary way.

The exact relationship between the gospel proclamation and the unevangelized is a continuing point of discussion within the exclusivist/particularist camp.29 Some current evangelical exclusivists (nonrestrictivists) argue that though the proclamation of the gospel is necessary, the sovereign God is not dependent on the imperfect efforts of human beings to bring the message of salvation to the unevangelized. They suggest that God can convey his grace through other extraordinary means (e.g., dreams, visions, energizing general revelation) and that he does so on rare and special occasions. For example, former Muslims claim to have had supernatural dreams that influenced them in the direction of Jesus Christ.30 Thus, those who have never explicitly heard the gospel message are not unduly penalized by the church’s failure to achieve the Great Commission.

Other evangelical exclusivists (restrictivists) insist that hearing and responding to the explicit gospel message are both necessary and the only ways of partaking of salvation. They argue that Scripture connects the conscious response of faith to the explicit preaching of the gospel and that God commands the church to fulfill its universal imperative to preach the gospel to all people everywhere. They also suggest that the idea that God acts through other extraordinary means is purely anecdotal and without scriptural support.

All exclusivists concur, however, that the church has a divine imperative to preach the gospel to the world and that people must express explicit faith in Christ. This mandate surely includes bringing Christ’s Word to those trapped in the erroneous belief systems of the world’s religions. Christians should seriously consider ways to bring about the Great Commission. They should support sound missionary, evangelistic, and apologetic endeavors to get the gospel to unbelievers. Ironically, one of the benefits of a pluralistic and global society is that the unevangelized are increasingly coming to where the gospel is prevalent. In a high-tech, digital age, the resources at hand have never been better. Exclusivism demands a commitment to the Great Commission.

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matt. 28:18–20)

Further Suggested Reading

Anderson, Norman. Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Halverson, Dean C., ed. The Compact Guide to World Religions. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Okholm, Dennis L., John Hick, and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012.

Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Discussion Questions

How does the historic Christian concept of revelation affect the question of how to view the world’s religions?

Does a commitment to the unique veracity of Christianity imply that every feature of non-Christian religions is false? Explain.

Could God’s grace work through other (non-Christian) religious traditions?

Is Christian exclusivism arrogant or morally repugnant?

What kinds of things can you do to support the Great Commission?

Conclusion

Jesus, God among Sages

Now that you have worked your way through the content of this book, I have a critical question for you. If God were to make an appearance on earth, what would you expect him to be like? Also, knowing what you now know about Krishna, the Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammad, did any of them have the qualities and characteristics you would expect of God?

I suspect your answer, like mine, is no. These amazing men were all aware of their own weaknesses and brokenness in life. So even the greatest leaders of the world’s religions, while extraordinary in many respects, were quite human and far from divine.

But using the same criteria, how would you evaluate Jesus? When you look at his life of unique moral purity, is that what you would expect from God? Jesus seems unlike all other people in his moral perfection.

Jesus taught people about the big questions of life. With regard to his masterful style, could you see God instructing people in this manner? Most of the content of Jesus’s teaching was not original to him (except his extraordinary statements in which he called Yahweh “Abba”). But his presentation in parabolic form was deeply engaging.

Christ engaged in an extensive healing ministry. The number of people restored to health is amazing. If God were to come in the flesh and live among human beings, would he engage in the kinds of compassionate healing that Jesus readily performed?

Jesus was crucified and died on the cross at Calvary. What do you think of his death? Has any man’s death been that dramatic and moving? If God were to become a man, can you imagine him dying the same way? Christ’s atoning death sets him apart from all other world religion leaders.

Death is inevitable. It is simply a matter of when, not if. Human beings are stalked by this reality. The resurrection is the great evidence for the truth of historic Christianity. If God visited the planet, would he address humans’ greatest fear? If Jesus rose from the dead, it is the most important truth for all people to hear and consider. Would God raise the dead?

So did Jesus do the sorts of things you would expect God in human flesh to do? Did he say the things you would expect to hear from God? If you put Jesus’s résumé to the test to determine whether he has the qualities and characteristics of the divine, does his résumé stand?

As amazing as it may be, when it comes to Jesus, the answer to these questions is a shocking yes. Moreover, when we compare Jesus Christ to all the other world religion leaders, he seems to be exactly what a reasonable person would expect God to be like if he were to make an appearance among us. In a biblical context, Jesus seems to be exactly what the gracious, loving, and just God of Israel would be like if he were to walk among us.

Table C.1. Comparison of the Leaders of the World’s Religions

Religion | Leader | Role | Mission
Baha’i | Baha’u’llah | Prophet | Bring oneness and peace
Buddhism | Buddha | Enlightened one | Lead others to nirvana
Christianity | Jesus | God incarnate | Redeem humankind
Confucianism | Confucius | Ethical teacher | Build moral society
Hinduism | Krishna | Divine avatar | Be a hero of the Indian people
Islam | Muhammad | Final prophet | Communicate the will of Allah
Jainism | Mahavira | Great hero | Teach asceticism
Judaism | Moses | Prophet | Communicate the will and law of Yahweh
Shintoism | Kami (mythical gods) | Symbols | Find peace with nature
Sikhism | Nanak | Prophet | Union with God
Taoism | Lao-Tzu | Sage | Teach the Tao (way)
Zoroastrianism | Zoroaster | Prophet | Communicate the will of Ahura-Mazda

Most of the earliest Christians were Jews. They were strict monotheists, but they came to the unthinkable conclusion that Jesus was God. They equated the carpenter from Nazareth with Yahweh Elohim. As amazing as it is that Jewish monotheists equated a man with God, it makes sense when we look carefully at the life, teaching, healings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Of all the great world religion leaders, only Jesus does the very things that only God can do. Jesus alone has the authority and the power to (1) forgive sins, (2) accept worship from others, (3) hear and answer prayer, (4) raise the dead, and (5) judge humanity. Therefore, when we place Jesus alongside these “wise ones,” we recognize we are comparing apples with oranges. Jesus is the only one who has the credentials and the prerogatives to qualify as deity. Thus, a good reason for believing that God exists and that historic Christianity is true is found in the historic person of Jesus Christ. He looks, speaks, and acts like God in human flesh.

It is a prudent thing to place Jesus alongside the spiritual sages, because in doing so, we realize that the most extraordinary people who have ever lived pale in comparison to the Lord, the Christ, the Savior, the Son of God. Seeing Jesus vis-à-vis the world’s religious leaders gives us breathtaking perspective on the greatest person in history.

Notes

Chapter 1  Jesus’s Stunning Self-Understanding

1. Hick, “Pluralist View,” 54–55.

2. Stott, Basic Christianity, 21–34. Some of Stott’s descriptive statements about Jesus (e.g., p. 27) have been set forth in this section, and his scriptural analysis has been expanded.

3. This unique relationship between Father and Son would come to also include the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). For a presentation and defense of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, see Samples, Without a Doubt, 63–76.

4. The life of Jesus and the birth of Christianity took place during the era known as Second Temple Judaism. This was the period between the construction of Israel’s second temple (515 BC) in Jerusalem and its destruction by the Romans (AD 70). Second Temple Judaism was not a single institution or religious entity. It included rival religious factions such as the Qumran separatists and others.

5. Carson, Gospel according to John, 358.

6. Ibid., 394–95.

7. See Stott, Basic Christianity, 29–32; and Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah, 119–20.

8. Copan, Loving Wisdom, 155.

9. Thoennes, “Biblical Doctrine,” 2516.

10. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, 86.

11. Ibid., 89.

12. See Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah.

13. Bray, God Is Love, 198.

14. Ibid., 199.

15. Milne, Know the Truth, 132.

Chapter 2  The Matchless Life of Jesus

1. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 18.

2. Warfield, Person and Work of Christ, 101.

3. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 142.

4. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 31.

5. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, 45–46.

6. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 92–93.

7. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 17.

8. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 29.

9. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 213.

10. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 28.

11. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 25.

12. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 213.

13. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 17.

14. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, s.v. “Christ, Uniqueness of.”

15. For a careful Christian perspective on the topic of the demonic, see Boa and Bowman, Sense and Nonsense about Angels and Demons; and Montgomery, Demon Possession.

16. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 135–36.

17. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 60.

18. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, 40.

19. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 55.

20. See Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?” For a critique of the naturalistic worldview and support for the worldview of Christian theism, see Samples, World of Difference, chapters 12 and 16.

21. See Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist; and Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker.

22. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 54–55.

23. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 212.

24. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 95.

25. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 63.

26. I am following Michael Green in identifying these three major themes. See Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 42–50.

27. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, 66.

28. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 47.

29. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 28.

30. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 157.

Chapter 3  A Historic Christology

1. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, 113.

2. This chapter is a revision and expansion of Samples, Without a Doubt, 120–33.

3. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 154.

4. See the Chalcedonian formulation in McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 131–32.

5. For a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, see Samples, Without a Doubt, 63–76.

6. The precise expression en sarki is used of the incarnation three times in the New Testament (1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7).

7. Blaising, “Hypostatic Union,” 540.

8. For a discussion of the principle of kenosis, see Milne, Know the Truth, 146–47; and Grudem, Systematic Theology, 549–52.

9. Milne, Know the Truth, 147.

10. Ibid.

11. These points were influenced by Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s.vv. “incarnatio,” “persona Christi,” “unio personalis”; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 529–67; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:387–89; and Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 321–30.

12. See Harris, Jesus as God.

13. For a thorough and substantive treatment of the scriptural support for the incarnation (especially the deity of Christ), see Harris, Jesus as God; and Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah. For a detailed theological exploration of the doctrine of the incarnation, see Warfield, Person and Work of Christ; and Erickson, Word Became Flesh.

14. The material in support of Jesus Christ’s deity was partially derived from Harris, Jesus as God, 315–17; and Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts, 68–74.

15. Milne, Know the Truth, 125–49.

16. For an evangelical critique of contemporary forms of gnosticism, see Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus.

17. “Athanasian Creed,” in Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, 10.

18. Rhodes, Christ before the Manger, 249–53; and Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 78–88.

19. Bray, God Is Love, 439.

20. Milne, Know the Truth, 125–32.

21. Phillips, New Testament Christianity, chap. 2, available at https://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/NTC02Angels.htm.

22. For the ancient christological heresies, see House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, 55–56; and Milne, Know the Truth, 142–45.

23. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, s.v. “Logic.”

24. Blaising, “Hypostatic Union,” 540.

25. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:481.

26. For a philosophical defense of the doctrine of the incarnation, see Senor, “Incarnation and the Trinity”; and Morris, Our Idea of God, 159–84.

27. Bray, God Is Love, 204.

28. Copan, Loving Wisdom, 158.

Chapter 4  Answering Challenges to Jesus’s Historic Identity

1. See Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, 15–16.

2. I am going to use AD 30 as the date for Jesus Christ’s death, but many scholars believe Jesus could have died in AD 33. See Yamauchi, “Jesus outside the New Testament,” 215.

3. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 32.

4. Ibid., 33.

5. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 151.

6. See Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

7. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 58.

8. Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament, 61.

9. Even critical scholars acknowledge the very early dates of some of Paul’s Letters. For an excellent source on Paul’s Letters, see Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

10. The Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense; however, they are biographies in the ancient Greco-Roman genre, a point established especially in Burridge, What Are the Gospels?

11. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 56.

12. See Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 33–44; and Morris, Gospel according to Matthew, 12–15.

13. Papias’s and most of the other early church fathers’ statements appear to credit Matthew with authoring a Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) version of the Gospel text, whereas virtually all agree that the canonical Matthew was originally composed in Greek. It is possible that Matthew wrote something that was then used as one of the sources for his Gospel.

14. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 69–72.

15. Ibid., 69; and Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 28.

16. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 98–115.

17. Bruce, New Testament Documents, 42–44.

18. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 241–71; and Bruce, New Testament Documents, 49–55.

19. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 28.

20. Ibid.

21. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 66–67.

22. Green, Who Is This Jesus?, 154.

23. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 37.

24. Bauckham, Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, 15–16.

25. Ibid., 7.

26. Tacitus, Annals, 359, cited in Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 41–42.

27. Mykytiuk, “Did Jesus Exist?” This article was featured in the January/February 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

28. Ibid.

29. Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, 195, cited in Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 30.

30. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 29–39; and Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Jesus Christ.”

31. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 76–77.

32. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Jesus Christ”; and Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 23–29.

33. The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans. Betty Radice (London: Penguin Books, 1969), 294, cited in Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 25.

34. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 29.

35. William Whiston, trans., The New Complete Works of Josephus, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 656, cited in ibid., 83.

36. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 83.

37. Mykytiuk, “Did Jesus Exist?”

38. “This straightforward translation from Greek, in which I [Lawrence Mykytiuk] have italicized three phrases, is by Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 65–66.” See Mykytiuk, “Did Jesus Exist?”

39. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Jesus Christ.”

40. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 99.

41. Yamauchi, “Jesus outside the New Testament,” 214.

42. See Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament.

43. Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament, 50; and Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Jesus Christ.”

44. Habermas, Historical Jesus, 187–228; and France, Evidence for Jesus, 19–58.

45. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 231.

46. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, 15.

47. Martin, New Testament Foundations, 268.

48. Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament, 63–64.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid., 64.

51. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 42.

52. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, 25.

53. Ibid.

Chapter 5  The Prince (Krishna) and the Lord

1. Rajaram, “Search for the Historical Krishna.”

2. Ludwig, Sacred Paths, 82.

3. Vanamali, Complete Life of Krishna, xiii–xiv.

4. For a single source that brings together the basic stories about the life of Krishna, see Vanamali, Complete Life of Krishna.

5. Toon, Jesus Christ Is Lord, 101.

6. Wikipedia, s.v. “Krishna.”

7. Yamamoto, Hinduism, TM, and Hare Krishna, 18.

8. Ibid., 12.

9. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 200.

10. See Valea, “Salvation and Eternal Life in World Religions.” See in particular the subheading “Hindu Theism.”

11. Corduan, Pocket Guide to World Religions, 69–70; and McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 26–30.

12. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 204.

13. Hinduism, in more general terms, limits the way to moksha to three: (1) karmamarga—the way of works as delineated in the Vedas; (2) jnanamarga—the way of knowledge, arising out of the Upanishads; and (3) bhaktamarga—the way of devotion, as exemplified to a certain extent in the Bhagavad Gita and much later in the devotional poetry, much of which is directed first toward the Hindu god Shiva.

14. Charan das, “Is Krishna Mythological or Historical?”; and Rajaram, “Search for the Historical Krishna.”

15. Yamamoto, Hinduism, TM, and Hare Krishna, 22–28.

16. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 30.

17. Corduan, “Christ and Krishna.”

18. Bhagavad Gita, 4:6, 61.

19. These five points were influenced by Toon, Jesus Christ Is Lord, 114–15.

20. Bhagavad Gita, 4:7–8, 61–62.

21. Corduan, “Christ and Krishna.”

22. Ibid.

23. Pew Research Center, “Global Religious Landscape.”

24. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 18.

25. See Tennent, “Devotional Movement.”

26. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 282.

27. Yamamoto, Hinduism, TM, and Hare Krishna, 72.

28. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 30.

29. Pascal, Pensées, 33–36, 131/434.

Chapter 6  The Buddha (Gautama) and the Christ

1. Smith, World’s Religions, 82.

2. For an introduction to the life of the Buddha, see Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 60–65; and Yandell and Netland, Buddhism, 9–32.

3. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed., 315.

4. Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism, 29.

5. See Corduan, “10 Questions on Buddhism.”

6. Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism, 8.

7. For an introduction to the teachings of the Buddha, see Rahula, What the Buddha Taught.

8. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 72; and Yandell and Netland, Buddhism, 17.

9. Corduan, Pocket Guide to World Religions, 37.

10. Mahaparinibbana Sutta 6.1, in Buddhist Suttas, 112.

11. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 64.

12. Ibid.

13. Yamamoto, “Buddhism and Christianity.” This originally appeared in Christian Research Journal (Spring 1994). A PDF is available at http://www.equip.org/PDF/DB565-1.pdf.

14. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 64.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamamoto, “Buddhism and Christianity.”

17. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 11.

18. Yandell and Netland, Buddhism, 10.

19. Buddhists commonly argue against this criticism on the grounds that compassion is an essential value in Buddhism, but this appears to be another case in which key Buddhist concepts conflict with each other.

20. Yandell and Netland, Buddhism, 212.

21. See Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ.

22. See Corduan, “10 Questions on Buddhism.”

23. Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism, 27.

24. The word karma means “doing, deeds, action, or work.” The law of karma refers to a cosmic principle of justice. Eastern philosophies affirm a universal moral law of cause and effect that is operative in the universe. Human actions have direct consequences, and a person thus reaps what he or she sows. The effects of a person’s actions, both good and bad, follow a person from one lifetime to the next. In fact, past life decisions and actions impact present life circumstances. World religions scholar John Noss explains, “One’s future existence is determined by the Law of Karma . . . the law that one’s thoughts, words, and deeds have an ethical consequence fixing one’s lot in future existences. Looked at retrospectively, karma is the cause of what is happening in one’s life now” (Noss and Noss, History of the World’s Religions, 8th ed., 90).

25. In evaluating this book in manuscript form, Christian scholar of the world’s religions Winfried Corduan noted that he thinks the thoughtful Buddhist may have a reasonable response to this specific logical challenge. The Buddhist might reply something like the following: Suffering and impermanence go hand in hand; they are related as a biconditional (if and only if). For more explanation, see Corduan’s discussion of the twelve nidanas (twelve aspects of samsara) in “History and Beliefs of Theravada Buddhism, Page 13.” I respectfully remain convinced that if everything is impermanent, then suffering is impermanent, and that means the Buddhist concepts of anicca and dukkha are inconsistent, if not contradictory.

26. In an email message to the author on June 15, 2015, Winfried Corduan, an early reviewer of this book, asked, “Couldn’t the Buddhist make a difference between a metaphysical observation (impermanence of reality) and a logical conclusion (everything is impermanent)?” My response is, “Possibly,” but the claim that everything is impermanent seems to cover the metaphysical and conceptual waterfronts.

27. In an email message to the author on June 30, 2015, Christian scholar of world religions Robert M. Bowman Jr., an early reviewer of this book, disagreed with my logical assessment, stating, “I’m unsure about the cogency of your criticisms. (1) Buddhists agree that suffering is not permanent: it eventually ends as the illusion of self is transcended in nirvana. (2) I am not sure that Buddhist philosophy actually holds that literally everything is impermanent; rather, I think it holds that everything in the experienced world of self, suffering, etc., is impermanent. (3) Ditto: ‘stuff’ may be impermanent while the abstract principles pertaining to transcending that impermanence can be enduring.” However, I am persuaded that these core Buddhist principles are stated generally without qualification, and thus they are at best in conflict and at worst logically absurd. For further discussion, see Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism, 42–44.

28. Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism, 38.

29. Buddhism has various explanations of just what is reincarnated. For further discussion from a Christian point of view, see “History and Beliefs of Theravada Buddhism, Page 6.”

30. Dalai Lama, Universe in a Single Atom, 71–93.

31. Ibid., 82.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid., 2–3.

34. Ibid., 4.

35. See Samples, World of Difference, 156–64.

36. Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.

37. Augustine, Confessions 1.1.

38. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 54.

39. Packer, Concise Theology, 26.

Chapter 7  The Teacher (Confucius) and the Savior

1. For a brief introduction to Confucius and Confucianism, see Gardner, Confucianism.

2. “Confucius—Biography.”

3. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 101.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. See Confucius, Analects.

7. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 119.

8. “Confucius—Biography.”

9. Leung, “Confucianism,” 71.

10. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed., 406.

11. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 109.

12. For an online version of Confucius’s writings, see Muller, Analects of Confucius.

13. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed., 407.

14. Hall and Ames, “4. Confucius and Confucianism.”

15. Zukeran, “Confucius—A Christian Perspective.”

16. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 111.

17. See Anderson, “Confucianism.”

18. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 111.

19. “Confucius—Biography.”

20. Hall and Ames, “4. Confucius and Confucianism.”

21. Anderson, “Confucianism.”

22. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 70.

23. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 102.

24. Ibid., 101.

25. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 71.

26. “Confucius—Biography.”

27. Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament, 70.

28. Muller, Analects of Confucius.

29. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 65–66.

30. Leung, “Confucianism,” 70.

31. Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism, 59.

32. Zukeran, “Confucius—A Christian Perspective.”

33. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed., 406.

34. Hopfe and Woodward, Religions of the World, 198.

35. See Clark, “Conception of Divinity in Early Confucianism.”

36. See Samples, “Historic Christianity’s ‘Two Books’ of Revelation.”

37. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 117.

38. Pascal, Pensées, 33–36, 131/434.

39. Copan, “Moral Argument,” 113.

40. This discussion of the three Gs is borrowed from Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World, 158.

41. See “Gratitude,” part 3, Heidelberg Catechism, in Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, 53–77.

Chapter 8  The Prophet (Muhammad) and the Son of God

1. “Global Religious Landscape.”

2. “Future of World Religions.”

3. McDermott, Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions, 115.

4. For a Christian worldview analysis of Islam, see Samples, World of Difference, 247–63. This chapter reflects an expansion of what I wrote there about Muhammad.

5. Khan, “Revelation.”

6. Nasr, Islam, 46.

7. Esposito, Islam, 11.

8. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed., 96.

9. Hart, 100, 3.

10. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed., 116.

11. Esposito, Islam, 18.

12. Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 101.

13. Ibid., 91.

14. Nasr, Islam, 43.

15. Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 92.

16. For details about the Qur’an, see Esposito, Islam, 17–22; Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 91–108; and Nasr, Islam, 37–43.

17. See Koran.

18. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 12.

19. For justification to use force against innocent civilian caravans that included women and children, see Qur’an 2:244; 4:95–97; 8:38–45, 60–65; 22:39–40.

20. See Qur’an 28:2.

21. Qur’an 4:34 allows a husband to lightly beat his wife.

22. See Qur’an 4:3.

23. See Qur’an 33:50.

24. See Zukeran, “Lives of Muhammad and Jesus.”

25. MacGregor, “State of Islamic Textual Criticism,” 56–73.

26. Neill, Supremacy of Jesus, 82.

27. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 75.

28. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, s.v. “Muhammad, Character of.”

29. Nasr, Islam, xi.

30. With regard to the Five Pillars, see Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 160–63; Esposito, Islam, 88–93; and Nasr, Islam, 91–96.

31. Nasr, Islam, 91.

32. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 162.

33. Nasr, Islam, 3.

34. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 160.

35. Nasr, Islam, 92.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., 94–95.

38. For a summary of Islam’s intellectual achievements in the Middle Ages, see Cunningham and Reich, Culture and Values, 1:305.

39. For a brief discussion of Islam’s scientific emphasis, see Nasr, Islam, xxi–xxii.

40. For a defense of the Qur’an on the basis of science, see Bucaille, Bible, the Qur’an, and Science. For a specific Christian response to Bucaille’s work, see Campbell, Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science.

41. Esposito, Islam, 18.

42. For textual studies that refute the Islamic claim that the Bible is substantially corrupted, see Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible; and Metzger, Text of the New Testament.

43. See Bray, Creeds, Councils, and Christ; Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines; and Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.

44. MacGregor, “State of Islamic Textual Criticism,” 56–73.

45. Nasr, Islam, 37–38.

46. For a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, see Samples, Without a Doubt, 63–76.

47. Ferguson, Wright, and Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “God.”

48. For a discussion of the incarnation doctrine, see chapter 3 and Samples, Without a Doubt, 120–33.

49. See Pascal, Pensées, 33–36, 131/434.

50. Milne, Know the Truth, 62.

51. Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, 40.

52. See Gomes, Unmasking the Cults, 25–26.

53. For further discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity, including its biblical support, see Samples, World of Difference, 131–35.

54. Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, 73.

55. Ellis, “Oliver Stone’s Son Converts to Islam.”

56. Ibid.

57. “Statement of Faith.”

58. Esposito, Islam, 22.

59. Just after the events of 9/11, Middle East specialist Daniel Pipes estimated that approximately 10–15 percent of Muslims had adopted a form of radical Islam. See Pipes, “How Many Islamists?”

60. In response to this problem, Nawaz founded the Quilliam Foundation, a think tank that seeks to counter the message of radical Islamic jihadism.

Chapter 9  Truth, Tolerance, and the Plurality of Religious Claims

1. Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Article 3 (1789).

2. Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 74–75; and Sproul, Reason to Believe, 35.

3. Rowe, Philosophy of Religion, 174–75.

4. The most primitive form of Buddhism, known as Theravada, is godless in belief. See chapter 6.

5. I am referring here to the traditional adherents of Judaism. There are some Jewish groups (Messianic Jews) who retain their Jewish heritage and tradition while embracing Jesus Christ (Yeshua) as their Messiah and Savior.

6. Purtill, Thinking about Religion, 105–6.

7. Netland, Dissonant Voices, 37.

8. My contrast between Christianity and Hinduism was influenced in part by William Rowe’s comparison of the two religions. See Rowe, Philosophy of Religion, 175.

9. McGrath, Introduction to Christianity, 155.

10. Netland, Dissonant Voices, 160.

11. Smith, Illustrated World’s Religions, 245.

12. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 55. For a clear discussion of the formal laws of logic, see Samples, World of Difference, 39–54.

13. Netland, “Exclusivism, Tolerance, and Truth,” 84–85.

14. John Hick’s works on pluralism include God and the Universe of Faiths and Problems of Religious Pluralism.

15. Hick, God and the Universe of Faith, 140.

16. Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 117–19.

17. Ibid., 119.

18. Hick, “Pluralist View,” 39.

19. See Evans, Philosophy of Religion.

20. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 36.

21. Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, 226.

22. McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, 119.

23. Hick, “Pluralist View,” 29–59.

24. Hick, Myth of God Incarnate. For a philosophical defense of the incarnation doctrine, see Morris, Logic of God Incarnate.

25. Evans, Why Believe?, 141.

26. See Douglas Groothuis’s critique of Joseph Campbell in “Power of Myth.” See also Snyder, Myth Conceptions.

27. See Groothuis, “Power of Myth”; and Snyder, Myth Conceptions.

28. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “tolerance.”

29. Purtill, Thinking about Ethics, 136.

30. See the critique of the political correctness movement in America in Beckwith and Koukl, Relativism, 79–91.

31. These three points of clarification were influenced by ibid., 149–50.

32. Copan, Loving Wisdom, 168.

33. Beckwith and Koukl, Relativism, 150.

34. Kreeft and Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 361–83.

35. For a discussion of why denials of truth are self-defeating, see Nash, Faith and Reason, 161–67.

Chapter 10  Biblical Perspective on the World’s Religions

1. For good general information about these eleven world religions, see Smith, World’s Religions; Hutchison, Paths of Faith; Noss and Noss, History of the World’s Religions, 9th ed.; Hopfe and Woodward, Religions of the World; and Ellwood, Many Peoples, Many Faiths.

2. Hopfe and Woodward, Religions of the World, includes good general information about some of the world’s minor religions as well. For an introduction to the basic religions and many bygone religions, see Eliade and Couliano with Wiesner, HarperCollins Concise Guide to World Religions.

3. For a Christian assessment of the world’s religions, see Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 2nd ed.; Halverson, Compact Guide to World Religions; Anderson, World’s Religions; and Anderson, Christianity and World Religions. Corduan’s book evaluates some of the world’s basic or traditional religions as well. For an evaluation of some of the bygone religions (including mystery religions) that competed with primitive Christianity, see Finegan, Myth and Mystery.

4. This chapter reflects a revision and expansion of chapter 13 of my book Without a Doubt.

5. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 42.

6. See Samples, “Historic Christianity’s ‘Two Books’ of Revelation.”

7. See Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, 222.

8. For an in-depth discussion of the image of God, see Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World, chapters 11 and 12.

9. McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, 116.

10. See Hopfe and Woodward, Religions of the World, 6.

11. Halverson, Compact Guide to World Religions, 16.

12. Augustine, Confessions 3.1.21.

13. For a discussion of the proper relationship between general and special revelation, see Samples, Without a Doubt, 42–51.

14. Arnold, Powers of Darkness.

15. See an analysis of these passages in Geivett and Phillips, “Particularist View,” 230–37.

16. McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, 119.

17. This is a place where my thinking is shaped by my theological commitment to a Protestant-Augustinian theology. For a Reformed treatment of regeneration, see Hoekema, Saved by Grace. Certain other theological traditions within Christendom reject the idea that humanity’s total depravity equates to total inability. For a thoughtful alternative evangelical view concerning the human will and salvation, see Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty.

18. This apologetic strategy is set forth in Chang, Engaging Unbelief.

19. See McGrath, “Particularist View,” 151–80; and Geivett and Phillips, “Particularist View,” 213–45.

20. Pinnock, “Inclusivist View,” 95–123.

21. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 11–12. Nash critiques both pluralism and inclusivism while defending exclusivism.

22. Rahner, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions.”

23. Pinnock, Wideness in God’s Mercy.

24. McGrath, “Response to Clark H. Pinnock,” 131.

25. For an alternative evangelical position relating to the human will and salvation in the context of the unevangelized, see Copan, Loving Wisdom, 172–73.

26. Reymond, New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 1090.

27. Ibid.

28. Pinnock, “Response to John Hick,” 61–62.

29. See McGrath, “Response to R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips,” 256–70; and Sanders, No Other Name.

30. Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.

Bibliography

Adler, Mortimer J. Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth: An Essay in the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Ames, Roger, and Henry Rosemont Jr. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine, 1998.

Anderson, Janice Capel. “Confucianism.” University of Idaho. Accessed October 8, 2015. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Ethics/confucianlecF02.htm.

Anderson, Norman. Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

———, ed. The World’s Religions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Arnold, Clinton E. Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Augustine. Confessions. Translated by R. S. Pine-Coffin. New York: Penguin, 1961.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

———. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, eds. To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview; Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Beckwith, Francis J., and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975.

———. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938.

The Bhagavad Gita. Translated by Juan Mascaró. London: Penguin, 1962.

Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Article 3 (1789). Accessed September 8, 2015. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.

Blaising, Craig A. “Hypostatic Union.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 583–84. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Blomberg, Craig L. Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

———. “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?” In Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus under Fire, 17–50.

Boa, Kenneth D., and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Sense and Nonsense about Angels and Demons. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Bowman, Robert M., Jr. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Bowman, Robert M., Jr., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.

Bray, Gerald. Creeds, Councils, and Christ. Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 1997.

———. God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Brown, Jonathan A. C. Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus: Lord and Savior. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.

———. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Bucaille, Maurice. The Bible, the Qur’an, and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge. Translated by Alastair D. Pannell. Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1979.

Buddhist Suttas. Translated by T. W. Rhys Davids. New York: Dover, 1969.

Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

Campbell, William. The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science. Upper Darby, PA: Middle East Resources, 1992.

Carrithers, Michael. The Buddha: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Chang, Curtis. Engaging Unbelief: A Captivating Strategy from Augustine and Aquinas. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.

Charan das, Chaitanya. “Is Krishna Mythological or Historical?” Spiritual Scientist. February 16, 2011. http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/2011/02/is-krishna-mythological/.

Clark, Kelly James. “The Conception of Divinity in Early Confucianism.” In Dialogue of Philosophies, Religions, and Civilizations in the Era of Globalization, edited by Zhao Dunhua. Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series III Asia, vol. 25. San Antonio: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, published online. Last modified March 17, 2009. http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-25/chapter-3.htm.

Confucius. The Analects. Translated by D. C. Lau. New York: Penguin, 2014.

“Confucius—Biography.” European Graduate School. Accessed October 8, 2015. http://www.egs.edu/library/confucius/biography/.

Copan, Paul. Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2007.

———. “A Moral Argument.” In Beckwith, Craig, and Moreland, To Everyone an Answer, 108–23.

Corduan, Winfried. “Christ and Krishna.” Accessed October 8, 2015. http://wincorduan.net/krishna-christ.html.

———. “History and Beliefs of Theravada Buddhism, Page 13: Theravada Beliefs.” Dharma to Grace. Accessed June 25, 2015. http://dharma2grace.net//theravada/theravada-working13.html.

———. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

———. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

———. Pocket Guide to World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

———. “10 Questions on Buddhism.” Win Corduan’s Blog. March 9, 2015. http://wincorduan.bravejournal.com/entry/145279.

Cunningham, Lawrence, and John J. Reich. Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities. 2nd ed. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1990.

Dalai Lama XIV. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2005.

Davis, John Jefferson. Handbook of Basic Bible Texts: Every Key Passage for the Study of Doctrine and Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988.

Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins, 2012.

Eliade, Mircea, and Ioan P. Couliano with Hillary S. Wiesner. The HarperCollins Concise Guide to World Religions: The A–Z Encyclopedia of All the Major Religious Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Ellis, Mark. “Oliver Stone’s Son Converts to Islam, Defends Iranian Regime.” Godreports (blog). February 25, 2012. http://blog.godreports.com/2012/02/oliver-stones-son-converts-to-islam-defends-iranian-regime/.

Ellwood, Robert S. Many Peoples, Many Faiths: An Introduction to the Religious Life of Humankind. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

———. The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Esposito, John L. Islam: The Straight Path. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Evans, C. Stephen. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985.

———. Why Believe? Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

Ferguson, Sinclair B., David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer, eds. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

Finegan, Jack. Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.

“The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050.” Pew Research Center. April 2, 2015. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/.

Gardner, Daniel K. Confucianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and exp. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Geivett, Douglas, and Gary Phillips. “A Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 211–45.

Geisler, Norman L., and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.

“The Global Religious Landscape.” Pew Research Center. December 18, 2012. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.

Gomes, Alan W. Unmasking the Cults. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Green, Michael. “But Don’t All Religions Lead to God?” Navigating the Multi-Faith Maze. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.

———. Who Is This Jesus? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992.

Griffiths, Michael. The Example of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985.

Groothuis, Douglas R. “The Power of Myth.” Christian Research Journal (Fall 1989). http://www.equip.org/article/the-power-of-myth/.

———. Revealing the New Age Jesus: Challenges to Orthodox Views of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Guillaume, A., trans. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

Habermas, Gary R. “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?” In Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus under Fire, 114–17.

———. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. “4. Confucius and Confucianism.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Published online 1998. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/chinese-philosophy/confucius-and-confucianism.

Halverson, Dean C., ed. The Compact Guide to World Religions. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

Hanh, Thich Nhat. Living Buddha, Living Christ. 10th anniv. ed. New York: Riverhead, 2007.

Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

———. 3 Crucial Questions about Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Hart, Michael H. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Rev. ed. New York: Citadel Press, 1992.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.

Hick, John. God and the Universe of Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. London: Macmillan, 1977.

———, ed. The Myth of God Incarnate. London: SCM, 1977.

———. Philosophy of Religion. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

———. “A Pluralist View.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 27–59.

———. Problems of Religious Pluralism. New York: St. Martin’s, 1985.

“History and Beliefs of Theravada Buddhism, Page 6: Contrast to the Pudgalavadin Schools.” Dharma to Grace. Accessed June 25, 2015. http://dharma2grace.net//theravada/theravada-working6.html.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Holcomb, Justin S. Know the Heretics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Hopfe, Lewis M., and Mark R. Woodward. Religions of the World. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998.

House, H. Wayne. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Hutchison, John A. Paths of Faith. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

“Introduction: Four Main Paths.” The Heart of Hinduism. Accessed October 7, 2015. http://hinduism.iskcon.org/practice/.

Keathley, Kenneth. Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978.

Khan, M. Muhsin, trans. “Revelation.” In Translation of Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, bk. 1, no. 3. University of Southern California, Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. Accessed October 12, 2015. http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/001-sbt.php.

Knott, Kim. Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

The Koran. Translated by N. J. Dawood. New York: Penguin, 1993.

Kreeft, Peter. Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982.

———. Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Leung, Thomas I. S. “Confucianism.” In Halverson, Compact Guide, 70–86.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

Ludwig, Theodore M. The Sacred Paths: Understanding the Religions of the World. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.

MacGregor, Kirk R. “The State of Islamic Textual Criticism.” Midwestern Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (2013): 56–73

“Mahayana Buddhism, Part 8. Yogacara and Madhyamaka.” Dharma to Grace. Accessed June 25, 2015. http://dharma2grace.net/Mahayana/mahayana8.html.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students. Vol. 2. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000.

McDermott, Gerald R. The Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions: What Every Christian Needs to Know. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

McGrath, Alister E. Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges to Faith through Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

———. An Introduction to Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997.

———. “A Particularist View: A Post-Enlightenment Approach.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 151–80.

———. “Response to Clark H. Pinnock.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 129–32.

———. “Response to R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 256–70.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd enl. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982.

Montgomery, John Warwick, ed. Demon Possession: A Medical, Historical, Anthropological, and Theological Symposium. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1976.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Morris, Thomas V. The Logic of God Incarnate. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

———. Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991.

Muller, A. Charles, trans. The Analects of Confucius. Accessed May 10, 2015. http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html.

Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Murray, Michael J., ed. Reason for the Hope Within. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Mykytiuk, Lawrence. “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence beyond the Bible.” Bible History Daily. Biblical Archaeology Society. December 8, 2014. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/.

Nash, Ronald. Faith and Reason: Searching for a Radical Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

———. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.

Neill, Stephen. The Supremacy of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

Netland, Harold. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

———. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.

———. “Exclusivism, Tolerance, and Truth.” Missiology 15 (April 1987): 77–95.

Noss, David S., and John B. Noss. A History of the World’s Religions. 8th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Noss, David S., and John Boyer Noss. A History of the World’s Religions. 9th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Okholm, Dennis L., John Hick, and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1993.

Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Rev. ed. Translated by A. J. Krailsheimer. New York: Penguin, 1995.

Peterson, Michael, et al. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Phillips, J. B. New Testament Christianity. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1956.

Pinnock, Clark H. “An Inclusivist View.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 95–123.

———. “Response to John Hick.” In Okholm, Hick, and Phillips, More Than One Way?, 60–64.

———. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Pipes, Daniel. “How Many Islamists?” Lion’s Den: Daniel Pipes Blog. Last modified June 29, 2015. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/10/how-many-islamists.

Purtill, Richard L. Thinking about Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.

———. Thinking about Religion: A Philosophical Introduction to Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Qureshi, Nabeel. Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Rahner, Karl. “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions.” In Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 115–34. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966.

Rahula, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught. 2nd ed. New York: Grove, 1974.

Rainey, Lee Dian. Confucius and Confucianism: The Essentials. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Rajaram, N. S. “Search for the Historical Krishna.” Vedic Knowledge Online. September 4, 1999. http://veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/historical-krsna.htm.

Reeves, Michael. Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Reymond, Robert L. Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness. Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2003.

———. Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1990.

———. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Rhodes, Ron. Christ before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Rowe, William L. Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. “Historic Christianity’s ‘Two Books’ of Revelation.” Reasons to Believe. September 1, 2013. http://www.reasons.org/articles/historic-christianitys-two-books-of-revelation.

———. 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012.

———. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

———. A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Sanders, Fred, and Klaus Issler, eds. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Intermediate Perspective. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007.

Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Senor, Thomas D. “The Incarnation and the Trinity.” In Murray, Reason for the Hope Within, 238–52.

Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Roberts Graves. London: Penguin, 2007.

Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World’s Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

———. The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Snyder, Thomas Lee. Myth Conceptions: Joseph Campbell and the New Age. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Sproul, R. C. Reason to Believe. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

“Statement of Faith.” Jews for Jesus. Last modified June 28, 2013. http://jewsforjesus.org/about-jews-for-jesus/who-we-are/statementoffaith.

Stott, John R. W. Basic Christianity. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1971.

Swinburne, Richard. Was Jesus God? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Tacitus. The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. Translated by J. C. Hardley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Tennent, Timothy. “Devotional Movement.” Biblical Training. Accessed June 29, 2015. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/devotional-movement/essentials-hinduism/timothy-tennent.

Thoennes, Erik. “Biblical Doctrine: An Overview.” In ESV Study Bible, 2505–34. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008.

Toon, Peter. Jesus Christ Is Lord. London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1978.

Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011.

———. Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.

Valea, Ernest. “Salvation and Eternal Life in World Religions.” Many Paths to One Goal? Accessed June 29, 2015. http://www.comparativereligion.com/salvation.html.

Vanamali, Mataji Devi. The Complete Life of Krishna: Based on the Earliest Oral Traditions and the Sacred Scriptures. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2012.

Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Vilenkin, Alex. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. New York: Hill & Wang, 2006.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: P&R, 1980.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2013.

Wikipedia, s.v. “Krishna.” Last modified October 7, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna.

Wilkins, Michael J., and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Yamamoto, J. Isamu. Beyond Buddhism: A Basic Introduction to the Buddhist Tradition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982.

———. “Buddhism and Christianity: The Buddha and What He Taught.” Christian Research Institute. April 8, 2009. Article ID: DB565-1. http://www.equip.org/article/buddhism-and-christianity-the-buddha-and-what-he-taught/.

———. Buddhism, Taoism, and Other Far Eastern Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

———. Hinduism, TM, and Hare Krishna. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Jesus outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?” In Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus under Fire, 207–29.

Yandell, Keith, and Harold Netland. Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Zukeran, Patrick. “Confucius—A Christian Perspective.” Probe Ministries. May 27, 2009. https://www.probe.org/confucius/.

———. “The Lives of Muhammad and Jesus.” Probe Ministries. August 30, 2009. https://www.probe.org/the-lives-of-muhammad-and-jesus/#text26.

Index of Subjects

Abba, 30–31

agape, 147

Allah, 161–63, 169, 171, 178, 180–81, 183, 186

Analects, The (Confucius), 136, 150

anatta, 121, 123. See also soul

anicca, 121–23, 238n25. See also impermanence

Annals (Tacitus), 64

apologetics, 219

Christian, 219

Muslim, 175

apostolic church, 56–59

asceticism, 105, 108

attachment (tanhā), 107

avatars, 81–82, 94

and incarnation, 87–88

Bhagavad Gita, 81, 84–85, 88, 237n13

Bhagavata Purana, 80–81, 85

Bible

corruption of, 164, 176–77

oral tradition and, 56–59, 63, 71–72

perspective on world religions, 210–20

See also Gospels

Bill of Rights (US), 193

Bowman, Robert, Jr., 238n27

Brahma, 81

birth and death of, 112

Buddha, 104–7

historicity of, 111

nature of, 109–10

teachings of, 107–9

three states of, 117–18

Buddhism, 103, 109, 114–15, 119–21, 126–28, 238n19

Mahayana Buddhism, 117–19

Theravada Buddhism, 116–19, 242n4

view of suffering, 107–8, 115, 119–20. See also dukkha

Buddhology, 116–17

Campbell, Joseph, 203

Christianity

comparison: with Buddhism, 114, 120–21, 126–31; with Confucianism, 147–51, 154, 156–57; with Hinduism, 93–99; with Islam, 174, 177–80, 187

cosmology, 124–25

eschatology, 170

ethics, 152

view of God, 35–36

view of Jesus, 33–53

world religions and, 210

See also creeds; exclusivism, Christian; inclusivism, Christian

Christology, 69–75. See also heresies; kenosis

Confucianism, 136–37, 145–51, 154, 156–57

moral ideals, 138–40, 147

Confucius, 133–36, 140–41

five basic relationships, 148

Corduan, Winfried, 238n25, 238n26

cosmology

Buddhist, 124–25

Christian, 124–25

Council of Chalcedon, 34–35, 50

Council of Constantinople, First, 50

Council of Constantinople, Third, 50

Council of Ephesus, 50

Council of Nicea, 50

creation ex nihilo, 125

creeds

Athanasian Creed, 46

Chalcedonian Creed, 46

Creed of Chalcedon, 34–35

early Christian, 71–75

Dalai Lama, 124

death, 169, 230

demons, 26, 215–16

desire, 107–8, 128

dukkha, 121–23, 238n25, 238n27

elephant analogy, 199–201

enlightenment, 106–7, 109, 117–18

eschatology

Christian, 170

Confucian, 145

Islamic, 169

ethics, 152–54, 196

Christian, 152

Confucian, 134, 137–41, 146, 151–52

evangelism

to Bhakti Hindus, 97–100

to Buddhists, 128–31

to Confucianists, 154–57

to Muslims, 186

exclusivism, Christian, 156, 207, 216–17, 220–21, 223–26

exorcisms, 26

faith, 217–18

justification, 48–49

false doctrine, 218–19

First Council of Constantinople, 50

Four Noble Truths, 107–8

Four Passing Sights, 105

Gabriel (angel), 161, 164–65

God

characteristics, 229

Father (Yahweh), 6–7, 46. See also Jesus: and Yahweh

identity, 194

and love, 19, 180, 186

self-sufficiency, 129

Golden Rule, 148

Golden Rule of Benevolence, 134

Gospels, 235n10.

authorship, 59–61

reliability of, 62–63

Synoptic, 61–62

See also apostolic church

grace, 94–95, 155, 218, 224

gratitude, 155

Great Commission, 227

guilt, 155

Hadith, 167

heaven, 145–46, 149

heresies

Arianism, 38, 49–50

christological, 49–50

docetism, 39, 49

Eutychianism, 39

gnosticism, 45

monophysitism, 39

Nestorianism, 38

subordinationism, 45–47

Hick, John, 199–202

Hinduism, 79–80, 91

Bhakti, 82–84, 92–93, 195

“holy pagans,” 224

homo religiosus, 214

human depravity, 153, 218, 243n17

human nature

in Confucianism, 153

in Hinduism, 96–97

human predicament, 194–95

in Buddhism, 119–20, 126–27

in Confucianism, 149–50

in Islam, 179

Hypostatic union, 37

imago Dei, 96, 153, 179, 204–5, 213–14, 219

impermanence, 238n25, 238n26, 238n27

incarnation, 33–40, 44–45, 47–53, 178, 198, 202, 212–13, 216, 234n6. See also Trinity

inclusivism, Christian, 222–23

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 84

Islam, 160, 163, 170–76, 179, 241n59, 241n60

Five Pillars of, 171–73

prophets, 166

radical, 184–85

view: of Christianity, 172; of Jesus, 178; of scriptural books, 164

and war on terrorism, 184–85

See also Muhammad; Qur’an

Jesus

atonement, 48, 94–95

birth and death, 112, 230, 235n2

blasphemous claims, 7–13, 187

character, 18–25, 46, 51–52, 230

claims of deity, 5–14, 98–99, 201, 231

comparison: with Buddha, 111–16; with Confucius, 142–45; with Krishna, 86–91; with Muhammad, 166–70

divine prerogatives, 10–12, 40–42, 231

evaluation of, 229

historicity, 55–56, 63–69, 203

human nature, 42–43

identity, xv–xvi, 3, 14

incarnation, 87–88, 94

lordship, 157, 187

religious leaders and, 20, 230–31

resurrection, 48, 114, 142–43

teachings, 29–31

use of “I am,” 7–9

and Yahweh, 6–8, 13–14, 41, 86, 98, 224

See also Christology; kenosis; women, treatment of: Jesus

Jewish Antiquities (Josephus), 66

Jews, Messianic, 183, 242n5

Jews for Jesus, 183

Josephus, 66–67

Judaism, 58, 177, 183

Second Temple Judaism, 7, 233n4

karma, 84, 122, 238n24

karma-samsara, 95, 122

kenosis, 37–38

Khadija, 161, 166

Krishna, 79–89

Life of Claudius (Seutonius), 65

logic, 196–97, 204, 221

Logos, 36, 50–51, 178, 212

love, 31, 92, 147

God and, 19, 180

Luke, 60

Mahamantra, 82

Mark, 60

Matthew, 60, 235n13

Mecca, 160–61, 163, 173

Medina, 163

Middle Path, 108

miracles, 25–29

moksha, 83–84, 90, 96, 195, 237n13

monotheism, 82, 161, 183–84

Jewish, 6, 9–13, 75, 231

traditional, 180

Trinitarian, 181

moral principles, 154

Muhammad, 159–63, 165–66, 170

death of, 163, 169

successor of, 163, 176

naturalism, 28

New Testament, 58–64

nirvana, 106–8, 113, 115–17, 123

Noble Eightfold Path, 108–9, 123

pantheism, 82, 195

Paul, 58, 235n9

Pliny the Younger, 66

pluralism

philosophical, 221

religious, 192–93, 199–203, 221–22 (see also elephant analogy)

social pluralism, 192

polytheism, 82, 161

prayer, 10, 191–92

Muslim, 172

Qur’an, 161–65, 167, 175–76, 240n19, 240n21

Ramadan, 172–73

redemption, 48, 149–50

reincarnation, 83–84, 114

religions

differences, 193–98, 221

exclusivism, 202

intolerance, 198, 220

as myths, 203–4

reductionism, 195–96

tolerance, 193, 204–7

revelation, 210–11

general, 48, 149, 213–14, 226

special, 149, 212, 216, 224–25

salvation, 95–98, 129, 182, 186, 216–18

in Confucianism, 150

in Hinduism, 83

in Islam, 173, 179

samsara, 83, 122

Satan, 215–16

September 11, 2001, 184, 191

shahadah, 162, 171–72

Shiva, 81, 237n13

Siddhārtha Gautama, 104–6, 108. See also Buddha

Silver Rule of Reciprocity, 134, 138, 148

sin, 214–16, 218

Son of God, 12

Son of Man, 12

soul, 123–24, 127. See also anatta

Stone, Sean, 183

Suetonius, 65

suffering, 238n25, 238n27. See also dukkha

Tacitus, 64

tahrif, 164, 175. See also Bible: corruption of

Talmud, 67–68

Testimonium Flavianum, 66–67

Trikaya, 117–18

Trinity, 36, 48, 148, 178, 180, 182, 186, 233n3. See also incarnation

truth, 206, 211–12

ultimate reality, 193–94, 200, 203

in Buddhism, 126

in Confucianism, 148–49

in Hinduism, 95–96

in Islam, 177–78

unevangelized, 225–27

Uthman, 167, 176

Vishnu, 79, 81–82, 87

women, treatment of,

Buddha, 110–11

Confucius, 141

Islam, 166, 240n19, 240n21

Jesus, 21

world religions, biblical perspective on, 210–20

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources

Old Testament

Genesis

1:26–27 128

Daniel

7:13–14 9

New Testament

Matthew

5:22 12

5:39 23

7:29 12

8:2–3 20

9:36 19

10:32 6

11:4–6

11:27 24

11:27–30 24

12:13–17 23

16:13–17 3–4

22:37 22

22:37–39 31

22:41–46 22

24:35 12

26:63–65 187

28:17 10

28:18–20 227

Mark

2:5 10

8:36–37 23

9:37 6

14:61–64 9

Luke

7:11–16 19

12:15 23

23:34 20

23:43 20

24:27 12

John

1:14 36, 44

3:16 181

3:36 6, 219

4:9 21

5:17–18 7–8

5:23 6

8:29 113

8:31–32 19

8:46 89

8:58–59 8

10:30–33 8

11:25–26 156

14:1 6

14:6 6, 156, 201, 209, 216

14:7 5, 201

14:9 5, 201

14:11 6

14:14 10

14:21 6

14:23 6

14:28 46

15:23 6

17:17 9

19:30 182

20:17 46

Acts

4:12 202, 209, 216

17:25 129

Romans

1:3–4 44

2:14–15 155

3:21–24 155

9:5 44

10:9–11 99

10:14–15 17, 217

1 Corinthians

11:3 47

2 Corinthians

10:5 219

Galatians

1:8–9 219

Ephesians

2:4–5 98

2:8–10 130

Philippians

2:5–7 44–45

2:9–10 156

Colossians

1:15 47

1:15–16 156

1:15–20 73

2:9 45, 201

Titus

2:11–14 98

3:4–7 99

1 Peter

2:22 24

3:18–22 73

1 John

4:2 45

4:8 180

5:12 217

Other Ancient Sources

The Analects (Confucius)

4:6 150

7:3 143

7:33 150

12:2 138

Bhagavad Gita

4:6 87

4:7–8 88

Qur’an

4:136 164

7:157 175

7:188 168

17:95 168

About the Author

Kenneth Richard Samples serves as senior research scholar with a focus on theological and philosophical apologetics at Reasons to Believe (RTB). Through his writing and speaking he encourages believers to develop a logically defensible faith and challenges skeptics to engage Christianity at a philosophical worldview level. An avid speaker and debater, Kenneth has appeared on numerous radio programs such as Issues Etc., Apologetics.com, and Stand to Reason.

Prior to joining RTB in 1997, Kenneth worked as senior research consultant and correspondence editor at the Christian Research Institute (CRI) for seven years. During that time he cohosted the popular call-in radio program The Bible Answer Man.

Kenneth is the author of 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions, and Christian Endgame: Careful Thinking about the End Times. He has also contributed to numerous other books, including Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials. In addition, his articles have been published in Christianity Today, Christian Research Journal, and Facts for Faith.

Kenneth participates in RTB’s apologetics podcast Imago Dei. He also writes Reflections (http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/), a weekly blog dedicated to helping believers think through their worldview.

An experienced educator, Kenneth has taught courses in philosophy and religion at several colleges and is an adjunct instructor of apologetics at Biola University. He holds undergraduate degrees in philosophy and social science and a masters degree in theological studies. Over the years he has held memberships in the American Philosophical Association, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Evangelical Press Association.

Kenneth lives in Southern California with his wife, Joan, and their three children. He is an enthusiastic student of the American Civil War and World War II and is also an avid Los Angeles Lakers fan.

Back Ads

www.reasons.org

Sign up for announcements about upcoming titles.

Website: www.bakerbooks.com

Quantity Discounts: www.direct2church.com

Twitter: ReadBakerBooks

Facebook: BakerBooks

Back Cover