EXEGESIS OF JOHN 1:1-18

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Exegesis of John 1:1-18

The Gospel of John possesses a unique perspective on the life and ministry of Christ. Although the book presents a disparate chronological order to the events in Jesus’ life, the primary difference lies more in substantive material. While composed in an abundantly simplistic manner, the spiritual depths held within the book are inarguable. The author of John clearly describes the purpose in composing the book. “…that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).[1] John 1:1-18 offers a fundamental support to the material in John’s Gospel. Approached as a prologue, the first eighteen verses promote Jesus as the Word (Logos in Greek) and as human. Furthermore, because of the underlying purpose of John’s Gospel referenced in 20:31, John seems to call the reader to respond to the light of men both throughout the book and in the prologue. The primary thematic material in John’s Gospel is highlighted in the prologue; through the hidden depth underneath the simple compositional style, this prologue grants readers the opportunity to understand the life of Christ in a deeper and more profound manner.

The Word as God (vv. 1-5)

            The Prologue to John’s Gospel resonates strikingly similar to the beginning of the Bible. Both the Genesis and John accounts render the text, “In the beginning…” (Gen 1:1, John 1:1). “Many suggestions have been made that the prologue was originally a poem from some other religious tradition (perhaps gnostic³, though there is no shortage of theories) that John took over and adapted for his own ends (Carson, 1991, p. 112).” Whatever the means employed by the author, John’s Gospel, more than the other Gospel narratives, offers special attention to the deity of Christ. The Word (Logos in Greek), of which John speaks, is God the Son, Jesus Christ. Throughout the narrative, Jesus is submitted as human but also equal to the Father. “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30) says Jesus. The first five verses of John 1 pungently tie the creation account in Genesis to Jesus who not only dwelt among humankind but, as one with the Father, was present and involved in the creation of the world. John’s Gospel submits, in no uncertain terms, that the Word (Jesus Christ) is, in fact, God himself.

“In the Hebrew scripture, God brings the world into being with a spoken word; in the New Testament, the Word creates all things and takes on flesh to dwell among us” (Kohan, 2019, p. 47). The first five verses of the text here clearly reveal Jesus as one who was both with God and who was God from the beginning (John 1:1). Interpretive difficulties exist in the way of punctuation. Where some take support from early translations and church fathers, others approach the text linguistically; the first group places ὃ γέγονεν with the sentence in verse 4, while the second group places it at the end of verse 3 (Nässelqvist, 2018 p. 176), as is typical in most English versions of the Bible. It might be suggested that the rendering which places the phrase at the beginning of verse 4 presents a more complete view of Jesus’ co-equality and oneness with the Father. To read the text in a manner that suggests nothing was made apart from him and that life was made in him could foster a more complete view of Jesus’ deity and sovereignty, for in such a view, everything comes from Jesus Christ whether life or death, made or unmade; he is the decisive factor in all that exists.

The author begins the text of John 1 focusing on Christ’s deity and position as God by emphasizing his involvement in and superiority over all creation. He then transitions to the hope of the Gospel: new life. With certainty, John’s Gospel references Jesus Christ as the light of men (John 1:4), i.e. the God who created all that exists cares enough about the people whom he created for himself to subsist as their light in an otherwise dark world. Perhaps, John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ and his power over all creation places the proper perspective on his love for people, for in any ordinary situation, it would not be logical for one deemed worthy to love (beyond measure) one who is unworthy.

Moreover, John’s Gospel illustrates the great need of Jesus Christ among humankind. The Son is, in fact, the only existing light in a dark world. He shines as the light and darkness has not overcome him (John 1:5). It seems that the author again links his prologue to the creation account in Genesis, for God created light himself (Gen 1:3). Verse 5 “is a masterpiece of planned ambiguity” (Carson, 1991, p. 119).

If a hellenistic Jew, or for that matter even a pagan Greek, read through the opening verses to this point, and had no personal experience of Christianity, he or she might well take v. 5 to refer exclusively to creation, without moral overtones. Light and darkness are not simply opposites; darkness is nothing other than the absence of light (Carson, 1991, p. 119).

The author proceeds to another level beyond the material world. As if to suggest the spiritual realm beyond what is seen in existence, John’s Gospel presents not only Jesus’ power over creation and, therefore, his divinity but also his role as spiritual light in a dark world. John’s Gospel then connects Jesus’ role as light to his creation of light and superiority over all in existence. Only one who creates light possesses the ability to simultaneously be light. John, therefore, references Christ’s deity in these verses and subsequently points to humankind’s need of him as the only existing light in a morally dark and sinful world.

            John 1:1-18 focuses on the Word, namely Jesus Christ, and, in an unmistakable way, highlights Jesus’ deity, oneness with the Father, and position as creator God. Setting up such a perspective likely aids in declaring Jesus’ subsequent work among people, for to genuinely appreciate the Son’s role as light among humankind and his love toward his people, one must understand the significance of Christ’s deity. John’s Gospel unapologetically emphasizes not only Jesus’ humanity but also his deity.

The Word as Human (vv. 6-13)

            After clearly portraying Jesus’ deity, the second portion of John’s prologue points to the humanity of Jesus. Where some might refer to Jesus as fully God and fully man, “fully” implies volume; yet, Jesus does not possess any volume of deity and humanity, for he is both God and human in his nature. Thus, it would be more accurate to refer to Christ as both truly God and truly man. John’s Gospel indicates the Christ who is both God and human; John 1:6-13 provides the foundation of this concept.

            Verses 6-8 speak of John the Baptist (different from the author of the Gospel of John) as one who bore witness to the light.

The ultimate origins of Jesus Messiah, John will insist, are in the pre-incarnate Word who was with God and who was God. But when he comes to the account of Jesus’ public ministry on the stage of human history, the Evangelist, in common with the Synoptics and with early Christian preaching, begins with the witness of John the Baptist (Carson, 1991, p. 120).

The significance of John the Baptist’s role, in this case, is that he was sent by God as a forerunner to the Messiah.

That he was commissioned by the Almighty places him in the same category as Moses (Ex 3:10–15) and the prophets (e.g. Is 6:8; Je 1:4ff.)—indeed, in this respect, he is like Jesus himself, who was also sent from God (3:17; a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel (Carson, 1991, p. 120).

Such is perhaps the reason the fourth Gospel necessitates a distinction between the light and the one who bore witness about the light.

            John’s Gospel distinguishes between Christ and John the Baptist briefly and continues with the foundation of the text; the second part of John’s prologue centers around the humanity of Jesus. The author writes, “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world” (John 1:9). The astonishing idea here is that the one true God of whom the author writes has come into the world as a human. Without bipolarity, John’s Gospel conveys the fact that Jesus provides and, in fact, is the only source of light in an otherwise dark world. A common rabbinic expression, “all who come into the world,” is used to describe every man and is always plural; when speaking of Christ, however, John’s Gospel uses a singular form. An accurate rendering then should be the NIV’s, “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world;” the Gospel of John repeatedly predicates the idea that Jesus being sent into the world is predicated of him who is the Word (Carson, 1991, p. 121). John’s prologue here then provides the foundation of the entire book: the unbreakable truth that Jesus exists as both God and human to save his people from sin.

            Additionally, in verse 11, John’s Gospel links Jesus to the prophetic truth that he would be rejected by his own people.

Again and again under the old covenant, the prophets describe the recalcitrance of the people of God. ‘All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations—a people who continually provoke me to my very face’ (Is. 65:2–3), declares the Lord (Carson, 1991, p. 125).

Nonetheless, what is stated in verses 12-13 captures the essence of the entire Gospel: those who receive Christ are given the right of sonship not by lineage of blood but by adoption from God.

When [John] describes those who believe as ‘children’ of God, he uses the word ‘child’ (teknon). He reserves the word ‘son’ (huios) for Jesus himself. In this way he maintains a distinction between Jesus as the ‘Son’ of God, and believers as ‘children’ of God (Kruse, 2003, p. 68).

The premise of John’s text here then is not only the fact that God became human but indeed the purpose for which such incarnation occurred: namely the salvation of humankind. While even the chosen people of God rejected Christ, those who receive him are given the position as children of God by adoption and have been grafted into the family of God (Rom 11:17).

            The deity of Jesus is significant throughout the Gospel of John; yet, the humanity of Jesus is equally as significant. One who created all in existence has become human so that all who receive him might be heirs with him. The prologue here delivers the basis for thematic material throughout the remainder of the book. Jesus Christ, God in flesh, lived as a man so that those who receive him would share with him in eternal life (John 3:16).

Humankind’s Response to the Word (vv. 14-18)

            After John’s discussion of Christ’s deity and humanity, the text necessitates a response from all who gain such knowledge. John reminds the reader that because the Word dwelt among humankind in the flesh, we have beheld God himself (John 1:14, 18). Additionally, in such an act of incarnation, God has provided matchless grace to his people (John 1:16). John’s tender that God himself has been revealed to and indeed dwelt among humankind beckons a response. John’s Gospel ends the prologue with, “…he has made him known” (John 1:18). It is as if the author poses the question of what the reader will do with such a revelation. The Word has dwelt among humankind; therefore, humankind must respond to the Word.

John specifically says that “we have seen his glory” (John 1:14). Of such glory, Colin Kruse writes:

The reference to ‘glory’ is also an allusion to God’s presence in the tabernacle. Exodus 40:34–35 tells us that when Moses completed the construction of the tabernacle, ‘Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.’ As the glory of God was once present in the tabernacle, so it was now present in the Word made flesh (Kruse, 2003, p. 69).

John the Evangelist’s testimony then would have resonated with his hearers in a tangible way. The glory of God, such an indescribable phenomenon, was given a name and a face in the person of Jesus Christ. As the law was given to Moses, the grace and truth of God came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). John the Baptist’s testimony bore witness to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The message he preached then was subject to the truth of Jesus himself, i.e. the Baptist’s message was derived from that of Jesus. John the Evangelist’s focus on the glory of God here summarizes what he has previously shared: 1) Jesus, the Word, is God himself; 2) Jesus is also human; and 3) Jesus is God in human form so that all who receive him might be saved. In essence, the Word is Jesus, Jesus is the Word, and the Word became human to save his people.

Setting the foundation for the remainder of John’s Gospel, an invitation is seemingly given to those who have seen and heard of the Word, Jesus Christ. Understanding that Christ’s work continued with his followers for ages to come, such an invitation still abounds. The author of John seems to place emphasis, however, not on the one who responds but on the one to whom humankind is to respond: Jesus Christ. By clearly pointing to who Jesus is, namely in his deity, John makes clear that it is only appropriate to respond to Christ. He is, in fact, the Logos and the light of men; the prologue of John’s Gospel then offers an invitation to receive that light, which echoes throughout the book.

Limitations to the Text

            Considering the entirety of the Gospel of John, John 1:1-18 should be considered an introduction or a prologue, which certainly reflects the premise of the entire book. In that regard, the first eighteen verses center around Christ’s deity, Christ’s humanity, and humankind’s response to the Son of God. The primary limitations to the text within the scope of this paper are twofold: 1) John’s emphasis on signs and miracles and the necessity to personally behold them and 2) the simplicity of compositional style.

John’s Gospel tends to place great emphasis on seeing the signs and miracles of Christ even suggesting that such is required for belief itself (John 4:48). One must reconcile the necessity for firsthand experience with Jesus’ signs and miracles and those who do not possess the ability to see such miraculous occurrences. One possible reconciliation is the continued incarnate work of Christ after his Ascension. Jesus tells his followers that they would do greater things than he (John 14:12). The Ascension implies that Jesus did not vanish or become a spirit but rather continued to exist in his incarnate state and his work through his followers. After a lengthy account of Jesus’ farewell address, John 18 begins with, “When Jesus had spoken these words…” (John 18:1). “…this…maybe a piece of wit on the part of John the Evangelist or his redactors—a way of saying that even Jesus Christ tended to go on for a bit. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word refused to end. More likely it’s a structural punctuation mark: an exclamation point” (Elie, 2015, p. 14). The need to see Jesus’ signs then could be reconciled by including his continued work by his followers for ages to come.

Another limitation to the text is the simplicity with which the book is composed. In such a simple manner, one might miss or at least underestimate the depth of the Gospel. For that reason, John must be explored with care and scrupulous thought. The first eighteen verses here convey what might be understood in a simple manner, especially to a 1^st-century Jewish audience; yet, John brilliantly connects the common thoughts (at the time) of light and the Logos to Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Gospel of John holds spiritual depth beneath the surface of the text. When reading John 1:1-18, one must understand the spiritual depth of the concepts conveyed in relation to the rest of the book. To understand the significance of Christ as the Word or as the light of men, for example, it is not only beneficial but necessary to have in mind the material of the entire book. The seemingly surface-level references hold a spiritual depth that should not be underestimated in the Gospel of John.

Both limitations mentioned here must be considered when analyzing the text. Moreover, one must understand the first eighteen verses in relation to the entire Gospel. Certainly, John 1:1-18 is foundational to the book; thus, one cannot disconnect the prologue from the book but must understand the entirety of the Gospel to truly understand John 1:1-18.

Profound Depth in a Simple Message

            John 1:1-18 serves as a foundational text to support the remainder of the material in the book. The author’s underlying concepts are referenced in the prologue and transport the essence of the Gospel to the reader. John’s emphasis is placed on both the deity and the humanity of Christ. In an inarguable manner, John’s Gospel declares, clearer than the Synoptics, that Jesus is God in flesh and lived among humankind. Additionally, John’s persistent references to Christ as the light of men seem to beckon a response from humankind. John’s Gospel then not only declares the person and deity of Christ by nature but offers hope to a lost and sinful world. Vastly disparate from the Synoptic Gospels not only in chronological order but in substance and material, John’s Gospel unapologetically declares the risen Christ and his divine role on earth and beyond. With profound depth in a simple message, the first eighteen verses of the book provide the foundational roots from which the work of Christ is derived and around which the entire book of John centers: Christ is God; Christ is human; Christ is the light of men; and all three truths demand a response from humankind.

References

Carson, D.A. (1991). The Gospel according to John. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Elie, Paul (2015). The Beginning of the End. Commonweal, Vol. 142 (No. 18), 13-18.

Kohan, John (2019). In the Beginning Was the Word. Christian Century, Vol. 136 (No. 23), 47.

Kruse, Colin G. (2003). John: An Introduction and Commentary (Leon Morris, Ed.). Inter-Varsity Press.

Nässelqvist, Dan (2018). The Question of Punctuation in John 1:3-4: Arguments from Ancient Colometry. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 137 (No. 1), 175-191.

---

[1] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.

³ For a prudent assessment of the relation between the Prologue and the Trimorphic Protennoia (the gnostic document to which appeal is currently most frequently made), cf. Craig A. Evans, NTS 27, 1981, pp. 395–401.

THE PROCEEDING SPIRIT: ANALYSIS OF JESUS' PROMISE IN JOHN 14:15-31

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

The Proceeding Spirit: Analysis of Jesus’ Promise in John 14:15-31

John’s Gospel communicates that prior to Pentecost, the Holy spirit had not yet been freely given to God’s people (John 7:37-39), i.e. there is a chronological order to trinitarian work (Morrison, 2007, p. 36): the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. All three members of the Godhead are in agreement with such work as the one triune God. As such a chronological order subsists then, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is dependent on Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). “In particular, without the cross, there would be no Pentecost” (Morrison, 2007, p. 37). Jesus’ ascension is deeply tied then to the coming of the Holy Spirit.

John’s Gospel includes a farewell discourse by Jesus. John 14:15-31 is Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit who would serve as his ambassador. The Gospel of John already includes more explicit references about the deity of Jesus than the other Gospels; yet, Jesus’ discourse in these verses focuses significantly on the promised Holy Spirit. This post will offer an analysis of three overarching aspects found within Jesus’ discourse:

1)      trinitarian work in the love among the three members of the Godhead,

2)      the sealing work of the Holy Spirit, and

3)      the ambassadorial role of the Holy Spirit.

These three aspects protrude from the text in a profound manner to support the concept of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Trinitarian Work: Love among Three Members

            Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel subsists as part of his farewell discourse in the upper room. John 14:15-31 offers a unique perspective in its part of John’s five Paraclete passages (Carson, 1991, p. 498). Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus explicitly reveals his Sonship, deity, and co-equality with the Father and Spirit. Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit, in chapter 14, is stalwartly tied to his promise that his disciples would subsequently do greater things than he (John 14:12).[1] True to the character of John’s Gospel, Jesus’ discourse in this portion of Scripture renders the theme of God’s triune work upon the basis of the threefold love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit.

            Jesus’ persistent references to the work which the Father sent him to do, throughout the Gospel of John, reveal a pre-existing plan and perhaps even an eternal pact between the Son and Father; yet, Jesus plainly includes the work of the Holy Spirit in such work. “New Testament writers, although they came from a variety of backgrounds and wrote at different times, spoke of two important roles for the Spirit… [He] drew the individual into the eternal life of Christ, and…[he] drew the risen Christ into the earthly life of the individual” (Simone, 2019, p. 53). Once Christ’s work on earth was complete then, his representative (and co-equal) would be sent by him as a helper by dwelling among his people, i.e. as Christ dwelt among us, so also does the Holy Spirit dwell among us.

            In this discourse, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in his name (John 14:26). Jesus later insists that he would send the Holy Spirit himself (John 15:26). A point of theological tension surrounding this discourse is from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Often referred to as the Filioque clause in reference to the Latin term, the Nicene Creed adds a point of reference from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds: namely the Son. The concept here is that Jesus, co-equal with the Father and in agreement with the Father, sends the Holy Spirit; thus, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Such a reason is likely why Jesus suggests, in John’s Gospel, that both he and the Father send the Spirit.

The Apostle Paul “draws attention to the risen Lord, who, together with God the Father, is the source of the Spirit to believers (Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6)” (Coulson, 2017, p. 77). The idea, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son has existed since the early church. Moreover, the sending of the Holy Spirit is part of the matchless threefold trinitarian love relationship, i.e. the unique work of the Father, Son, and Spirit are employed out of love for one another. Jesus tells his disciples that the sign of love for him is obedience (John 14:15) and that he would, in collaboration with the Father, send the helper (John 14:16). Thus, the point of origin for Christian obedience is trinitarian love. On such a basis, the Father, Son, and Spirit work together to empower the people of God. Augustine opened the window of development for the theme of God-charity based on mutual love between Father, Son, and Spirit (Ngien, 2003, p. 78). Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit then is part of a larger plan: namely the covenant of redemption between the three members of the Godhead, which is employed first out of love for one another.

Comforting his disciples and followers for the ages to come, Jesus promises his helper: the Holy Spirit. Such a promise emphasizes not only Jesus’ co-equality with God but also his mutual love with the Father and Spirit. Christian love for God then originates with the trinitarian love relationship in the Godhead. Jesus says, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23). Those who are in Christ, therefore, live within the bounds of trinitarian love. While Jesus’ discourse in promising the Holy Spirit here is significant for the people of God, it is also abundantly suggestive of trinitarian work and the love between Father, Son, and Spirit, the latter of whom proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

 

“Abide in Me:” The Spirit’s Sealing Work

            In Jesus’ farewell discourse, what might seem to be an addendum to the text is exposed as the foundation. Jesus discusses his secure relationship with his people and their evidence of love for him by way of obedience (John 14:18-24). Resting firmly in his farewell discourse and promise of the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Son and the Father, Christ offers a comforting promise to his people: namely that they would abide in him and he in them (John 14:20). Such a promise is key to Christ’s later parallel (often considered a part of the same discourse) to a vine and his people to branches (John 15:1-17). Jesus’ reference to abiding in him then is sturdily dependent on the sealing work of the Holy Spirit. Disparate in function from both the Father and the Son, God the Spirit employs his sealing work in the lives of God’s people.

“In John 1:32, John the Baptist saw the Spirit ‘remaining on’ [emeinen ep] Jesus… in the Greek translation of Psalm 89:36, the offspring of David will ‘endure forever’ (eis ton aiona menei)” (Collins, 2016, p. 48). The implication then is that God’s redeeming work in the lives of his people includes a secure seal by the Holy Spirit, for those who remain in Christ also remain in his eternal endurance. Later in John’s Gospel, the author conveys that Jesus gave up his spirit on the cross (John 19:30). One interpretation of John’s text here is that Jesus offered his spirit to the church, i.e. the Holy Spirit (Smit, 2016, p. 447). Such an interpretation stems from the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son. The Spirit’s work is not only aligned with the work of the Father and the Son but is also subject to the Father and Son. Not suggestive of a hierarchy, for the three members of the Godhead are co-equal, each person holding specific and unique functions. The Spirit’s function is to call and seal the people of God. Christ’s reference to obeying him must be viewed through the lens of the Spirit’s sealing work. Without Holy Spirit empowerment, abiding in Christ would be impossible. Such is perhaps the reason Jesus includes discussion about abiding in him amidst his promise of the Holy Spirit.

Derived from the trinitarian love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit, the third person of the Godhead is given the task of sealing the people of God. Jesus’ farewell discourse, in the Gospel of John, grants the church hope in what might otherwise seem to be an impossibility. Certainly, those who belong to Christ would desire to abide in him; yet, with his fleshly body absent from the earth, one might wonder how such abiding could happen. Jesus then promises the Holy Spirit, one who would be sent by and proceed (also) from himself. This person would employ the sealing work of God so that the church might securely rest and abide in Christ even amidst hatred by the world, which Jesus also references in his discourse. Jesus’ command to abide in him, therefore, is dependent upon the promised Holy Spirit’s sealing work.

 

One Essence in Three Persons: The Ambassadorial Role of the Spirit

            Though disparate versions of Jesus’ farewell discourse exist in the other Gospels, John offers the most explicit reference to the promise of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, soon to leave his disciples, promises the helper whom he will send. Thus, the Holy Spirit might be considered an ambassador of Christ from whom he proceeds. Replete with trinitarian references, John’s Gospel seems to clarify, more than the other Gospels, the concept of a triune God: one in essence and three in persons. Jesus, co-equal with the Father, sends among his people his ambassador, the Holy Spirit, who is also co-equal with both the Father and the Son, to accomplish his work and continue his earthly ministry in the unique role of comforter and helper.

“In its most basic form, the Spirit was divine breath that God shared with Adam (Gen 2:7) and all living beings (Gen 6:3)” (Simone, 2018, p. 58). Christ’s command to abide in him then runs deeper than mere human will, for one who is in Christ rests secure in the Holy Spirit’s sealing work. Jesus’ discourse gives perspicuous allusion to threefold work among the members of the Godhead. Jesus commands his followers to obey him (John 14:15); he then offers a petition to the Father (John 14:16a); he then promises the Holy Spirit (John 14:16b). Therefore, while the primary aim of Jesus’ words here is the promise of the Holy Spirit, clarity conveys that all three members of the Godhead play a unique and combined role in salvific and sanctifying work.

As an extension of Jesus’ ministry on earth, his followers are told to obey him. Jesus’ mission then is to be continued by his people, the church. As such a mission subsists, Jesus extends his ministry by empowering his people with the Holy Spirit (Keener, 2009, p. 22). Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit have been sent; said another way, Jesus proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit shares in the role of Christ and is, therefore, an ambassador to his mission. As Jesus is sent then, so also is the Holy Spirit sent.

Since Jesus is for his people, the Holy Spirit is also for the people of God: an advocate. “…the help or comfort that the Spirit brings is to advocate for or testify to the truth” (Kinast, 2008, p. 120). “The Spirit is not an independent or alternative source of truth, but rather the divine sharer – taking what belongs to Jesus and declaring it to the disciples” (Kinast, 2008, p. 120). The significance of the Holy Spirit’s work, therefore, is found in his ambassadorial role. Nothing Jesus does contradicts the work of the Father; nothing the Spirit does contradicts the work of Christ; therefore, all three persons employ their distinct work and share in the common goal of bringing glory to triune God.

The Holy Spirit’s role is not a lesser role than Christ but is, in fact, a unique role, for his mission is equal to that of Christ. The Spirit is an ambassador and representative of Jesus sent by the Son to continue his work among his people. John’s Gospel, more than the others, explicitly references not only Christ’s deity and co-equality with the Father but also the unique work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ farewell discourse could be seen not as a formal goodbye but rather as the promise of presence. While Jesus would be lifted to the heavens in his flesh, the Holy Spirit, an ambassador for Christ, would continuously dwell among his people. Christ’s work, therefore, continues. Amidst his promise of the Holy Spirit, Jesus promises his disciples that although he is leaving, they would still see him because he continues to live (John 14:19). Perhaps, Jesus’ words extend a solid support of comfort: although Christ would be absent from the earth in his flesh, his ambassador, equal to him, would continue his work among his people. Jesus’ discourse then should comfort the people of God, for more than a goodbye, Jesus offers a gift: his counterpart and representative on earth.

 

The Heart of Jesus’ Farewell Discourse in John’s Gospel

            Jesus’ farewell discourse in john 14:15-31 advances trinitarian theology with a focus on the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With his words, Jesus points his hearers (and readers) to not only his co-equality with the Father but also his juxtaposed work with the Spirit. On the surface, Jesus conveys comfort to his disciples by assuring them that his absence does not mean abandonment, for he would send the third person of the Trinity on his behalf. Jesus’ explicit reference to his and the Father’s work give not a hierarchy but a trajectory of the Godhead order: work which is accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit, through Christ the mediator, to the glory of the Father. In John’s text here, Jesus offers a farewell but, at a deeper level, conveys the essence of trinitarian work with special attention given to the Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel focuses more on Jesus’ divinity than the other Gospels. Similarly, Jesus, in this discourse, focuses on trinitarian work by promising to send the Holy Spirit to his people.

References

Anonymous author (2018). The Spirit Who Proceeds. Table Talk Magazine. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/daily-study/2018/08/the-spirit-who-proceeds/

Carson, D.A. (1991). The Gospel according to John. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Collins, John C. (2016). Abiding in the Vine. Christianity Today, Vol. 60 (No. 2), 46-49.

Coulson, John R. (2017). Jesus and the Spirit in Paul’s Theology: The Earthly Jesus. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 79 (No. 2), 77-96.

Hying, Donald J. (2017). What Is the Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism. Catholic Answer, Vol. 30 (No. 6), 15-18.

Keener, Craig S. (2009). Sent Like Jesus: Johannine Missiology (John 20:21-22). Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, Vol. 12 (No. 1), 21-45.

Kinast, Robert L. (2008). Focus: John 15:26-27; 16:4b-15: (The Advocate’s Court). Clergy Journal, Vol. 84 (No. 7), 120-122.

Morrison, Hector (2007). The Ascension of Jesus and the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Evangel, Vol. 25 (No. 2), 36-38.

Ngien, Dennis (2003). Richard of St. Victor’s Condilectus: The Spirit as Co-Beloved. European Journal of Theology, Vol. 12 (No. 2), 77-92.

Orville, Daniel E. (1996). A Harmony of the Four Gospels. Baker Books.

Simone, Michael (2019). And Dwelt Among Us. America, Vol. 220 (No. 12), 53.

——— (2018). Spirit of Christ. America, Vol. 218 (No. 11), 58.

Smit, Peter-Ben (2016) The Gift of the Spirit in John 19:30? A Reconsideration of Παρεδωκεν το πνευμα. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 78 (No. 3), 447-462.

---

[1] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.

JUDGING THE USEFULNESS OF LAMENT IN CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Judging the Usefulness of Lament in Contemporary Christianity

Of all Old Testament genres, lament is perhaps one of the least understood and misrepresented. A lament, while surely a complaint, possesses a deeper root of understanding about God and his sovereign power. One who laments should have in mind not a mere complaint about undesired external circumstances but the purpose of God’s action to allow such circumstances. The book of Lamentations is perhaps the most striking example of biblical lament; yet, numerous other examples are also present. As an overarching model for lament, the book of Lamentations grants contemporary Christians insight into the unchanging character of God and their own connection with the people of God in the Old Testament.

The book of Lamentations is made up of five poems, each an expression of grief over the fall of Jerusalem. Like a eulogy at a funeral, these laments are intended to mourn a loss—in this case, the loss of a nation. The latter half of chapter 3 implies that the purpose behind the book’s graphic depictions of sorrow and suffering was to produce hope in the God whose compassion is “new every morning” (v. 23) and whose faithfulness is great even to a people who have been condemned for their own unfaithfulness. The author, while not identified in the book itself, may have been the prophet Jeremiah, who was said to have “uttered a lament for Josiah.” (2 Chron 35:25) Lamentations was probably written shortly after Jerusalem’s fall in 586 b.c. (ESV, 2016)

This post will determine the usefulness of lament in a contemporary Christian context. In doing so, three truths will be conveyed: 1) the truth of New Testament parallels of Old Testament lament, 2) the truth of lament’s vitality to right doxology, and 3) the truth that nothing new exists in this world. Upon examining these truths, it should be concluded that lament is not only good for contemporary Christianity but also necessary.

New Testament Parallels of Old Testament Lament

            Lament is certainly not unique to the Old Testament; New Testament parallels exist. While the Old Testament contains considerably more texts in the genre of lament, several New Testament texts proceed from the genre of lament. Believers should understand that lament is good for contemporary Christianity and is present in the entirety of the Bible.

The author of Lamentations passionately laments over the Lord’s anger with Judah. (ch. 2) Such is not to suggest that the author does not understand the justice in Judah’s destruction but rather that he laments over not only what God has done but also the underlying reason for such destruction: namely the people’s wickedness and rebellion. The author writes, “How the Lord in his anger has set the daughter of Zion under a cloud! He has cast down from heaven to earth the splendor of Israel; he has not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger.” (Lam 2:1)[1] Similar language is offered in Matthew’s Gospel. When Jesus proclaims a woe to unrepentant cities, he declares, “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (Matt 11:23) The foundation of lament, in both cases, should not be neglected. While the lament in Lamentations reveals sorrow over God’s wrath employed through destruction, the core issue is wickedness and unrepentance, which still subsists today. One might not consider laments over Judah’s destruction or even Jesus’ woe over Capernaum beneficial to contemporary Christianity; yet, beneath the surface level of geographical location is the underpinning of lament: namely grief over people’s wickedness.

The Apostle Paul presents a lament in his letter to the Romans. (Rom 7:7-25) The Apostle’s focus is on the Mosaic law and the futility of people’s attempt to uphold it. In a striking sense, Paul’s lament here resembles the model presented in Old Testament laments. The pattern of Old Testament laments includes three primary participants: the I (the lamenter whether singular or plural), you (God), and them (enemies). (Crisler, 2020, p. 67) “The movements of the “I” tend to dominate lament and include (1) prior promise, (2) suffering, (3) cry of distress, (4) deliverance, and (5) praise.” (Crisler, 2020, p. 67) Paul’s words, in Romans 7, hold an evident resemblance of these movements and participants. Paul, a learned Jew, likely knew the laments of old and their relevance to his contemporary circumstances. Additionally, like the heart of Matthew’s text (11:23), Paul understood and was broken by persistent evil among his people. The Apostle writes:

For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (Rom 7:15-18)

For those who might disregard the Old Testament and consider the New Testament superior, texts such as these reveal a deeper foundation than mere complaint. To rightly lament is to understand the underpinning reason for destruction and wrath, i.e. the foundational issue for the biblical lamenter is not destruction itself but rather the reason for destruction. Remembering such a foundation would be advantageous for contemporary Christianity. When God’s people move beyond the surface level visibility of destruction to the reason for such destruction, repentance and, therefore, God’s mercy is possible. God does not employ wrath unjustly; yet, his purpose in doing so is never destruction itself but rather the repentance of his people, which is desperately needed in contemporary Christianity.

Lament: A Theology Vital to Doxology

            A proper theology of lament is a crucial forerunner to proper doxology. Without an understanding of one’s sin, he or she may not realize the necessity of repentance and, thus, the justice in God’s discipline and wrath. Lament then is essential to right doxology. Both praise and lament must stand stalwartly linked together in contemporary Christianity. Dan Wilt writes:

If a theology of resurrection (the empty tomb, renewal, personal transformation, healing, miracles) does not stand together in worship with a theology of suffering (the full cross, intercession, trouble, sorrow, struggle), then I contend our worship is out of accord with both the Scriptures and the daily news. (Wilt)

Lament then should not be neglected but should stand in union with praise; only then will theology lead to right doxology.

            A seemingly lost aspect of corporate worship is lament. While many consider lament a private matter, God’s people publicly lamented in the Old Testament. The Psalms have been called the hymnal of Israel; hints of Lamentations are found then in Israel’s hymnal. The author of Lamentations, amidst his complaint, takes time to praise God for his faithfulness, evidence that the writer’s focus, even in lament, is on the Lord who is ultimately gracious to his people. After a lengthy complaint, the author writes, “But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.” (Lam 3:21-22) Further, the lamenter here acknowledges God’s sorrow in destruction and his will to have compassion in accordance with his steadfast love. (Lam 3:32-33) Christian hope is rooted in Christ; therefore, it is good for contemporary Christianity to understand the hope of the Lord even amidst plaguing anguish.

            David offers a lament for Jonathan and Saul (2 Sam 1:17-27), which he intended to be taught to the people of Judah, (2 Sam 1:18) i.e. David’s private lament was intended for public use. Furthermore, David also presents a deeper purpose in lament than mere inconvenience. “Your glory, O Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen,” writes David. (2 Sam 1:19) David’s lament here should be understood as being both heard and overheard. (Linafelt, 2008, p. 500) The purpose of lament here is not only a personal plea but public worship of God. The author (David) cries privately while also becoming a voice of God’s people collectively. In Christian worship, lament realizes the imperfection of the world and laments over injustice and that which God hates. Surely, destruction is worthy of lament; yet, a right focus on the need for repentance conceives the natural result of right (corporate) worship.

            Lamenting psalms are also present in the Old Testament text. The same concepts should be employed by God’s people even today. “…the very real experiences of those petitioning the psalms of lament are often a catalyst for expressed feelings of abandonment and desertion which warrant prayer intended to rouse God into action.” (Waltman, 2018, p. 209) When lament and praise stand together, the reality of pain is acknowledged by God’s people as well as the realization that he alone may heal. With such a realization, believers may appropriately worship God. Rather than a mere complaint based on inconvenience or discomfort, God’s people should understand the vitality of lament to contemporary Christian worship.

There Is Nothing New under the Sun: That for Which Humanity Has Lamented for Ages Has Not Changed 

            Lament, specifically utilizing the Old Testament model, is also useful for contemporary Christian audiences because nothing has changed. Solomon declared that there exists nothing new under the sun, (Eccl 1:9) i.e. the issues God’s people encountered in the Old Testament are the same issues that persist today. Therefore, that for which humankind has lamented for ages has not changed. To list several examples, racism is not new, murder is not new, war is not new, oppression is not new, division is not new, and indeed, child sacrifice (abortion in Western society’s case) is not new. Thus, lament should not be neglected in contemporary Christianity.

            To neglect lamenting is to ignore the reality of evil when truly Christians are called to do justice and love mercy; (Mic 6:8) to do justice and love mercy then is to hate evil. The author of Lamentations writes, “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed in the midst of her the blood of the righteous.” (Lam 4:13) The sins with which the author dealt are the same sins that subsist in contemporary Christian culture. Lament, therefore, is necessary for healing, for without first lamenting, God’s mercy will not be afforded. Lament gives a voice to sorrow. Those who remain silent remain complacent. Regarding contemporary issues, which surely existed in the Old Testament, silence is “the weaponized tool of preference for ignoring the three-part plights of sexism, racism, and classism within the majority of…Christian communities.” (Landfair, 2016, p. 25) Corporate lament is useful in contemporary Christianity because it affords God’s people the opportunity to acknowledge both the wickedness that exists and the power of God to heal such evil.

The evil of racism, murder, debauchery, and more was present in the time Lamentations was written; it is also present today. Modern lament, therefore, connects today’s church with the people of God in the Old Testament. Lament could certainly happen in stages; nonetheless, the first stage must be vocality. (Dickie, 2019, p. 146) The book of lamentations, although likely composed by one person, is offered as the collective lament of Israel. When the lament was offered, a voice was given to the people of God and, therefore, sorrow over their destruction and the cause thereof. In a similar manner, God’s people today must have a voice to offer God in lament. Injustices that exist today are not new but must continually be fought by the church. God’s people today experience the same feelings of abandonment and sadness as did God’s people in the Old Testament. The book of Lamentations could mirror the church’s cry today. Lament then is not only useful in contemporary Christianity but also necessary.

God’s work in the lives of his people should stir such conviction that produces lament. The church is surely linked to those of whom Lamentations speaks and confront the same issues and sins. Nothing new exists under the sun; therefore, while the Old Testament offers striking laments, it is profitable, in contemporary Christianity, to lament over the same items.

Lament: A Useful and Necessary Device

            God’s people have offered laments since the beginning of their existence. The book of lamentations might be considered the most prominent example of lament; yet, it is certainly not unique in its genre. Moreover, lament is not exclusive to the Old Testament. Not only does the Old Testament model of lament exist in New Testament texts, the employment of lament is useful for contemporary Christianity in that God’s people need it to rightly worship since they face the same issues as did God’s people of old. To judge the usefulness of lament in contemporary Christianity, it is good to understand the connection God’s people today have with God’s people during the time of Lamentations. Jesus promised trouble in the world. (John 16:33) To ignore the reality of pain and the presence of evil is to live a lie. Lament then is certainly useful for contemporary Christianity and should be executed with wisdom, understanding, and a realization that the one true God remains on the throne and extends matchless grace to his people.

References

Baker, Robin (2019). Jeremiah and the Balag-Lamet? Jeremiah 8:18-23 Reconsidered. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 138 (No. 3), 587-604.

Crisler, Channing L. (2020). The “I’ Who Laments: Echoes of Old Testament Lament in Romans 7:7-25 and the Identity of the ἐγώ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 82 (No. 1), 64-83.

Dickie, June F. (2019). Lament as a Contributor to the Healing of Trauma: An Application of Poetry in the Form of Biblical Lament. Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 68 (No. 2), 145-156.

(2016). Introduction to Lamentations: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway.

Landfair, Valerie Ranee (2020). Complicity and Silence: How Lament Could Lead Us toward a Better Place. Mutuality, Vol. 27 (No. 3), 24-28.

Linafelt, Tod (2008). Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and Overhearing David’s Lament for Jonathan and Saul. Journal of Religion, Vol. 88 (No. 4), 497-526.

Waltman, Joshua C. (2018). Psalms of Lament and God’s Silence: Features of Petition Not Yet Answered. Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 89 (No. 3), 209-221.

Wilt, Dan. 5 Reasons lament and praise must stand together in worship. Danwilt.com. https://www.danwilt.com/5-reasons-lament-and-praise-must-stand-together-in-worship/

Waltke, Bruce K. (2007). An Old Testament Theology. Zondervan.

---

[1] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.

CONTRAST OF WORLDVIEWS: ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Contrast of Worldviews: Islam and Christianity

Of all world religions, Christianity and Islam are two of the most prominent. Although derived from the same origins, both faiths have diverged into manifold differences with respect to worldview. The consequences of both Christianity’s and Islam’s worldviews are extensive in nearly every culture of the world. Those who do not understand the foundations of both faiths might incorrectly claim the God of Christianity to be the same as that of Islam. Contrasting Christianity and Islam, however, would reveal a different truth.

            Christians should understand the Islamic worldview through a threefold lens: 1) the Islamic doctrine of tawhid, 2) the Islamic view of sin and its remedy, and 3) the Islamic perspective on the person and nature of Jesus Christ. These three fundamental differences create an irreconcilable contrast between the two faiths. Nevertheless, with such an understanding, Christians may replace false assumptions about Islam with enlightenment and greater love for image-bearers in the Muslim faith.

The Islamic Worldview: Tawhid

            Vastly disparate from the Christian worldview, the Islamic worldview is founded upon the doctrine of tawhid (Schdmit, 2020, p. 32), the Arabic term meaning oneness of God. For this reason, polytheism may never be accepted in Islam. While a monotheistic view is also taken by Christians, the doctrine of tawhid infers that the Christian triune God may not be possible, for God is one alone; to the Muslim, there is only Allah. In the Islamic view, Allah has no physical attributes (Schmidt, 2020, p. 32); thus, the Christian concept of imago Deo, that humankind is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), is an impossible feature. While Christians believe in a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Heb 4:14-16), in the Islamic view, God cannot “maintain a personal relationship with humans…[but]…depends on his creatures to earn his respect in order to receive compassion” (Schmidt, 2020, p. 33). Such drastic contrasts between Christianity and Islam make it impossible for the two faiths to reconcile.

            The doctrine of tawhid does not allow for the Islamic faith to understand Jesus Christ as divine (Schmidt, 2020, p. 33). Therefore, although Islam understands Jesus to be a valuable and important prophet, even believing in the virgin birth, the person of Jesus in Christianity stands in stark contrast to that of Islam. In fact, in “a period of serious discussions about the nature of Jesus, the Qur’an denounced all disputation about the nature of Jesus as vain (Qur’an 19:34)” (Schmidt, 2020, p. 33). In the Islamic view, Jesus is a messiah, albeit not the Messiah, as he certainly is in Christianity. Such a view (by Muslims) radically impacts one’s outlook on God, humankind, and the means of salvation.

            Because of the Islamic worldview, i.e. namely the view that one must earn Allah’s compassion by pleasing him, devout Muslims find themselves persistently striving to walk the right path as given by Allah: the concept of jihad.[1] Understanding the Islamic worldview consists of understanding jihad correctly. In its simplest terms, jihad is a Muslim’s best efforts to walk the right path of Allah (Schdmit, 2020, p. 48). In its most extreme form, jihad has come to be associated with terrorism, although the term does not inherently imply such. Contemporary Arab interpretations of Quranic texts, nonetheless, take the form of animosity toward Jews, Christians, and all who do not follow the ways of Allah (Gilman, 2014, pp. 117-118), which assuredly contributes to the widespread increase of global terrorism. Where the Christian worldview tends to offer grace and mercy even to those who are opposed to the faith, Islamic worldview, by contemporary interpretations, seeks to destroy any who oppose the will of Allah. Thus, even the demeanors of Allah and the Christian triune God stand countered to one another.

            Moreover, Islamic worldview and the concept of jihad expects women to endure sufferings and live under the authority of men in solidarity with the community of believers (Schmidt, 2020, p. 45). While both women and Muslims are not a monolithic group (Jafar, 2005, p. 36), the belief in the inferiority of women to men is seemingly ubiquitous in contemporary devout Muslims. Christianity views women as equal to men; even Paul’s instructions for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-23) are written in the context of all believers submitting to one another (Eph 5:21). The Christian worldview then does not see women as inferior to men but rather as complementing to men while both submit to one another and ultimately to God. The Islamic worldview approaches women as inferior to men and to merely serve the purpose of procreation (Schmidt, 2020, p. 45).

            Severely dissimilar to the Christian worldview, the Islamic worldview is derived from the doctrine of tawhid; everything a devout Muslim believes and practices stems from the concept of Allah’s oneness and separation from humankind. Even the concept of Jesus is impacted in such a worldview, for Allah may not be associated with any human and is, in fact, incapable of a personal relationship with humankind. Humankind, however, according to Islamic worldview, must strive to walk in the right path of Allah to achieve compassion from him. These vital components of Islam provide a complete worldview that, although possessing some similarities to Christianity, operates in polar opposition to Christianity.

Islamic and Christian Views of Sin

            Most world religions hold some view of morality. David Marshall writes:

In contrast to the moralistic, trivializing, hedonistic, or therapeutic transformations of what was formerly understood as sin, all world religions, if they are in one way or another religions of salvation or redemption, persistently maintain a dissonance between what we are and what we are meant to be, a contradiction between the factual state of humans and their true destiny (Marshall and Mosher, 2016, p. 23).

Both Christians and Muslims have views of sin, which are manifold in many respects. Whereas sin (and the understanding thereof) is vital to Christianity, it is merely marginal in Islam (Schdmit, 2020, p. 68). Sin, in fact, takes a plurality of meanings in the Islamic view, which ambiguates the topic (Marshall and Mosher, 2016, p. 40). To Christians, humanity is inherently evil with each person falling short of God’s standards by nature (Rom 3:23). Many Christians and Christian groups subscribe to the concept of original sin with some going as far as determinism (Schdmit, 2020, p. 69). To Muslims, however, humanity is merely less than Allah but also capable of good (Schdmit, 2020, p. 71). Both religions then hold distinct views of sin: Christianity centralizing and Islam minimizing its concept.

            Since sin is a reality in both Islam and Christianity, each must consequently offer a solution for redemption. In Christianity, the remedy for sin is Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23, 10:9-10). As the Messiah and God himself, Jesus alone offers total atonement for the sin of anyone who receives him, a concept which would be considered blasphemous in the Islamic perspective. Islam asserts that atonement must be made between man and Allah directly rather than through a mediator. Additionally, it is up to each man to execute the will of Allah so that he might be atoned, i.e. man is directly accountable to Allah. Initially, the latter part of the concept is similar to many Christian perspectives. Even most determinists would not argue against the compatibility of human responsibility; yet, the Islamic perspective does not require a mediator while Christ the Messiah is a necessity in Christianity. From the Islamic perspective:

God cannot humble himself to die on the cross for the sin of mankind as did the Son, Jesus. God is majestic and glorious, unlike the image of man; man is very humble and small beneath the Most High. It would violate the divine attributes of God to have his Son die for the sin of mankind at the cross (Schmidt, 2020, p. 71).

The only possibility of atonement for Muslims, therefore, is to achieve a level of compassion from Allah by accomplishing his will and carrying out his tasks. In this manner, Islam is heavily-works-based. Devout Muslims will perpetually strive for the satisfaction of Allah.

            While Christianity emphasizes the importance of understanding sin and its consequences, Islam minimizes it. Both faiths demand a cure for sin; yet, the feat is accomplished in vastly disparate ways. For Christian believers, according to Scripture, Jesus Christ is the mediator between the Father and humankind and is yet also God himself in the flesh. No such mediating atoner is required in Islam but only pleasing Allah to the point of receiving his compassion. The Islamic worldview then approaches the will of Allah in a serious manner with the realization that if one does not execute Allah’s tasks, he is certainly doomed. Christianity, however, relies on the righteousness of Christ; therefore, the ransom has already been paid irrespective of one’s works. Thus, the Islamic worldview often leads to radical measures in accomplishing the will of Allah. For a Christian to employ such drastic measures, there must be a grave misunderstanding of God’s grace through Jesus Christ. With such contrasting views of sin, both Islam and Christianity hold opposing views of the remedy.

The Person and Nature of Jesus in Islam and Christianity

            Perhaps, the most significant difference in the Islamic and the Christian worldview is the person and nature of Jesus. While Jesus is understood as the Son of God and, in fact, incarnate God himself in Christianity, it is blasphemy to refer to Jesus as divine in Islam (Qur’an 5:17, 5:72). Jesus is referenced in Islam and considered an important figure but no more important than other prophets in the faith. Islam even acknowledges the virgin birth but denies perhaps the most important aspect of the life of Christ: his death and resurrection.

Islam supports Jesus as a messenger from God to Israel and even a messiah (albeit not the only Messiah). Traditional Muslim interpretation of the Qur’an suggests that Jesus was not crucified on the cross but that God raised him to himself (Qur’an 4:158). The Christian version of the Ascension then occurs after the death and resurrection of Christ while the Islamic version does not include Jesus’ death.[2] The greatest disagreement between Islam and Christianity, regarding the nature of Jesus, centers around his divinity. The Islamic doctrine of tawhid does not allow for God to either have the form as a human, have a personal relationship with people, or for any human to be considered divine. Christianity is christocentric; therefore, to reconcile by adopting Islamic doctrine is an impossibility for Christianity.

To understand the vital differences between Islam and Christianity, one must realize the point of separation which is no more crucial than that of the person and nature of Jesus. One may not claim Christianity and deny the death, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus. Contrarily, one may not claim Islam and admit these three points of contention. With no bipolarity, Jesus is mysteriously both human and God; this is the essence of Christianity and blasphemous to the Islamic perspective.

An Irreconcilable Discord

            Realizing the foundational issues of Islamic worldview exposes the fact that an irreconcilable discord subsists between Islam and Christianity. Such a statement does not negate the responsibility of Christians to love everyone including Muslims. Certainly, there exist commonalities between Christianity and Islam; yet, the fundamental doctrines of Islam perpetuate a worldview that is not only inconsistent with Christianity but may never be reconciled. Through the Islamic doctrine of tawhid, the concept of sin and its remedy, and the perception of Jesus Christ, a worldview is created that stands opposed to Christianity. The Christian’s response then should be greater love toward a people who misunderstand truth and who deny the gospel. The Christian worldview includes love toward everyone, which is the place of origin for resolving significant differences between the two faiths.

References

Brown, Daniel W. (2017). A New Introduction to Islam (3^rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Deedat, Amhed (n.d.). A Collection of Comparative Religion Booklets. Islamic Propagation Centre.

Esposito, John L. (1999). The Oxford History of Islam. Oxford University Press.

Gilman, Sander L. (2014). Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Collaboration and Conflict in the age of Diaspora. Hong Kong University Press.

Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel (2010). The Qur’an (Reissue ed.). Oxford University Press.

Jafar, Afshan (2005). Women, Islam, and the State in Pakistan. Gender Issues, Vol. 22 (No. 1), 35-55.

Lippman, Thomas W. (1995). Understanding Islam: An Introduction to the Muslim World (3^rd ed.). Meridian Books.

Marshall, David and Lucinda Mosher (2016). Sin, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation: Christian and Muslim Perspectives. Georgetown University Press.

Netton, Ian Richard (2011). Islam, Christianity, and the Mystic Journey: A Comparative Exploration. Edinburgh University Press.

——— (2019). Islam, Christianity, and the Realms of the Miraculous: A Comparative Exploration. Edinburgh University Press.

——— (2006). Islam, Christianity, and Tradition: A Comparative Exploration. Edinburgh University Press.

Rahman, Fazlur (1979). Islam (2^nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Schmidt, Muhammad Wolfgang G.A. (2020). [Course syllabus for MRS 718 Islam and Christianity]. MRS 718 Islam and Christianity (Mac Lynn, Ed.), Nations University.

---

[1] From the term’s earliest references, jihad should not be primarily understood as a holy war but as a striving to do the will of Allah. The concept of a holy war emerged later because of the term’s distortion.

[2] Aamhed Deedat suggests that Jesus did not actually die on the cross but only fainted and then awoke. Such a view is not common and is discounted by many Muslims (Deedat, n.d., 92-93, 99-100).