In this post I will be citing specific Catholic authorities regarding the Son’s ignorance of the day and hour (Cf. Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36). All emphasis will be mine.

POPE GREGORY

ST. GREGORY I, THE GREAT 590-604

The Knowledge of Christ (against the Agnoetae) *

474 Dz 248 “(But) concerning that which has been written: That neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour (cf. Mark Mc 13,32), indeed, your holiness has perceived rightly, that since it most certainly should be referred not to the same son according to that which is the head, but according to his body which we are . . . . He [Augustine] also says . . . that this can be understood of the same son, because omnipotent God sometimes speaks in a human way, as he said to Abraham: Now I know that thou fearest God (Gn 22,12), not because God then knew that He was feared, but because at that time He caused Abraham to know that he feared God. For, just as we say a day is happy not because the day itself is happy, but because it makes us happy, so the omnipotent Son says He does not know the day which He causes not to be known, not because He himself is ignorant of it, but because He does not permit it to be known at all. Thus also the Father alone is said to know, because the Son (being) consubstantial with Him, on account of His nature, by which He is above the angels, has knowledge of that, of which the angels are unaware.

475 Thus, ALSO, this can be the more precisely understood BECAUSE the Only-begotten HAVING BEEN INCARNATE, and made perfect man for us, IN His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, BUT NEVERTHELESS HE DID NOT KNOW THIS FROM HIS HUMAN NATURE. Therefore, that which in (nature) itself He knew, HE DID NOT KNOW FROM THAT VERY (NATURE), BECAUSE GOD-MADE-MAN knew the day and hour of the judgment THROUGH THE POWER OF HIS GODHEAD. . . . Thus, THE KNOWLEDGE WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE ON ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE OF HIS HUMANITY-BY REASON OF WHICH, LIKE THE ANGELS, HE WAS A CREATURE THIS HE DENIED THAT HE, LIKE THE ANGELS, WHO ARE CREATURES, HAD. Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but On this account, because God is man.

476 But the fact is certainly manifest that whoever is not a Nestorian, can in no wise be an Agnoeta. For with what purpose can he, who confesses that the Wisdom itself of God is incarnate say that there is anything WHICH THE WISDOM OF GOD DOES NOT KNOW? It is written: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him (Jn 1,13). If all, without doubt also the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so foolish as to presume to assert THAT THE WORD OF THE FATHER made that which HE DOES NOT KNOW? it is written also: Jesus knowing, that the Father gave him all things into his hands (Jn 13,3). If all things, surely both the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so stupid as to say that the Son has received in His hands that of which He is unaware?” (https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dwv.htm)

CATHOLIC CATECHISM

CHAPTER TWO I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

Article 3 “HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY”

Paragraph 1. THE SON OF GOD BECAME MAN

I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

456 With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:⁷⁰

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?⁷¹

458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.”⁷² “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”⁷³

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”⁷⁴ On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: “Listen to him!”⁷⁵ Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: “Love one another as I have loved you.”⁷⁶ This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.⁷⁷

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature“:⁷⁸ “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”⁷⁹ “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”⁸⁰ “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”⁸¹

II. THE INCARNATION

461 Taking up St. John’s expression, “The Word became flesh”,⁸² the Church calls “Incarnation” the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.⁸³

462 The Letter to the Hebrews refers to the same mystery:

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.”⁸⁴

463 Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.”⁸⁵ Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings “the mystery of our religion”: “He was manifested in the flesh.”⁸⁶

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh“.⁸⁷ But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.⁸⁸

466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed “that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man.”⁸⁹ Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: “Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.”⁹⁰

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.⁹¹

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.⁹²

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.”⁹³ Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.”⁹⁴

469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:

“What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed”, sings the Roman Liturgy.⁹⁵ And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: “O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!”⁹⁶

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,⁹⁷ in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:⁹⁸

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.⁹⁹

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.¹⁰⁰

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge COULD NOT IN ITSELF BE UNLIMITED: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,¹⁰¹ and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.¹⁰² This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.¹⁰³

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.¹⁰⁴ “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”¹⁰⁵ Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.¹⁰⁶ The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.¹⁰⁷

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.¹⁰⁸ WHAT HE ADMITTED TO NOT KNOWING IN THIS AREA, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.¹⁰⁹

Christ’s human will

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.¹¹⁰ Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.”¹¹¹

Christ’s true body

476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ’s body was finite.¹¹² Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.¹¹³

477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus “we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see.”¹¹⁴ The individual characteristics of Christ’s body express the divine person of God’s Son. He has made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when portrayed in a holy image, for the believer “who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted“.¹¹⁵

The heart of the Incarnate Word

478 Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: “The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me.”¹¹⁶ He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation,¹¹⁷ “is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings” without exception.¹¹⁸

IN BRIEF

479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

---

70 1 Jn 4:10; 4:14; 3:5.

71 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. catech 15: PG 45, 48B.

72 1 Jn 4:9.

73 Jn 3:16.

74 Mt 11:29; Jn 14:6.

75 Mk 9:7; cf. Dt 6:4-5.

76 Jn 15:12.

77 Cf. Mk 8:34.

78 2 Pt 1:4.

79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

82 Jn 1:14.

83 Phil 2:5-8; cf. LH, Saturday, Canticle at Evening Prayer.

84 Heb 10:5-7, citing Ps 40:6-8 ([7-9] LXX).

85 1 Jn 4:2.

86 1 Tim 3:16.

87 Cf. 1 Jn 4:2-3; 2 Jn 7.

88 Council of Nicaea I (325): DS 130, 126.

89 Council of Ephesus (431): DS 250.

90 Council of Ephesus: DS 251.

91 Council of Chalcedon (451): DS 301; cf. Heb 4:15.

92 Council of Chalcedon: DS 302.

93 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 424.

94 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 432; cf. DS 424; Council of Ephesus, DS 255.

95 LH, 1 January, Antiphon for Morning Prayer; cf. St. Leo the Great, Sermo in nat. Dom. 1, 2; PL 54, 191-192.

96 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Troparion “O monogenes.”

97 GS 22 § 2.

98 Cf. Jn 14:9-10.

99 GS 22 § 2.

100 Cf. Damasus 1: DS 149.

101 Lk 2:52.

102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.

103 Phil 2:7.

104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, “Sicut aqua” ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; DS 475.

105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.

106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.

107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.

108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.

109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.

110 Cf. Council of Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559.

111 Council of Constantinople III: DS 556.

112 Cf. Council of the Lateran (649): DS 504.

113 Cf. Gal 3:1; cf. Council of Nicaea II (787): DS 600-603.

114 Roman Missal, Preface of Christmas I.

115 Council of Nicaea II: DS 601.

116 Gal 2:20.

117 Cf. Jn 19:34.

118 Pius XII, encyclical, Haurietis aquas (1956): DS 3924; cf. DS 3812.

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

Thesis Nine

Thus it will appear, and fittingly enough, that since truth is one, and given to the Church from the beginning, even those not quite Catholic things that Catholics have brought forth, will generally strike so uncertain and ambiguous a note that, in any serious matter, they prove amenable to pious interpretation.

 One example should suffice for this thesis. It is well known among serious students of theology that some of the fourth century Fathers spoke of the knowledge of Christ’s soul in such a way to suggest that they did not believe it to have been perfect from the very moment of his conception in Mary’s womb, but to have begun growing as he “advanced in age,” as the Evangelist says. It is Catholic dogma that the man (or human nature) assumed by the Word did not have, abstractly speaking or in first act, as they say, perfect knowledge, but that really, or in second act, he did have it, because the man WAS DEIFIED in the Word. Thus Christ, as a man, would never have been ignorant OF ANYTHING THAT A MAN COULD KNOW. As Gregory the Great expresses it “he knew IN the nature but not FROM the nature of his humanity.” (Ep. x. 39) What did Athanasius write concerning the coming of judgment? “That hour, in which all will end, he knew AS THE WORD, BUT AS A MAN HE WAS IGNORANT OF IT For ignorance is a property of man.” (orat. iii. contr. Arian. 43) Mindful of this and similar texts of Athanasius and others, Petavius writes: “Some Catholics, including some of great fame and distinction in the Church, attributed ignorance TO THE MAN CHRIST, especially ignorance about the final days and last judgment.” Examples are “Athanasius, Eustathius of Antioch, Gregory Naziazen, Cyril, Hilary, and Ambrose.” A little further on, he adds the warning that this opinion, “although once acceptable to some very outstanding men, was later characterized as heresy and heretics condemned under that heading were called Agnoetae.” (de Incarn. XI, I, #5. 15)

But if we take a closer look at the texts of these Fathers we shall not find it difficult to interpret them in a Catholic sense. We need only to attach a note to those texts to the effect that, being found in writings of those who came before the developed dogma of Christ’s knowledge, they sketched the truth of the Gospel in broader lines. There are many reasons for believing that those Fathers, when they said that Christ, AS MAN, was ignorant pf the judgment day, meant that he was ignorant FROM, not IN his human nature. That is, his ignorance was not real but only economic, AS SUITED TO HUMANITY ITSELF, or as suited the office or role he was undertaking, as when he asked, “Where shall we buy bread for them to eat?” even though “He himself knew what he was going to do.” For Athanasius writes that Christ’s ignorance “DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE WORD, BUT TO HUMAN NATURE, OF WHICH IGNORANCE IS A PROPERTY” (ibid.) “Since he was made man, he is not ashamed, ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANT FLESH, to say I DO NOT KNOW, thereby showing to be knowing AS GOD, but not knowing ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.” (ibid.) Again, “Let us acknowledge, that the Word, not ignorant IN SO FAR AS IT WAS THE WORD, said I do not know, yet did indeed know.

But it was to display what is human, for ignorance IS PROPERLY HUMAN and, having put on human flesh, since he was in it, he said, CONSISTENTLY WITH IT, I do not know.” (ibid., 45) “In order to teach that AS MAN he did not know, he said, Nor the Son.” (ibid., 46).” “He inquired, as a man, about Lazarus, even though he would go on to raise him from the dead.”  (ibid.) There is surely implied that even the man Christ knew about Lazarus. It does not matter that#47 compares Christ’s ignorance to ignorance the Apostle admitted with regard to something he really did not know about at the time. For he goes on to write, “He did that, it seems to me, for our advantage.” #48-50. (It happens that the very word “economically” is ambiguous in Basil where he discusses Christ’s ignorance of the day of judgment. It refers to both the Lord’s incarnation, Ep. 236. I, and to that condescension whereby he accommodated himself to human understanding. (Ep. 8. 6) The same is true of Cyril, Trin., p. 623. Thesaur. p. 224 –  (it is the same with the word “dispensation” in Hilary. (Trin. X. 8. ed. Maur.) In Ep. 8 Basil suggests that Christ “exercised an economy by pretended ignorance.” Likewise Cyril, though he had previously said “Just as he received this, that being made a man he would share in men’s hungering and thirsting, by the same token no one should object if, AS A MAN IN UNION WITH MEN HE SHOULD SAY THAT HE DID NOT KNOW.” (Thesaur, p. 221) Shortly afterwards, moreover, he added that “The Son knew all things, even though saying economically that he did not know certain things.” p. 224.  And in Trin. iv. p. 629, he seems to point towards that distinction later made by Gregory the Great, according to which the man Christ was ignorant FROM THE ASSUMED NATURE, but not IN that nature. Like Athanasius, he says, “He professes ignorance for our sake.” (Thesaur., p. 221, 223) And Hilary who, if the text of Trin. ix, at the end, is genuine, established so plainly the ignorance of the man Christ, had only a short time before argued that the judgment day should be known to him as a man who, as a man, was himself the judge. “And since he is himself the Sacrament let us see if, in those things he does not know, he truly is ignorant.” He also gives reasons for Christ’s having professed not to know. 67. Namely (to use the words of Augustine), “Christ called himself unknowing concerning that in which, by concealment, he made others knowing” (Ep. 180, 3) Or, as Augustine puts it in another place, “He is ignorant concerning that of which he makes ignorant” (de Trin. 1, 23).

But that will suffice on this subject. (Newman, Roman Catholic Writings on Doctrinal Development [Sheed & Ward; Revised edition, 1997], pp. 48-50)

It seems obvious that is what is meant by the statements that Christ knew in his human nature, but did not know from it, is that the Son was still perfectly omniscient even his Incarnate state, while existing as a man, since he did not cease being God. And yet the Son’s ignorance stems from the limitations of the human nature that he possessed in all its fullness, since he was truly human in every aspect with the exception of sin.  

FURTHER READING

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE SON’S IGNORANCE OF THE HOUR

I resume the discussion: Q. 2:75-79 AND BIBLE CORRUPTION.

In this post I am going to take the same objection leveled against the Holy Scriptures and apply it to the Quran as to show that it is the Muslim scripture that has been corrupted and altered.

Recall from the previous article that one of the proofs given for biblical corruption is that the Jews allegedly had removed the verse of stoning adulterers from the Torah which, as I demonstrated, is not the case at all since these passages are still preserved in the extant manuscript tradition.

However, what many do not realize is that the supposed authentic Islamic traditions plainly state that the Muslim scripture actually contained an injunction to stone adulterers, a command that is no longer present in the extant manuscript tradition of the Quran!

Note what the following allegedly sound narrations say about stoning being a part of the book of Allah:

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) IN THE HOLY BOOK,’ and consequently they may GO ASTRAY by leaving AN OBLIGATION that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6829)

… In the meantime, ‘Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, ‘Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, “Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah’s BOOK: ‘O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father’ …” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6830)

Narrated Ash-Sha’bi:

from ‘Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. ‘Ali said, “I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah’s Apostle.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 803)

Narrated Ash-Shaibani:

I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abi ‘Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam.” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 824 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6840)

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:

A bedouin came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah’s BOOK (Laws).” His opponent stood up and said, “He has said the truth, so judge between us according to Allah’s Laws.” The bedouin said, “My son was a laborer for this man and committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people said to me, ‘Your son is to be stoned to death,’ so I ransomed my son for one hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the religious learned men and they said to me, ‘Your son has to receive one hundred lashes plus one year of exile.'” The Prophet said, “I shall judge between you according to Allah’s BOOK (Laws)! As for the slave girl and the sheep, it shall be returned to you, and your son shall receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O you, Unais!” The Prophet addressed some man, “Go in the morning to the wife of this man AND STONE HER TO DEATH.” So Unais went to her the next morning and stoned her to death. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 303 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7193)

Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: “Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ‘What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘Seventy, or seventy-three verses’. He said, ‘Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ‘And what is the verse of stoning?’ He replied, ‘The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.’” (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 524, as quoted in Gilchrist, Jam’ al-Qur’an; italic emphasis mine)

With the foregoing in perspective the Muslims must now conclude that the Quran has been corrupted since a verse regarding the stoning of adulterers has been expunged from it.

After all, if the assertion that the Jews expunging the command to stone adulterers is evidence that the Torah is corrupted (despite the fact that the commandment has not been removed), then this same logic must be consistently applied to the Islamic scripture. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

However, Muslim dawagandists will definitely come up with any possible excuse to avoid employing their own reasoning consistently. These Muhammadans will do everything they can to dismiss the inevitable conclusion that the Quran has been tampered with, i.e., these narrations are lies or that the command has been abrogated, etc. Yet these explanations will not solve the dilemma for these Muslims.

For instance, the reports which assert that stoning was part of the Quran and even carried out by Muhammad come from sources deemed authentic by the majority of Sunni authorities.

Furthermore, what does this say about the integrity of Muslims? Were Muslims so dishonest as to lie against their god and their holy book by coming up with commands which they then claimed were “revealed” by their lord? If they were this dishonest then what is to say that they didn’t add other commands to the Quran and/or omitted certain others?

Moreover, Sunni scholars agree that the Quran contains both the abrogated and the abrogating verses. As such, claiming that this command was abrogated doesn’t account for it not being found within the text of the Quran. Besides, wouldn’t Umar have known that it was abrogated? Why, then, did he still complain that the verse was not included within “Allah’s Book”?

Finally, to this day the Sharia (Islamic law) states that the punishment for adultery is stoning. It is sunnah, just as the following Muslim websites admit:

Stoning to death for adultery is part of the Shariah’s penal code, whether we like it or not! Muslims should not be apologetic about any law of the Shariah as it is not the product of the human mind, but it is divinely revealed.

RAJM (STONING) FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN SHARIAH

The issue of rajm or stoning for adultery IS ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN from the authentic traditions and practices of the Final Messenger. The scholars of Islam ARE UNANIMOUS that stoning a married person (male or female) for adultery is the prescribed Hadd (penal punishment) of the Shariah. This is established by the Sunnah (prophetic traditions) and these traditions are in the rank of tawaatur (it’s narrations CANNOT BE DENIED due to it’s appearance in all three generations by numerous narrators). It is also PROVEN BY THE CONSENSUS OF THE SCHOLARS which is the third source of Islamic Law. Ibn Masud reports: “The blood of a Muslim person is not permissible except in one of three situations; the adulterer who is married, one who has killed unjustly, and the apostate.”(Bukhari and Muslim) This hadeeth is also reported with different wording by Uthmaan, Ayesha, Abu Hurairah, Jaabir and Ammaar bin Yaasir. Then there is the incident reported by Abu Hurairah and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani regarding a workman who committed adultery with another woman. The Messenger of Allah instructed a man from the tribe of Aslam: “Go in the morning to this (particular) lady; so if she confesses, then stone her.” (Bukhari, Muslim, Muatta, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, An-Nasaai) (Rajm(Stoning) for Adultery in the Shariah and the (Hypo)Critics https://web.archive.org/web/20030224043756/https://jamiat.org.za/isinfo/stoning.htm; capital emphasis mine)

And:

It is essential to stone the married adulterer until he dies, following the Sunnah of the Messenger, as it is proven that he said that, did it and enjoined it. The Messenger of Allaah stoned Maa’iz, the Juhani woman, the Ghaamidi woman, and the two Jews. All of that is proven in saheeh ahaadeeth narrated from the Prophet. The scholars among the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een and those who came after them are also unanimously agreed on that. No one differed from them apart from those to whose views no attention is to be paid. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim narrated in their Saheehs from Ibn ‘Abbaas that ‘Umar) said: “Allaah sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book, and one of the things that Allaah revealed was the verse of stoning. We have read it and understood it. The Messenger of Allaah  stoned (adulterers) and we stoned (them) after him, but I fear that there may come a time when some people say: ‘By Allaah, we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of Allaah.’ So they will go astray by forsaking an obligation that Allaah has revealed. According to the Book of Allaah, stoning is deserved by the one who commits zina, if he is married, men and women alike, if proof is established or the woman becomes pregnant or they confess…” 

Based on this, it is not permissible to replace stoning with killing by the sword or shooting, because stoning is a more severe punishment and a more effective deterrent to the sin of zina, which is the most grave sin after shirk and killing a soul whom Allaah has forbidden us to kill. The hadd punishment of stoning for a married person who commits zina is one of the matters that is determined by the Qur’aan and Sunnah and there is no room for ijtihaad or personal opinion. If killing by the sword or shooting were permissible in the case of the married adulterer then the Prophet would have done that and would have explained it to his ummah, and his companions after him would have done that too. (Islam Question & Answer, “It is not permissible to replace stoning of an adulterer with killing by the sword or by shooting,” https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14312/it-is-not-permissible-to-replace-stoning-of-an-adulterer-with-killing-by-the-sword-or-by-shooting; bold emphasis mine) 

The foregoing leads to the inevitable conclusion that it is actually the Quran, not the Holy Bible, that fails the Muslims’ own criteria for authenticity and preservation.

FURTHER READING

Does Q. 2:77-79 speak of Bible Corruption?

The Quran confirms – The Two Testaments of the Holy Bible Are the Torah and Injil! [Part 1], [Part 2]

The Quranic Witness to Biblical Authority: [Part 1], [Part 2], [Part 3]

The Quran Confirms the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted: [Part 1], [Part 2]

Islam and Stoning: A Case Study Into the Textual Corruption Of the Quran

Stoning for Adultery in Islam

One of the texts that is most often cited by Muhammadan polemicists to support their claim that the Quran testifies to the textual corruption of the Holy Bible is Q. 2:75-79.

In this post I will show that these verses do not at all imply that the Biblical scriptures have been corrupted and no longer remain intact. On the contrary, I will demonstrate these ayat are referring to a specific group of Jews at a specific location and time, and do not impugn all Jews (let alone Christians) as having corrupted all the books of Scripture.

Q. 2:75

Here’s the verse in question:

Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to LISTEN to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly. Pickthall

It is obvious that this passage has nothing to do with textual corruption since it speaks of those changing what they were hearing, not reading.

With that said, note what some of Islam’s greatest expositors stated in respect to this text. All emphasis will be mine.

AL-JALALAYN

Are you then so eager O believers that they the Jews should believe you seeing there is a party of them a group of their rabbis that heard God’s word in the Torah and then tampered with it changing it and that after they had comprehended it after they had understood it knowingly? knowing full well that they were indulging in mendacity the hamza at the beginning of the verb a-fa-tatma‘ūn is an interrogative for rejection in other words ‘Do not be so eager for they have disbelieved before’. (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=75&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

IBN ABBAS

(Have ye any hope that they will be true to you) do you hope, O Muhammad, that the Jews will believe in you (when a party of them) the 70 men who were with Moses (used to listen to the Word of Allah) used to listen to Moses reciting the Word of Allah, (then used to change it) alter it, (after they had understood it) after knowing it and fully understanding it (knowingly?) while knowing that they were altering it? (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=75&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

AL-WAHIDI

(Have ye hope that they be true to you …) [2:75]. Ibn ‘Abbas and Muqatil said: “This was revealed about the seventy men who were chosen by Moses to go with him to Allah, exalted is He. When they went with him to the tryst and heard Allah’s speech, commanding and prohibiting Moses, they returned to their people. As for the true amongst them, they delivered exactly what they had heard. But a group of them said: ‘we heard Allah at the end of His speech say: if you can do these things, then do them; but if you wish, don’t do them and there is no harm upon you’ ”. But most Qur’anic exegetes are of the opinion that it was revealed about those who had changed the verse of stoning [adulterers who are married] and the description of Muhammad. (Asbab al-Nuzul https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=75&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

AL-QURTUBI

75 Do you really hope they will follow you in faith when a group of them heard Allah’s Word then, after grasping it, knowingly distorted it?

Do you really hope they will follow you in faith

This question implies a negative response as there was no hope for the faith of a group of Jews because they had already rejected. It is addressed to the Companions of the Prophet. That is because some of the Anṣār wanted the Jews to become Muslim because of their alliance with them and proximity to them. It is said that it is addressed to the Prophet g alone. Ibn ‘Abbās says that it means: ‘Do not be sad about their denial of you.’ He reported that they were evil people already.

When a group of them heard Allah’s Word

Farīq (group) is a plural noun with no singular form. What is meant by this are the seventy men, whom Mūsā chose to hear the Speech of Allah, but who then did not obey and altered His words when they told their people. This is what ar-Rabī‘ and Ibn Isḥāq said. This interpretation is somewhat weak. As-Suddī and others said that they were not able to listen and they were confused and wanted Mūsā to repeat it for them. When they left a group of them then altered what they had heard of the words of Allah ON THE TONGUE of their Prophet.

People disagree about how Mūsā recognised the Speech of Allah when he had not heard it before. Some say that he heard words without letters or voices, with no pause or breath, and knew that it could not be a human voice but must be the voice of the Lord of the worlds. Others said that he heard words which did not come from any direction and so he knew they were not of human origin. It is said that his entire body heard it and so he knew that it was the Speech of Allah. It is said that the miracle indicated that it was the Speech of Allah when he was told to cast down his staff and it became a serpent. That was proof of the truth of the matter and confirmation of His words: ‘I am your Lord.’ (20:12) It is said that he concealed something inside himself which only He who knows the Unseen worlds would know and Allah informed him of that and so he knew that he was addressed by Allah.

and then, after grasping it, knowingly distorted it?

Mujāhid and as-Suddī said that they were the Jewish scholars who altered the Torah and made what was unlawful lawful and what was lawful unlawful, following their own whims and desires. This is to rebuke them because of what their fathers did. It indicates that any scholar who is opinionated regarding the truth is far from right guidance because he knows the promise and threat, and yet still follows his own opinion. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley [Diwan Press, 2019], Volume 1: Juz’ 1: Al-Fātiḥah & Sūrat al-Baqarah 1-141, pp. 319-320)

IBN KATHIR

There was little Hope that the Jews Who lived during the Time of the Prophet could have believed

Allah said…

(Do you covet) O believers,

(That they will believe in your religion) meaning, that these people would obey you. They are the deviant sect of Jews whose fathers witnessed the clear signs but their hearts became hard afterwards. Allah said next…

(In spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawrah), then they used to change it) meaning, distort its meaning…

(after they understood it). They understood well, yet they used to defy the truth,

(knowingly), being fully aware of their erroneous interpretations and corruption. This statement is similar to Allah’s statement…

(So, because of their violation of their covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places) (5:13).

Qatadah commented that Allah’s statement…

(Then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it) “They are the Jews who used to hear Allah’s Words and then alter them after they understood and comprehended them.” Also, Mujahid said, “Those who used to alter it and conceal its truths; they were their scholars.” Also, Ibn Wahb said that Ibn Zayd commented…

(used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawrah), then they used to change it) “They altered the Tawrah that Allah revealed to them, making it say that the lawful is unlawful and the prohibited is allowed, and that what is right is false and that what is false is right. So when a person seeking the truth comes to them with a bribe, they judge his case by the Book of Allah, but when a person comes to them seeking to do evil with a bribe, they take out the other (distorted) book, in which it is stated that he is in the right. When someone comes to them who is not seeking what is right, nor offering them bribe, then they enjoin righteousness on him. This is why Allah said to them…

(Enjoin you Al-Birr (piety and righteousness and every act of obedience to Allah) on the people and you forget (to practice it) yourselves, while you recite the Scripture (the Tawrah)! Have you then no sense) (2:44)” (http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Baqara/There-was-little-Hope-that-the—)

SUMMARY

According to the expositors, the verse may in fact be referring to the time of Moses where the seventy elders used to hear Moses’ words and misinterpret them. Others believe this refers to specific Jewish rabbis/scholars who deliberately twisted the meaning of the Torah in order to cause folks to forego what is lawful and/or do that which is unlawful.

Some further think that the Quran is describing certain Jews of that time who had concocted a book, which they brought out for any person who would bribe them to justify his desire to do evil. And yet they would bring out the actual book of Allah for those bribing them for the truth. Ironically, this means that these Jews still had uncorrupt copies of the Torah in their possessions!

Q. 2:76-79

Here is the passage:

And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe. But when they go apart one with another they say: Prate ye to them of that which Allah hath disclosed to you that they may contend with you before your Lord concerning it? Have ye then no sense. Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim. Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. Pickthall

AL-JALALAYN

And when they the hypocrites from among the Jews meet those who believe they say ‘We believe’ that Muhammad is a prophet and that he is the one of whom we have been given good tidings in our Book; but when they go in private one to another they their leaders the ones not involved in the hypocrisy say to those hypocrites ‘Do you speak to them the believers of what God has disclosed to you that is what He has made known to you of Muhammad’s description in the Torah so that they may thereby dispute the lām of li-yuhājjūkum ‘that they may dispute with you’ is the lām of ‘becoming’ with you before your Lord? in the Hereafter and hold the proof against you for not following him Muhammad despite your knowledge of his sincerity? Have you no understanding?’ of the fact that they will contend with you if you speak to them in this way? So beware. (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=76&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

And there are some of them the Jews that are illiterate unlettered not knowing the Scripture the Torah but only desires lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon; and in their rejection of the prophethood of the Prophet and fabrications of other matters they have mere conjectures and no firm knowledge. (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=78&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

So woe a severe chastisement to those who write the Scripture with their hands that is fabricating it themselves then say ‘This is from God’ that they may sell it for a small price of this world these are the Jews the ones that altered the description of the Prophet in the Torah as well as the ‘stoning’ verse and other details and rewrote them in a way different from that in which they were revealed. So woe to them for what their hands have written of fabrications and woe to them for their earnings by way of bribery rishan plural of rishwa. (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=79&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

IBN ABBAS

Then Allah mentioned the hypocrites of the people of the Book, and it is also said that the reference here is to the lowly from among the people of the Book, saying: (And when they fall with those who believe) Abu Bakr and his companions, (they say: We believe) in your Prophet, and his description and traits are mentioned in our Book. (But when they go apart one with another) when these lowly people return to their leaders (they say) the leaders say to the lowly: (Prate ye to them) i.e. Muhammad and his Companions (of that which Allah hath disclosed to you) about that which Allah has shown you regarding the description and traits of Muhammad in your Book (so that they may contend with you) argue against you (before your Lord concerning it? Have ye then no sense?) do you not have any common sense? (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=76&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

(Therefore woe) severe punishment, and it is said this means: a valley in hell (be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands) change the description and traits of Muhammad in the Book (and then say, “This is) in the Book that has come (from Allah”, that they may purchase) through changing and altering it (a small gain therewith) a small gain in terms of means of subsistence and surplus of property. (Woe unto them) theirs is a severe punishment (for what their hands have written) have altered (and woe unto them) and theirs is a severe punishment (for what they earn thereby) of unlawful earnings and bribes. (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=79&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

AL-WAHIDI

(Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah”…) [2:79]. This was revealed about those who had changed the description of the Prophet and altered his traits. Al-Kalbi mentioned, through the above-mentioned chain of transmission: “They had changed the description of Allah’s Messenger in their Scripture. They made him white and tall while the Prophet was brown and of medium height. They had said to their followers and companions: ‘Look at the description of the prophet who will be sent at the end of time; his description does not match that of this [man]’. The Jewish rabbis and doctors used to gain some worldly benefits from the Jewish people and so they were afraid of losing this gain if they were ever to show the real description. It is for this reason that they had changed it”. (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=79&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

AL-QURTUBI

76 When they meet those who believe, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they go apart with one another, they say, ‘Why do you speak to them about what Allah has decided about you, so they can use it as an argument against you before your Lord? Will you not use your intellect?’ 77 Do they not know that Allah knows what they keep secret and what they make public? When they meet those who believe, they say, ‘We believe.’

This is about the hypocrites.

But when they go apart with one another,

This refers to the Jews because some of them outwardly become Muslim but were actually hypocrites. They would talk to the believers about how their ancestors were being tormented. So the Jews said to them:

Why do you speak to them about what Allah has decided about you,

‘When you speak regarding the punishment which Allah has ordained for you, so that they can say, “We are more honoured with Allah than you are.”’ This is the meaning according to Ibn ‘Abbās and as-Suddī. It is said that when ‘Alī came near Qurayẓah on the day of Khaybar, he heard them insulting the Messenger of Allah. He went to him and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, do not go to them,’ and he tried to stop him. He said, ‘I think that you heard them insulting me. If they had seen me, they would have refrained.’ He went up to them. When they saw him, they refrained. He told them, ‘You have broken the treaty, brothers of apes and pigs. May Allah disgrace you and send His vengeance on you!’ They replied, ‘You are not ignorant, Muḥammad. Do not be rash towards us! Who has told you this! This report can only have come from us!’ The root of the word used for ‘fataḥa’ (decided) means to give a judgment or decision but the word can also indicate help and assistance as well as judgment.

So they can use it as an argument against you before your Lord?

That is generally taken as referring to the Next World but it is also said that it means ‘when your Lord is mentioned’. Al-Ḥasan said that ḥujjah means straight words in general. Part of that is maḥajjah, the road.

Will you not use your intellect?’

This is generally taken to be the words of the rabbis to their followers but it is also possible that it is addressed by Allah to the believers, meaning. ‘Do you not know that the tribe of Israel do not believe and therefore this is the way they behave?’ Then Allah follows that with another rebuke.

78 Some of them are illiterate, knowing nothing of the Book but wishful thinking. They only speculate. Some of them are illiterate,

‘Them’ may refer to the Jews alone or to both the Jews and the hypocrites. The word ‘ummiyyūn’ (illiterate) means that they can neither read nor write. It is derived from ummiyyah, meaning ‘to be still in the state in which your mother bore you, without having learned to read or write’. An aspect of that is the words of the Prophet: ‘We are an unlettered nation. We do not write or reckon.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said that they are illiterate because they do not affirm of the Mother of the Book. Abū ‘Ubaydah said, ‘They are called “illiterate” since the Book was sent down on them, as if they were ascribed to the Mother of the Book, so it is as he were saying that among them are People of the Book who do not know the Book.’ ‘Ikrimah and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that it refers to the Christian Arabs. It is said that they are some of the People of the Book whose Book was removed because of the wrong actions they committed, and so they became illiterate. ‘Alī said that they are the Magians. The first explanation is more likely, and Allah knows best.

knowing nothing of the Book but wishful thinking.

Abū Ja‘far, Shaybah and al-A‘raj recited ‘amāni’ rather than ‘amāniyy’. ‘Amāniyy’ (wishful thinking) is the plural of umniyah (recitation) from amnuyah as we see in ‘without Shayṭān insinuating something into his recitation while he was reciting (tamannā).’ (22:52) Amāniyy also means ‘lies’. That is how Ibn ‘Abbās and Mujāhid explain it here. It is also what a person wishes for and desires, and so Qatādah said that the meaning is that they desire what they in reality do not have. It is also said that it means ‘to value’.

They only speculate.

This means that they lie and come up with new things because they have no knowledge about whether what they recite is true or not. They merely imitate what their rabbis recite. Abū Bakr al-Anbārī said, ‘The grammarian, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā, told me that the Arabs use ẓann (speculation) for knowledge, doubt and lies. When the evidence for knowledge is established and is greater than the evidence for doubt, then ẓann becomes knowledge. When the proofs for knowledge and those for doubt are equal, then ẓann is doubt. When the proofs for doubt are more than the proofs for knowledge, then ẓann is lies.’ Here Allah means that they are lying.

Our scholars say that Allah describes the rabbis as changing and altering their Book and Allah says in the next āyah: ‘Woe to them for what their hands have written!’ (2:79) That is because they studied the matter, but their scholars were bad shepherds, greedy for worldly things, and so they looked for things to draw people’s attention towards themselves. Therefore they made up new things in their Law and altered it. They added these inventions to the Torah and told their foolish followers, ‘This is from Allah’ so that it would be accepted from them and would establish their power. By so doing they obtained nothing but the rubble and filth of this world.

They said various things. One is, ‘We are under no obligation where the Gentiles (lit. illiterate) are concerned’ (3:75), referring to the Arabs, meaning that whatever property of theirs they usurped was lawful for them. Another thing they said was that no sins they committed would harm them because they were beloved by Allah and His sons. (cf. 5:18) Allah is exalted above that! The Torah has: ‘My rabbis and sons of My Messengers!’ They changed it to ‘My loved ones and My sons.’ Allah said that they were lying in 5:18. They also said, ‘Allah will not punish us. If He does punish us, it will only be for forty days,’ (cf. 2:80), that being the number of days they were worshipping the Calf. Allah made it clear that eternity in the Fire and the Garden is the result of unbelief and faith. It is not what they say.

79 Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’ to sell it for a paltry price. Woe to them for what their hands have written! Woe to them for what they earn!

Woe

There is disagreement about what ‘wayl’ (woe) means. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān related from the Prophet that it is a mountain of fire. Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said that Wayl is a valley in Hell situated between two mountains whose depth is a fall of forty years. Sufyān and ‘Aṭā‘ ibn Yasār said that Wayl is a valley in Hellfire through which flows the pus of the people of the Fire. It is said to be a cistern in the Fire. Az-Zahrāwī said that others said that it is a gate of Hell. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is harsh punishment. Al-Khalīl says that it is intense evil. Al-Aṣma‘ī said that it is being in distress and seeking mercy. Sībuwayh said that ‘wayl’ is used for someone who has fallen into destruction and ‘wayḥ’ seeks to restrain someone on the verge of destruction. Ibn ‘Arafah said that ‘wayl’ is sorrow. It is also said to be extreme sorrow and the expression is used in times of great sorrow and distress. Its root is said to be that destruction which invites woe. Al-Farrā’ said that its root is ‘way’, meaning sorrow.

to those who write the Book

The first to write with the pen was the Prophet Idrīs, as we read in the hadith of Abū Dharr, transmitted by al-Ājurrī. It is said that Ādam was given writing and his descendants inherited it.

with their own hands.

This is for emphasis because it is well known that writing is done with the hands. This kind of linguistic usage is often used for stress in the Qur’an. The fact that they wrote it also indicates that it was not revealed to them, but they are the ones who fabricated it. It came from them, even if they did not physically write it.

This āyah and the one before it warn against making any alterations or changes or additions to the Sharī‘ah. Anyone who alters, changes or innovates something in the dīn of Allah, which is not in it and not permitted in it, is subject to this terrible threat and painful punishment. The Messenger of Allah cautioned his community about what he knew would occur at the end of time. He said, ‘Those of the People of the Book before you divided into seventy-two sects and this community will divide into seventy-three, all of whom will be in the Fire except for one.’ He cautioned them against originating something from themselves in the dīn which is contrary to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah or the sunnah of the Companions by which they misguide people. What he cautioned about has, in fact, occurred and become widespread. We belong to Allah and to Him we return.

to sell it for a paltry price.

It is paltry because it will inevitably disappear and have no permanence, or because it is unlawful as there is no blessing in anything unlawful and it does not grow in the sight of Allah. (Pp. 320-325)

IBN KATHIR

The Jews knew the Truth of the Prophet, but disbelieved in Him

Allah said next…

(And when they (Jews) meet those who believe (Muslims), they say, “We believe”, but when they meet one another in private…). Muhammad bin Ishaq reported that Ibn `Abbas commented…

(And when they (Jews) meet those who believe (Muslims), they say, “We believe”) “They believe that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, `But he was only sent for you (Arabs).’” However, when they meet each other they say, “Do not convey the news about this Prophet to the Arabs, because you used to ask Allah to grant you victory over them when he came, but he was sent to them (not to you).” Allah then revealed…

(And when they (Jews) meet those who believe (Muslims), they say, “We believe,” but when they meet one another in private, they say, “Shall you (Jews) tell them (Muslims) what Allah has revealed to you, that they (Muslims) may argue with you (Jews) about it before your Lord”) meaning, “If you admit to them that he is a Prophet, knowing that Allah took the covenant from you to follow him, they will know that Muhammad is the Prophet that we were waiting for and whose coming we find foretold of in our Book. Therefore, do not believe in him and deny him.” Allah said…

(Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal).

Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, “When the Jews met the believers they used to say, `We believe.’ When they met each other, some of them would say, `Do not talk to the companions of Muhammad about what Allah has foretold in your Book, so that the news (that Muhammad is the Final Messenger) does not become a proof for them against you with your Lord, and, thus, you will win the dispute.’” Further, Abu Al-`Aliyah said about Allah’s statement…

(Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal), “Meaning their secret denial and rejection of Muhammad, although they find his coming recorded in their Book.” This is also the Tafsir of Qatadah. Al-Hasan commented on…

(That Allah knows what they conceal), “What they concealed refers to when they were alone with each other away from the Companions of Muhammad. Then they would forbid each other from conveying the news that Allah revealed to them in their Book to the Companions of Muhammad, fearing that the Companions would use this news (about the truth of Muhammad) against them before their Lord.”…

(And what they reveal) meaning, when they said to the Companions of Muhammad…

(We believe), as Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` and Qatadah stated. (http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Baqara/The-Jews-knew-the-Truth-of-the—)

The Meaning of `Ummi

Allah said…

(And there are among them Ummyyun people) meaning, among the People of the Book, as Mujahid stated. Ummyyun, is plural for Ummi, that is, a person who does not write, as Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi`, Qatadah, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and others said. This meaning is clarified by Allah’s statement…

(Who know not the Book) meaning, are they not aware of what is in it.

Ummi was one of the descriptions of the Prophet because he was unlettered. For instance, Allah said…

(Neither did you (O Muhammad) read any book before it (this Qur’an) nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted) (29:48).

Also, the Prophet said…

(We are an Ummi nation, neither writing nor calculating. The (lunar) month is like this, this and this (i.e. thirty or twenty-nine days.)

This Hadith stated that Muslims do not need to rely on books, or calculations to decide the timings of their acts of worship. Allah also said…

(He it is Who sent among the Ummiyyin ones a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves) (62:2). (http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Baqara/The-Meaning-of-%60Ummi)

The Explanation of Amani

Ad-Dahhak said that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement…

(But they trust upon Amani) means, “It is just a false statement that they utter with their tongues.” It was also said that Amani means `wishes and hopes’. Mujahid commented, “Allah described the Ummiyyin as not understanding any of the Book that Allah sent down to Musa, yet they create lies and falsehood.” Therefore, the word Amani mentioned here refers to lying and falsehood. Mujahid said that Allah’s statement…

(And they but guess) means, “They lie.” Qatadah, Abu Al-`Aliyah and Ar-Rabi` said that it means, “They have evil false ideas about Allah… (http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Baqara/The-Explanation-of-Amani)

Woe unto Those Criminals among THE JEWS

Allah said…

(Then Waylun (woe) to those who write the book with their own hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” to purchase with it a little price!).

This is another category of people among the Jews who called to misguidance with falsehood and lies about Allah, thriving on unjustly amassing people’s property. `Waylun (woe)’ carries meanings of destruction and perishing, and it is a well-known word in the Arabic language. Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, “O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur’an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,’ so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn’t the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.” This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, “The little amount here means this life and all that it contains.”

Allah’s statement…

(Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby) means, “Woe to them because of what they have written with their own hands, the lies, falsehood and alterations. Woe to them because of the property that they unjustly acquired.” Ad-Dahhak said that Ibn `Abbas commented…

(Woe to them), “Means the torment will be theirs because of the lies that they wrote with their own hands…

(And woe to them for that they earn thereby), which they unjustly acquired from people, be they commoners or otherwise.” (http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Baqara/Woe-unto-Those-Criminals-among—)

SUMMARY

The commentators are all agreed that this section of the Quran refers to the Jews during Muhammad’s time who supposedly changed the description of Muhammad and/or removed the verse of stoning adulterers in their copies of the Torah. These were the same Jews who would lie to Muhammad and his followers by saying that they believe in what he had to say, even though among themselves they would mock and reject him.

Therefore, the only point that Muslims can make from Q. 2:79 is that certain Jews at the time of Muhammad had corrupted their Scriptures, not that the Gospel or the New Testament writings have been changed. And even this would apply only to those particular copies of those particular Jews, not to all the copies that were in the possession of the rest of the Jews and/or of all the Christians who were scattered all over the world. The verses nowhere say or even remotely imply that all the Jews everywhere were guilty of corrupting the Biblical manuscripts.

After all, during the time of Muhammad there were plenty of copies of the Hebrew Bible in various languages which were in circulation among both the Jews and the Christians all over the then known world. It would literally have required a miracle for the Jews to be able to corrupt all these copies and versions of these Scriptures seeing that they were in the hands of various groups at different locations, many of whom were not at all sympathetic to them.

This is a fact admitted by some of Islam’s greatest expositors, such as ar-Razi:

“With regard to what was actually changed or altered, many commentators, and especially those who attributed the alteration to the Torah, said that it was the description in the Torah of the physical features, character, and prophethood of Muhammad which was altered or obscured. Razi, as usual, questions such traditional interpretations and in the end prefers to leave the matter open. He begins by observing, ‘Alteration [tahrif] must either refer to the actual words or to their meaning… Unbroken transmission [tawatur], however, PREVENTS ALTERATION OF THE ACTUAL WORDS. Thus, if those who altered were the seventy men at the time of Moses, they would have altered nothing relating to Muhammad, but only injunctions and prohibitions. If, on the other hand, they lived at the time of Muhammad, it is more probable that what is intended by altering are things relating to Muhammad. The literal sense of the Qur’an does not indicate what they actually altered’ (Razi, III, pp. 134-135)…” (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The Qur’an and its Interpreters [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany], Volume 1, p. 121; emphasis mine)

In point of fact, the Quran itself testifies that there was a group among the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) who recited the verses of God correctly, thereby implying that they did not change the text of their inspired Scriptures:

Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieveth in it, those are they who are the losers. S. 2:121 Pickthall

Notice how the Muslim expositors explained Q. 2:121:

Allah then mentioned the believers from among the people of the Book: ‘Abdullah Ibn Salam and his companions, Bahirah the Monk and the Negus and his followers, saying: (Those unto whom We have given the Scripture) given knowledge of the Scripture, i.e. the Torah, (who read it with the right reading) describe it AS IT IS AND DO NOT ALTER IT: expositing what is lawful and unlawful, its commands and prohibitions to whomever asks them, and they further act according to what is clear and unambiguous and believe in that which is ambiguous therein, (those believe in it) in Muhammad and the Qur’an. (And who disbelieveth in it) in Muhammad and the Qur’an, (those are they who are losers) who are duped in that they loose both this world and the world to come. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; emphasis mine)

And:

(121) Wahidi relates on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, “This verse was sent down concerning the people of the ship who came [to Medina] with Ja’far ibn Abi Talib from Abyssinia. They were forty men, thirty-two from Abyssinia and eight of the monks of Syria. The monk Bahirah was said to be among them.” In another tradition related on the authority of al-Dahhak, we are told, “The verse was sent down concerning those among the Jews who accepted faith [such as ‘Abdallah ibn Sallam and others].” Still another tradition related on the authority of Qatadah and ‘Ikrimah states, “It was sent down concerning the Companions of Muhammad” (Wahidi, p. 37; see also Ibn Kathir, I, pp. 286-287; Qurtubi, II, p. 95; Tabarsi, I, p. 448; and Shawkani, I, pp. 135-136)

Zamakhshari interprets the verse as follows: “‘They to whom we have given the scriptures’ are the faithful among the people of the Book who recite the scriptures in their true recitation, neither altering nor changing what they contain of the description of the Apostle of God [sic]. Those who have faith in their scriptures are contrasted with ‘whosoever rejects faith in it [the scriptures],’ that is, alterers. ‘These shall be the losers’ because they exchange guidance for error.” (Zamakhshari, I, p. 308) (Ayoub, pp. 149-150; bold emphasis mine)

How could the Jews and Christians recite their Scriptures correctly if the Biblical books were so corrupted to the extent that they no longer reflected the correct reading of the original revelations given through the prophets and apostles? And what’s the point in praising them for reciting corrupt Scriptures? What sense does that make?

The Quran further expressly testifies that there were many among the Jews and Christians who would not and did not corrupt their Holy Writings:

They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him). They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie one with another in good works. These are of the righteous. S. 3:113-114 Pickthall

And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell the Verses of Allah for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is Swift in account. S. 3:199 Pickthall

Of the people of Moses there is a nation who guide by the truth, and by it act with justice… And there succeeded after them a succession who inherited the Book, taking the chance goods of this lower world, and saying, ‘It will be forgiven us’; and if chance goods the like of them come to them, they will take them. Has not the compact of the Book been taken touching them, that they should say concerning God nothing but the truth? And they have studied what is in it; and the Last Abode is better for those who are godfearing. Do you not understand? And those who hold fast to the Book, and perform the prayer — surely We leave not to waste the wage of those who set aright. S. 7:159, 169-170 Arberry

All of these passages conclusively prove that the author of the Quran believed that there were pious Jews and Christians who preserved their inspired Scriptures and would not allow their sacred Books to be tampered with.

Finally, the command to stone adulterers is still there in the Holy Bible for all to read:

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10

“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town AND STONE THEM TO DEATH – the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:22-24

Even the ahadith testify that the command of stoning adulterers was still extant in the copies of the Torah which the Jews possessed during Muhammad’s time:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:

The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (Old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them placed his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Numbr 829 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3635)

The foregoing confirms that Q. 2:75-79 cannot and do not refer to wholesale corruption of the Bible, or that all the manuscript copies of the biblical books are unreliable.

With the foregoing in view, it is time to turn the tables against the Muhammadans: Q. 2:75-79 & THE CORRUPT QURAN.

In this post I will be citing particular scholars that acknowledge the fact that both the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish tradition affirm the existence of at least two distinct divine Powers. The second Power is variously identified as the Angel/Messenger of YHWH, the Son of Man, the Word/Wisdom of God etc. These authorities testify that this belief was widespread among various Jewish groups both before and after the time of Christ. The scholars I cite also admit the early Christians identified Christ as the human enfleshment, incarnation of this second divine Power. All emphasis will be mine.   

ALAN F. SEGAL

One of the leading scholars in this field of study was the late Alan F. Segal. Segal noted that the rabbinic traditions indicate that their earliest so-called opponents, whom they deemed heretics, believed there were to Divine figures reigning in/from heaven:

“believed in two complimentary powers in heaven while only later could heretics be shown to believe in two opposing powers in heaven. The extra-rabbinic evidence allowed the conclusion that the traditions were earlier than the first century. Furthermore, in the literature, it was possible to define a number of dangerous scriptural interpretations central to the heresy and show how the rabbis countered them by bringing in other scriptural which unambiguously stated God’s unity. From this evidence it became clear that the basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. This heresy was combated by the rabbis with verses from Deuteronomy and Isaiah which emphasized God’s unity.” (Segal, Two Powers in Heaven – Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism [Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., Boston – Leiden, 2002], Preface, p. x; emphasis mine)

Segal’s findings show that this belief in a second Divine Power in heaven alongside God is a view that was embraced by certain Jews even before the time of Christ:

“… It became clear that ‘two powers in heaven’ was A VERY EARLY CATEGORY OF HERESY, EARLIER THAN JESUS, if Philo is a trustworthy witness, and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity. It was one of the central issues over which the two religions separated… (Ibid., p. ix; capital emphasis mine)

In fact, it was only at a later date, sometime during the second century AD, that the rabbis anathematized anyone holding this position since they saw it as a threat to their strict monotheistic beliefs, a belief which did not necessarily reflect biblical teaching, just as the Scriptures which the “heretics” quoted demonstrated.

And yet other Jews such as Philo obviously didn’t see any problem believing in a second Divine Power with their commitment to monotheism.

Segal also provides the list of OT verses which the “heretics” were using to support their case, and which the later rabbis had great difficulty addressing and dealing with (cf. Genesis 1:26; 11:7; 19:24; 35:7; Exodus 15:3; 23:20-21; 24:10; Deuteronomy 4:7; Joshua 22:22; 24:19; 2 Samuel 7:23; Psalm 50:1; Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14). These passages posed great difficulties for the rabbis who wanted to insist upon and impose a very strict unitarian conception of God, in order to combat those whom they deemed to be heretics for believing that there were two coequal Divine Powers in heaven. For the details on how and why these specific texts proved quite damaging to the rabbinic case we highly recommend Segal’s book since it is the standard work on this issue.

Segal, quotes and comments on the rabbinic traditions which mention these problematic texts:

PASSAGE 8

Tanhuma Kadoshim 4 (Buber, 37a) 2

Another interpretation: Say to the whole congregation of the Children of Israel “You shall be holy for I am Holy”. (Lev. 19:2) The Holy One Blessed Be He told them “Be holy for I am Holy in every matter. Look at what is written: ‘For God is Holy (pl.)’” (Josh. 24:19). What is the meaning of “For God is Holy?” This verse gave an opportunity to the heretics for it appeared like two powers. The heretics asked R. Simlai about “For the Lord is Holy (pl.)” – “You yourselves don’t say that He is one power, rather there are two powers.” He said to them “What fools the world contains! Look at what is written: ‘For He is a Holy God.’ If it had said ‘They are Holy Gods,’ you might have thought there were two powers.”

This passage is recorded in Tanhuma, a later document which is sometimes believed to contain ancient traditions… These heretical arguments were seen to be of the same type by the rabbis, confirming what we already know–that “two powers” had become a conventional term for a variety of heresies whenever scripture could be interpreted to imply plural forms for divinity. Here the argument seems to be confined to grammatical plurals.

However, there is nothing in the traditions to indicate that the heretics themselves would have argued solely from plural grammar. Wherever we know that a scriptural passage was used by heretics, the arguments of the heretics were much more complicated.

The most complete version of this particular tradition is found in b. Sanhedrin 38b where almost all of this type of dangerous scriptural passages were brought together.

R. Yohanan said: in all the passages which the minim have taken (as grounds) for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand. Thus: let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:26) – and God created (sing) man in His own image (ibid., 27); Come, let us go down their confound their language (Gen. 11:7) – and the Lord came down (sing) to see the city and tower (ibid., 5). Because there were revealed (Gen. 35:7) to him, God. Unto God who answers men in the day of my distress (ibid., 3); For what great nation is there that has God so nigh (pl.) unto it, as the Lord our God is (unto us) whenever we call upon Him (Dt. 4:7). And what one nation in the earth is like Thy people, like Israel whom God went (pl.) to redeem for a people unto Himself (sing.) (2 Sam. 7:23). ‘Til thrones were placed and [one that was] the ancient of days did sit (Dan. 7:9).

… A grammatical plural form in scripture is used by heretics to demonstrate duality or plurality in the deity. The rabbi suggests that the remedy to the heresy, always a grammatical singular, invariably occurs close to the plurals, proving the heretical doctrine wrong. Some of the dangerous scriptures must reflect real arguments between orthodox and heretical communities, but other passages may have been added purely by analogy, as the tradition grew. More importantly, we have no evidence that any actual heretical argument took the form in which it is reported. While the heretics might have used the passage, their beliefs were no doubt more sophisticated than the rabbis reported. (Segal, Part Two. The Early Rabbinic Evidence, Chapter Eight. How Many Powers Created the World?, pp. 121-123)

One of the texts that the rabbis had a difficult time with is Daniel 7:9-10. There, the prophet Daniel speaks of thrones in the plural, one of which God sat on who is described here as the Ancient of the Days. According to certain rabbis the other throne was for the Davidic Messiah, called David in the rabbinic literature. Yet other rabbis could see the problem this created for their position since this meant that the Messiah sat enthroned alongside God in heaven, and was therefore a second Power or Divinity besides God.

Segal explains:

“One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9) and another says: and thrones were placed; and One that was ancient of days did sit–there is no contradiction; One (throne) for Him and one for David: this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Yosi the Galilean to him: Akiba, how long will you treat the divine presence as profane! Rather, one for justice and one for grace. Did he accept (this explanation) from him, or did he not accept it?–come and hear: One for justice and one for grace; this is the view of R. Akiba.²¹

These two rabbis were perplexed by the seeming contradiction in the verses. In one place, more than one throne is indicated by the plural form of the noun. In another place “His (God’s) throne was fiery flames” implies only one throne. Does this mean that the ‘son of man’ in the next verse was enthroned next to God? Rabbi Akiba (110-135 C.E.) affirms the possibility, stating that the other throne was for David. Akiba must be identifying the ‘son of man’ with the Davidic messiah. Nor was R. Akiba alone in the rabbinic movement in identifying the figure in heaven as the messiah. There is some evidence that Judaism contained other traditions linking these verses in Daniel with the messiah.” (Segal, Part Two. The Early Rabbinic Evidence, Chapter Two. Conflicting Appearances of God, pp. 47-48)

21. b. Hag. 14a Tr. Epstein. Cf. also b. Sanhedrin 38a where other rabbis are said to oppose R. Akiba… (Ibid., p. 47; emphasis mine)

And:

“… R. Hiyya b. Abba answers in Aramaic, rather than in Hebrew, that if a heretic says that there are ‘two gods’ based on Dan. 7:9f., one is to remind him that God stated that He is the same at the Sea and at Sina…” (Ibid., p. 42; emphasis mine)

PETER SCHAFER

Schäfer is the Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religion. His teaching and research interests have focused on Jewish History in Late Antiquity, the religion and literature of Rabbinic Judaism, Jewish Mysticism, 19th and 20th century Wissenschaft des Judentums, and Jewish Magic. In 1994 he was awarded the German Leibniz Prize, in 2006 the Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award, and in 2013 the Howard T. Behrman Award for Distinguished Achievement in the Humanities. His latest books are: Zwei Götter im Himmel: Gottesvorstellungen in der jüdischen Antike, München: Beck, 2017; The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other, Princeton University Press, 2012; Die Geburt des Judentums aus dem Geist des Christentums, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010; Origins of Jewish Mysticism, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, and Princeton University Press, 2011. He retired in June, 2013, and in September, 2014, he was appointed Director of the Jewish Museum Berlin, Germany

I cite from the introduction to Schafer’s book dedicated to this widespread early Jewish belief regarding the existence of two divine Powers in heaven:

Among the most popular clichés not only in Jewish and Christian theology but also in popular religious belief is the assumption that Judaism is the classic religion of monotheism, and if Judaism did not in fact invent monotheism, then it at least ultimately asserted it.¹ Nothing summarizes this basic assumption better than the affirmation in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” As the Shema‘ Yisrael, it became the solemn daily prayer, with which many Jewish martyrs went to their death. Christianity, as this narrative continues, adopted this Jewish monotheism, but quickly expanded it with the idea of the incarnation of God’s son, the Logos, and finally watered it down entirely with the doctrine of three divine persons, the Trinity. In this view, Judaism was thus compelled to limit itself even more to the abstract concept of the one and only God. This God could then easily degenerate into the caricature of the Old Covenant’s God, who receded ever farther into the distance and against whom the message of the New Covenant could set itself apart with all the more radiance. Judaism, according to this narrative, had no alternative but to assume its assigned role, as there was never a serious, much less balanced dialogue between mother and daughter religion.

We know today that pretty much none of this ideal picture stands up to historical review.² Some potential objections have meanwhile become generally accepted, while others are still extremely controversial and the subject of heated discussion. With respect to biblical monotheism, today it can be read in all the related handbooks that this tends to be an ideal type in religious history rather than a historically verifiable reality.³ The term “monotheism” is a modern coinage, first documented in 1660 by the English philosopher Henry More, who used it to characterize the ideal pinnacle of faith in God. Well into the twentieth century the term continued to play a key role in two opposing models of development of religions: either monotheism was considered the unsurpassable end point in a long chain of religions, which at the dawn of time began with all kinds of “primitive” forms, in order then to be spiritualized in increasingly “pure” forms (the evolutionary model), or on the contrary, it was the original ideal form of religion, which over time continued to degenerate and ultimately lost itself in polytheistic diversity (the decadence model). Both models have long since become obsolete in religious history. Monotheism is neither at the beginning of “religion” nor does it represent the final apex of a linear development. What makes more sense is a dynamic model that dispenses with value judgments, and moves between the two poles of “monotheism” and “polytheism,” including numerous configurations and combinations that crystallized at different times and in different geographic regions.

This also means that Jewish monotheism was not “achieved” at a certain point in time in the history of the Hebrew Bible,* in order thereafter only to be defended against attacks from “the outside.” This linear developmental model is also outdated. Bible scholars today paint a multifaceted picture of the idea of God in ancient Israel, in which various gods stand side by side and compete with one another. Israel’s own God YHWH** had to assert himself not only against numerous powerful spirits and demons but especially also against the deities of the Ugaritic and Canaanite pantheon, headed by the old god El and his subordinate, the young war god Ba‘al. The strategy of the authors and editors of the Hebrew Bible to let competing gods be subsumed in YHWH was not always successful.⁴ Ba‘al worshippers proved to be particularly resistant to this, as shown by the confrontation of the prophet Elijah against the cult of Ba‘al, as demanded by King Ahab in the ninth century BCE (1 Kings 18). The prophet Hosea still felt compelled in the eighth century BCE to take action against the Ba‘al worship at the land’s high places (Hos. 2).

The ideal of biblical monotheism becomes utterly problematic if we take into account how easily a consort was long associated with the biblical God. The inscriptions of Kuntillet Ajrud near the road from Gaza to Eilat, from the time of the Kingdom of Judah, mention YHWH as the God of Israel together with his Asherah.5 This Asherah is a well-known Canaanite goddess, also documented in the Bible as the wife of Ba‘al (1 Kings 18:19). Her cultic image was worshipped in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and was even displayed by King Manasseh in the YHWH Temple in Jerusalem.6 The biblical narratives that report triumphantly of the successful destruction of these idols cannot conceal the fact that this cult continued to be widespread, and was revived time and again. Even regarding the fifth century BCE, we hear of Jewish mercenaries who settled in the Egyptian border fortress Elephantine and not only built their own temple there (despite the allegedly one-and-only sanctuary in Jerusalem) but in addition to their God Yahu (YHW), also worshipped two goddesses and this continued for more than two hundred years without the Temple congregation in Jerusalem being able or inclined to take action against it.

The conflict between a theology that wished to acknowledge only YHWH as God and a religious tradition with many goddesses and gods came to a head in the crisis triggered by the Babylonian exile. While the “angel of the Lord” (Exod. 23:20–33), who is in competition with YHWH and would play a large role in rabbinic commentaries, has been placed by Bible scholarship in an earlier layer in the Hebrew Bible, the indefinite plural in the first story of creation—“Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen. 1:26)—is part of the priestly account, which was probably written during the exile. For this reason, the priestly account of creation may well imply a “monotheistic confession,”⁷ despite the use of a plural from the mouth of the same God, but this confession, as the rabbis experienced during the confrontation with their Christian, Gnostic, or also inner-Jewish opponents, was anything but uncontested. The same is true for the apocalyptic as well as the wisdom literature of postexilic Judaism of the Second Temple, both belonging to the canonical and especially also noncanonical literature, which will be the subject of the first part of this book. This is not simply a matter of an angelology, which places itself, as a “buffer” as it were, between the ostensible “distance of a God becoming increasingly transcendent” and his earthly people, Israel,⁸ yet more directly and tangibly, it is about the return of not many but at least two gods in the Jewish heaven.

No less problematic about the ideal picture sketched above are the roles assigned to Christianity and the rabbinic Judaism* that was becoming established at the same time. There is no doubt that the Christianity of the New Testament and the early church fathers of the first centuries CE adopted Jewish monotheism however, it was not a “pure” monotheism matured to eternal perfection but rather the “monotheism” that had developed in the postexilic period in the later canonical literature of the Hebrew Bible and noncanonical writings, the so-called apocrypha** and pseudepigrapha.* The New Testament took up these traditions that existed in Judaism, and did not reinvent but instead expanded and deepened them. The elevation of Jesus of Nazareth as the firstborn before all creation, the God incarnate, Son of God, Son of Man, the Messiah: all these basic Christological premises ARE NOT PAGAN or other kinds of aberrations; THEY ARE ROOTED IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM, regardless of their specifically Christian character. This is not changed by the fact that the divine duality of father and son led, far beyond the New Testament, to the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which would then be codified in the First Councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (381 CE).

The Christological and then also the Trinitarian intensification of the concept of God in Christianity by no means implies that rabbinic Judaism forgot or repressed its own roots in Second Temple Judaism. Quite to the contrary. Recent research shows with increasing clarity that the Judaism of the first century CE did not ossify in lonely isolation and self-sufficiency; rather, only through constant discourse with the evolving Christianity did it become what we refer to today as rabbinic Judaism and the Judaism of early Jewish mysticism. Just as Christianity emerged through recourse to and controversy with Judaism, so too the Judaism of the period following the destruction of the Second Temple was not a Judaism identical to that of its early precursors but instead developed in dialogue and controversy with Christianity. Therefore, I prefer to define the relationship between Judaism and Christianity not as linear from the mother to the daughter religion but rather as a dynamic, lively exchange between two sister religions—a process in which the delimitation tendencies steadily grew, leading ultimately to the separation of the two religions. The second part of this book is devoted to this dialectic process of exchange and delimitation…

The title of this examination, Two Gods in Heaven, is pointedly based on the rabbinic phrase “two powers in heaven” (shetei rashuyyot), which clearly implies two divine authorities side by side. This does not refer to two gods who fight each other in a dualistic sense (“good god” versus “evil god”), as we are familiar with primarily from Gnosticism, but rather two gods who rule side by side and together—in different degrees of agreement and correlation. Scholarship has developed the term “binitarian” to describe this juxtaposition of two powers or gods, analogous to the term “trinitarian” associated with Christian dogma.⁹

The theme of two divine authorities in the Jewish heaven is not new. Almost all pertinent studies follow the key rabbinic concept of “two powers,” concentrating on the period of classical rabbinic Judaism. After the pioneering work of R. Travers Herford, the revised dissertation of Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, is considered a milestone in more recent research.¹⁰ Despite their indisputable merits, however, both works set out from the premise that the rabbis, in their polemics against “two powers,” were referring to clearly identifiable “heretic sects” that were beginning to break off from “orthodox” Judaism. For Herford, it was overwhelmingly Christianity that incurred the wrath of the rabbis, whereas Segal attempted to address an entire spectrum of pagans, Christians, Jewish Christians, and Gnostics. But ultimately, even Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven remains caught in the methodological straitjacket of dogmatically established “religions” that defended themselves against “sects” and “heresies.”…

Early Judaism—that is, the period prior to rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament—has up to now been examined predominantly by Christian New Testament scholars. With his seminal contribution on the Son of God, Martin Hengel opened up an entire field of research that has since gained considerable influence especially in Anglo-Saxon research under the heading of “High Christology.”¹⁵ “High Christology” is understood as referring to the Christology of the New Testament that specifically addresses the divinity of Jesus, in contrast to “Low Christology,” which is primarily concerned with Jesus’s human nature. If the writings of the New Testament—that is, long before the later dogmatic statements by the church fathers—already speak of the idea of Jesus’s divinity and his being worshipped as a second God next to God the Father (which is generally affirmed), how does this relate to the supposed biblical and early Jewish monotheism?

Diverse research literature has meanwhile emerged on this, covering the range between these two poles:¹⁶ from, on the one hand, advocates of an exclusive monotheism who view early Judaism as bearing witness only to a strict belief in the one and only God, through, on the other hand, all possible stages of an inclusive and fluid monotheism up to authors who recognize authentic early Judaism in the idea of two Gods side by side.¹⁷ The assessment of the divinity of Jesus then results from its relation to the varying degrees of early Jewish monotheism: almost all authors, including the exclusive monotheists, meanwhile concede that numerous mediator figures (angels, patriarchs, personified divine attributes, etc.) were known to early Judaism, but they remain at the level of divine agents and do not explain the undisputed divinity of Jesus. The latter results, as Larry Hurtado has stated with particular emphasis, exclusively from the cultic worship and veneration of Jesus, which is what comprises the “binitarian mutation” in Jewish monotheism that is characteristic of early Christianity. According to Richard Bauckham, a contemporary ally of Hurtado, the ostensibly strict early Jewish monotheism can only be overcome when Jesus becomes identical with the one and only Jewish God.¹⁸ The messiah Jesus is not a second semidivine figure but instead God himself. This is without doubt the most radical deduction from an extreme Jewish monotheism.¹⁹ (Schäfer, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity [Princeton University Press, 2020], Introduction: One God?, pp. 1-8)

BART D. EHRMAN

In giving the reason for rejecting the view of some scholars that Philippians 2:5-11 does not speak of the prehuman existence of Christ, but rather focuses on his humanity in order to contrast him with Adam, Ehrman states:

“Third, and possibly most importantly, from other passages in Paul it does indeed appear that he understands Christ to have been a preexistent divine being. One example comes from a very peculiar passage in 1 Corinthians, in which Paul is talking about how the children of Israel, after they escaped from Egypt under Moses, were fed while they spent so many years in the wilderness (as recounted in the books of Exodus and Numbers in the Hebrew Bible). According to Paul, the Israelites had enough to drink because the rock that Moses struck in order miraculously to bring forth water (Num. 20:11) followed them around in the wilderness. Wherever they went, the water-providing rock went. In fact, Paul says, ‘the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:4). Just as Christ provides life to people today when they believe in him, so too he provided life to the Israelites in the wilderness. That would not have been possible, of course, unless he existed at the time. And so for Paul, Christ was a preexistent being who was occasionally manifest on earth.

“Or take another passage, one in which Paul actually does speak of Christ as a second Adam. In 1 Corinthians, Paul contrasts Christ’s place of origin with that of Adam: ‘The first man was from the earth, and was made of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (15:47). What matters here is precisely the difference between Adam and Christ. Adam came into being in this world; Christ existed before he came into this world. He was from heaven.

“And so, the interpretation of the Philippians poem that takes it as an indication that Christ was a kind of ‘perfect Adam’ does not work, on one hand, because the passage has features that do not make sense given this interpretation. And on the other hand, this interpretation is completely unnecessary. It does not solve the problem of an Incarnational Christology–because Paul clearly says in other passages that Jesus was indeed a preexistent divine being who came into the world. That’s what this poem teaches as well.” (How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee [HarperOne, First edition 2014], 7. Jesus as God on Earth: Early Incarnation Christologies, pp. 261-262)

Ehrman further proposes that this hymn was composed in the early forties, which means that within less than ten years of Jesus’ resurrection his very own followers were already proclaiming him to be the human incarnation of the divine Angel of YHWH!

“Some scholars have had a real difficulty imagining that a poem existing before Paul’s letter to the Philippians – a poem whose composition must therefore date AS EARLY AS THE 40s CE – could already celebrate AN INCARNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS…” (Ibid., p. 259)

Ehrman believes that texts such as Galatians 4:14 suggest that Paul viewed the Lord Jesus as God’s chief angel, in fact THE Angel of the Lord spoken of throughout the OT writings:

“But this means that in Galatians 4:14 Paul is not contrasting Christ with an angel; he is equating him with an angel. Garrett goes a step further and argues that Galatians 4:14 indicates that Paul ‘identifies [Jesus Christ] with God’s chief angel.’

“If this is the case, then virtually everything Paul says about Christ throughout his letters makes perfect sense. As the Angel of the Lord, Christ is a preexistent being who is divine; he can be called God, AND HE IS GOD’S MANIFESTATION ON EARTH IN HUMAN FLESH. Paul says all these things about Christ, and in no passage more strikingly than in Philippians 2:6-11, a passage that scholars often call the ‘Philippians Hymn’ or the ‘Christ Hymn of Philippians,’ since it is widely thought to embody an early hymn or poem devoted to celebrating Christ AND HIS INCARNATION.” (Ibid., p. 253)

Ehrman further argues that this is the view of some of the other NT writers as well:

“In the most thorough investigation of Christological views that portray Jesus as an angel or an angel-like being, New Testament scholar Charles Gieschen, helpfully defines the Jewish notion of an angel as ‘a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms.’ Once Jesus was thought to be exalted to heaven, he was quickly seen, by some of his followers, to be this kind of heavenly mediator, one who obediently did God’s will while he was here on earth. From there, it was a very small step to thinking that Jesus was this kind of being by nature, not simply because of his exaltation. Jesus was not only the Son of God, the Lord, the Son of Man, the coming messiah; he was the one who mediates God’s will on earth as a heavenly, angelic being. In fact, it came to be thought that he had always been this kind of being.

“If Jesus was the one who represented God in human form, he quite likely had always been that one. He was, in other words, the chief angel of God, known in the Bible as the Angel of the Lord. This is the figure who appeared to Hagar, and Abraham, and Moses, who is sometimes actually called ‘God’ in the Hebrew Bible. If Jesus is in fact this one, he is a preexistent divine being who came to earth for a longer period of time, during his life; he fully represented God on earth; he in fact can be called God. Exaltation Christologies became transformed into incarnation Christologies as soon as believers in Jesus came to see him as an angelic being who performed God’s work here on earth.

“To call Jesus the Angel of the Lord is to make a startlingly exalted claim about him. In the Hebrew Bible, this figure appears to God’s people as God’s representative, and he is in fact called God. And as it turns out, as recent research has shown, there are clear indications in the New Testament that the early followers of Jesus understood him in this fashion. Jesus was thought of as an angel, or an angel-like being, or even the Angel of the Lord–in any event, a superhuman divine being who existed before his birth and became human for the salvation of the human race. This, in a nutshell, is the incarnation Christology of several New Testament authors. Later authors went even further and maintained that Jesus was not merely an angel–even the chief angel–but was a superior being: he was God himself come to earth.” (Ibid., pp. 250-251)

This is a rather shocking statement on Ehrman’s part since he virtually admits that the Hebrew Bible proclaims that this particular Angel is none other than Yahweh himself in visible form!

Note, for example, the following quotation where Ehrman references Genesis 16:7-14, which speaks of the Angel appears to Hagar, and then makes the following observations:

“… But then, after referring to this heavenly visitor as the Angel of the Lord, the text indicates that it was, in fact, ‘the LORD’ who had spoken with her (16:13). Moreover, Hagar realizes that she has been addressing God himself and expresses her astonishment that she had ‘seen God and remained alive after seeing him’ (16:13). Here there is both ambiguity and confusion; either the Lord appears as an angel in the form of a human, or the Angel of the Lord IS THE LORD HIMSELF, GOD IN HUMAN GUISE.

“A similar ambiguity occurs two chapters later, this time with Abraham. We are told in Genesis 18:1 that ‘the LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre.’ But when the episode is narrated, we learn that ‘three men’ come to him (18:2). Abraham plays the good host and entertains them, preparing for them a very nice meal, which they all three eat. When they talk to him afterward, one of these three ‘men’ is identified explicitly as ‘the LORD’ (18:13). At the end of the story we are informed that the other two were ‘angels’ (19:1). So here we have a case where two angels AND THE LORD GOD HIMSELF have assumed human form–so much so that they appear to Abraham to be three men, and they all eat the food he has prepared.

“The most famous instance of such ambiguity is found in the story of Moses and the burning bush (Exod. 3:1-22). By way of background: Moses, the son of Hebrews, had been raised in Egypt by the daughter of Pharaoh, but he has to escape for murdering an Egyptian and is wanted by the Pharaoh himself. He goes to Midian where he marries and becomes a shepherd for his father-in-law’s flocks. One day, while tending to his sheeply duties, Moses sees an astonishing sight. We are told that he arrives at Mount Horeb (this is Mount Sinai, where later, after the exodus, he is given the law) and there, ‘the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush’ (Exod. 3:2). Moses is amazed because the bush is aflame but is not being consumed by the fire. And despite the fact that it is the Angel of the Lord who is said to have appeared to him, it is ‘the Lord’ who sees that Moses has come to the bush, and it is ‘God’ who then calls to him out of the bush. In fact, the Angel of the Lord tells Moses, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Exod. 3:6). As the story continues, the Lord God continues to speak to Moses and Moses to God. But in what sense was it the Angel of the Lord that appeared to him? A helpful note in the HarperCollins Study Bible puts it: ‘Although it was an angel that appeared in v. 2, there is no substantive difference between the deity and his agents.’ Or as New Testament scholar Charles Gieschen has expressed it, this ‘Angel of the Lord’ is ‘either indistinguishable from God as his visible manifestation’ or he is a distinct figure, separate from God, who is bestowed with God’s own authority.” (Ibid., 2. Divine Humans in Ancient Judaism, pp. 56-57)

JAMES D.  TABOR

Ehrman isn’t the only liberal critic of the Holy Bible who believes that some of the first Christians such as Paul depicted the Lord Jesus as the OT Angel of the Lord:

“As we saw in the previous chapter, Paul says that it was Christ, and not the human Jesus, who existed from the beginning of creation in the ‘form of God’ but then subsequently emptied himself, being born in the likeness of a mortal human being (Philippians 2:6-7). Paul makes the rather startling assertion that this cosmic Christ, ages before he was born as a human being, HAD MANIFESTED HIMSELF AS YAHWEH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL. He refers particularly to the time of Moses, when the Israelites ‘saw’ Yahweh as a mysterious cloud-fire: ‘And Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night’ (Exodus 13:21).

“Paul says that the God who led the Israelites through the Red Sea and in their desert wanderings for forty years, the one they called the Rock, WAS CHRIST (1 Corinthians 10:4; Deuteronomy 32:4, 18). He does not explain the particulars of his view, but the idea that there was AN ‘UPPER’ YAHWEH, who remains unseen, sometimes called ‘God called Most High,’ as well as A ‘LOWER’ MANIFESTATION OF THAT SAME GOD, CALLED THE ‘MESSENGER YAHWEH,’ who appears from time to time in human history in a visible manner on earth, WAS COMMON IN VARIOUS FORMS OF JUDAISM OF PAUL’S TIME. This lower Yahweh is not flesh and blood, even though in some of the stories he seems to ‘materialize,’ but when he appears he is then ‘taken up’ or in one case disappears in a flame of fire.

“This is very much akin to the Greek notion of the ineffable God manifest in the lower world as the ‘Word’ or Logos, which was an integral part of Platonic and Stoic cosmology. The Logos idea was appropriated by the Jewish philosopher Philo, a contemporary of Paul, to deal with passages in the Hebrew Bible THAT SEEM TO REFER TO TWO YAHWEHS, AN UPPER AND A LOWER. In the New Testament the Gospel of John adopts the Logos idea wholesale, but makes the shocking assertion that ‘the Logos became flesh,’ referring to the birth of Jesus (John 1:1, 14). This is akin to Paul’s view of the preexistent Christ. In the form of God, who emptied himself and was born of a woman.

“Paul says little more about the preexistent Christ as a manifestation of Yahweh other than that he was present in the days of Moses. Paul is focused entirely on the other end of history, the termination of what he calls ‘this present evil age’ (Galatians 1:14 [sic]). What Jesus represents to Paul is one thing and one thing only–the cosmic, preexistent Christ, being ‘born of a woman,’ as a flesh-and-blood mortal human being now transformed to a life-giving Spirit. This is what drove Paul and excited him most. For him it explained the Genesis creation itself and accounted for all the subsequent ‘blood, sweat, and tears’ of the human story. Humans were created to become Gods! ‘This slight, momentary affliction’ was preparing them for an ‘eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison’ (2 Corinthians 4:17).

“In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh, the One God of Israel, had declared: ‘Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other … To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear’ (Isaiah 45:22-23). Paul quotes this precise phrase from Isaiah but now significantly adds: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Philippians 2:10-11). Christ as the newly exalted Lord of the cosmos IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF YAHWEH.” (Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity [Simon & Schuster, New York, NY 2012], Six. A Mystical Union, pp. 133-135)

Tabor goes on to say in a footnote:

7. The literal term in Hebrew, “messenger Yahweh,” is usually translated as “the angel of Yahweh” but this is not the best choice for English since “angel” in English has its own set of connotations quite different from Hebrew. In Hebrew the phrase used, malak Yahweh, MEANS A MANIFESTATION OF YAHWEH and this figure speaks and acts as Yahweh in the first person, appearing and departing, sometimes in a flame of fire (see Genesis 16:10; 18:33; 22:11; Exodus 3:2; Judges 13:20). There are a few passages where these “two Yahwehs” are mentioned in a single verse: “Then Yahweh (below) rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh (above) from heaven” (Genesis 19:24). (Ibid, p. 257; bold and capital emphasis mine)

OTHER SCHOLARS

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson comments on the significance of the angel bearing God’s name within himself and its impact on Jewish understanding and exegesis:

“The textual proofs for the incarnation of the divine in the angelic figure are found in passages where there is a deliberate confusion between the angel of God and divinity itself (Gen. 16:9-13, 18:2, 21:7, 22:11, 31:11, 33:11-13; Ex. 3:2ff., 14:19, 23:21, 32:34; Jos. 5:13-15; Jud. 2:1, 4, 5:23, 6:11ff., 13:3ff.; Is. 63:9; Ps. 34:8). In such instances, the shift in the narrative from God to the angel points to the fact THAT GOD APPEARS IN THE GUISE OF AN ANGEL. One scriptural verse that is extremely significant for understanding this ancient Israelite conception is God’s statement that the Israelite’s should give heed to the angel whom he has sent before them and not rebel against him, for his name is in him (Ex. 23:21). The line separating the angel and God IS SUBSTANTIALLY BLURRED, for by bearing the name, WHICH SIGNIFIES THE POWER OF THE DIVINE NATURE, the angel IS THE EMBODIMENT OF GOD’S PERSONALITY. To possess the name is not merely to be invested with divine authority; it means that ONTOLOGICALLY the angel is the incarnational presence of the divine manifest in the providential care of Israel … This notion, attested in older Jewish mystical texts as well, is consistent with what one finds in the biblical texts themselves; that is, the ancient Israelite belief was THAT GOD COULD APPEAR AS AN ANGELIC PRESENCE TO HUMAN BEINGS, and the shape this presence took WAS THAT OF AN ANTHROPOS. The angelic form, therefore, is the garment (as later kabbalists expressed the matter) in which the divine is clad when it is manifest in the world in the shape of an anthropos. Clearly, this phenomenon, which is notably similar to the Christological identification of Jesus as THE GLORIOUS ANGEL, should be classified as an example of incarnation as distinct from anthropomorphization.

“… I would argue that the possibility of God assuming the form of an angel is one of the ground myths that informs the liturgical imagination in rabbinic praxis. The implication of the biblical conception is made explicit in several midrashic sources. Thus, in one context, the matter is related exegetically to the expression ‘captain of the Lord’s host’ (Jos. 5:14): ‘I am the captain from above, and in every place that I am seen the Holy One, blessed be he, is seen.’ The particular angelic being who serves as the chief of the celestial host is not identified in this text, but the implication of the passage is clear: from a theophanic perspective, the highest angel and God ARE PHENOMENALLY INTERCHANGEABLE, for in every place that the former appears THE LATTER APPEARS. It is not only that the two belong together, BUT THAT THEY RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER TO THE POINT THAT THE ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS OBSCURED…” (Christianity in Jewish Terms, ed. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel, Michael A. Signer [Westview Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group, 2000], pp. 244-245)

The late reformed apologist Dr. Robert A. Morey wrote in respect to Exodus 23:21that,

“To the Jews at that time, the name of God was a revelation of His divine nature. As Ellicot correctly pointed out, ‘God and His name are almost convertible terms. He is never said to set His Name in a man.’ Hengstenberg said, ‘The name of God can dwell in him only, who is originally of the same nature with God.’ Dean Alford comments:

He is no created angel, but a form of the Divine Presence, bearing the name of Jehovah, a in ch. xiii. 21, and clothed with His attributes, and indeed identified in action (ver. 22) with Him; for it is not said ‘he will be an enemy.’ &c., but ‘I will be,’ as equivalent: and (23) the way in which this will be shewn is by his going before thee, and his cuting off the nations.

“The Divine Name… was ‘in’ the Messenger in the sense that what God was the Messenger was. Keil explains:

Jehovah revealed Himself in him; and hence he is called in chap. xxxiii. 15,16, the face of Jehovah, because the essential nature of Jehovah was manifested in him.

“In the Old Testament, the ‘name’ of someone revealed his character. For example, the name ‘Jacob’ meant ‘scoundrel’ and so he was. Thus, the statement that God’s ‘name’ is in the Messenger can only mean that this Messenger has the character of God…” (Morey, Trinity: Evidence and Issues [Word Publishing; Grand Rapids, MI 1996], p. 152)

FURTHER READING

YHVH’S DIVINE ANGEL AND ETERNAL SPIRIT

JUDAISMS’ VIEWS ON THE MESSIAH’S PREHUMAN EXISTENCE

JEWISH SOURCES ON THE WORD AS A DIVINE PERSON

METATRON IS THE WORD OF GOD?

THE ANGEL METATRON: JUDAISMS’ SECOND YHWH

METATRON: ISRAEL’S SECOND GOD REVISITED

TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN: REVEALING ISRAEL’S SECOND GOD

THE RABBIS’ DILEMMA: WORSHIPING GOD’S ANGEL

CHALLENGE TO THE RABBIS: SEEING THE GOD OF ISRAEL

OT Appearances of Christ as the Angel of God

The OT Witness to the Divine Personhood of the Spirit

The Trinity in Genesis 3:5 and 22