Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 7)

In part six, I continued looking at the Genesis account of Abraham, Isaac, and the sacrifice as a type of the Father giving the son, the lamb of God as means of redemption for mankind.
Ahmed Deedat turns his discussion to the subject of original sin. He writes:
“Major Yeats-Brown, in his "Life of a Bengal Lancer", summarises the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement in just a single sentence:
"NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS CONCEIVED SO GROTESQUE AN IDEA, INVOLVING AS IT DOES THE ASSUMPTION, THAT MAN WAS BORN WITH A HEREDITARY STAIN UPON HIM: AND THAT THIS STAIN (FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE) WAS TO BE ATONED FOR: AND THAT THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO NEUTRALISE THIS MYSTERIOUS CURSE."”

According to Deedat, it is a grotesque idea that mankind inherited sin from the father of the human race, Adam.

Yet we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 4:611—The Prophet said, “Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.”

So Mohammed himself is basically saying that the reason why women betray their husbands is because of the sin of Eve. If that is the case, then why would it be so great a leap to say that were it not for the sin of Eve (and Adam), then we too would not have the nature of sin?

The Qur’an itself describes the universal sinful condition of man: Quran 16:61
“If Allah were to take mankind to task for their wrong-doing, he would not leave hereon a living creature, but He reprieveth them to an appointed term, and when their term cometh they cannot put (it) off an hour nor (yet) advance (it).”

And again in 35:45 -
“If God were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily God has in His sight all His Servants.”

Thus, Deedat’s problem with the doctrine of original sin becomes irrelevant. Whether or not he wants to accept the fact that we inherited our sin nature from Adam, he is bound by his Qur’an to accept the fact that everyone upon the earth has sinned against God and are subject to his wrath or mercy. Indeed, even Mohammed himself described his own sinful nature:
Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day."

Three questions I would ask a muslim are:

1. Would you consider yourself to be more righteous than Mohammed?
2. How many times a day do you ask Allah for forgiveness?
3. Given that any good muslim would say they are no more righteous than Mohammed, and that they pray less often than Mohammed for forgiveness, how can you have any assurance that you have a good stand before Allah?

We see the awful predicament that the Muslim is left in. His own qur’an shows that everyone deserves the wrath of God due to their sin, and Mohammed according to Bukhari asked for forgiveness more than seventy times a day. Is this not a desperate cry out for the need of redemption?

What about Jesus Christ? We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641 -

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, EXCEPT MARY AND HER CHILD." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan"

This Hadith is in perfect agreement with the Quran, in Surah 3:36 we read:

“And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast” (YUSUF ALI)

What we have here is the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and the universal problem of sin in mankind. Even Mohammed recognised his own desperate need for forgiveness.

Now there are three ways that God could approach this problem:

1. Come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to be offered up as a perfect sin sacrifice for mankind.

2. Simply forgive the sins without the need of a sacrifice.

3. Allow all of mankind to perish.

Of these three possible outcomes, only the first outcome allows God to exhibit both His mercy and His Justice. The second outcome exhibits God’s mercy, but it violates His justice, because the sin goes unpunished. The third outcome preserves God’s justice but it suppresses His mercy.

Upon asking Muslims, “Will you go to paradise when you die?” I receive interesting responses. They will tend to say, “I don’t know, it is up to Allah”. So I ask them, “But is Allah not the most gracious and most merciful one?” They will reply, “Yes He is. But it is up to Him in the end whether He wants to send us to paradise or to hell.”

On the surface, this sounds similar to Paul’s teaching in Roman’s chapter 9, whereupon God says that He will have mercy upon whom He wills. But the difference here is that God’s mercy in the Christian world-view is found in the person of Jesus Christ who accomplished redemption for the elect. In Islam, a works-based religion, it seems that not even the good works of a Muslim will be enough to satisfy Allah, because at the end of the day, the Muslim will still require His mercy.

From this we must draw two possible conclusions:

1. Salvation in Islam is not based upon justice, fairness, or righteousness.
2. Every single muslim has a number of bad works which account more heavily than their good works.

Contrast this with the bible which teaches that salvation is based upon God’s justice that was enacted upon His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, accounting for the Christian a perfect account of righteousness for his stand before God. We see further, that not only does Jesus Christ redeem us, but He regenerates us by the power of the Holy Spirit to become children of God, having the life of God grow in us, so that subjectively we may experience God’s righteousness lived out of us, more and more. Ultimately, our expectation is that our whole being, spirit, soul and body will be fully soaked, saturated, and permeated with God’s life. The scriptural word for this is glorification, whereby we express God’s life in our whole being.
In short, Ahmed Deedat’s claim that crucifixion for redemption is a grotesque idea is without warrant. His entire critique of the notion of the crucifixion of Jesus is based upon his own concepts. But God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are higher than our ways. There is no way for man to be made right with God apart from the righteousness of God. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us the harmony of God’s mercy and justice working together.

We move on. Deedat writes:

“The latest cult among the Christians. Billy Graham claims that there are 70 million such cultists in America. Immaculate people, veritable angels! Yet in that nation over a quarter million "gays" gathered in San Fransisco last June on a pilgrimage, led by 50 lesbians on motorbikes. In New York, there are only one million more women than men and of the "men" it is said that one third are sodomites! Overall there are 10 million "problem drinkers" (meaning DRUNKARDS), in the U.S.A. If all this is true with 70 million veritable angels ("Born-Again") in their midst, then it gives a lie to Paul's : "…a little leaven leaveneth the whole ..." — (1 Cor. 5:6). Here in the Christian West not even one third can ferment the loaf. Strange!”

We ran into this sort of discussion at the beginning of our series. Again, Deedat is grasping for more reasons to doubt the bible because of the actions of people proclaiming to be Christian. The bible is not judged in light of the actions of sinners. God’s word is transcends human behaviour. Since the Qur’an attests to the fact that all of mankind deserves the wrath of God, including Muslims, there is no need to interact with Deedat’s rhetoric here.

Deedat now turns his attack upon the disciples who slept in Gethsemane, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. He writes:

“St. Luke, though he was never one of the elected Twelve disciples of Christ, holds numerous distinctions according to Christians. Among them, the "most historical", the beloved "physician", etc. As a Physician, his theory of men "SLEEPING FOR SORROW" is unique. Cries and waitings, sobs and sorrows were in abundance from Jerusalem to Gethsemane on the lips of Jesus (pbuh) which would shock and alert to wakefulness any un-ebriated1 person. Why were the "lullabies" of woe, lulling the disciples to slumber? Was their psychological make-up any different from that of twentieth century man? Professors of physiology opine that under shock, stress and fear the adrenal gland secretes a hormone into the bloodstream — nature's own injection — which chases away all sleep. Is it not possible that the disciples of Jesus had eaten too much and drunk too much: remembering that food and drink was all "on the house," 2, i.e. FREE!”

Deedat has unknowingly dug himself into a hole. He is attacking the followers of Jesus. Note that Muslims believe that Jesus’ followers were Muslims. The disciples are indeed rebuked by Jesus for not staying awake with him during their time together in Gethsemane. Deedat makes a leap of logic to suggest that the reason for this is that the disciples had eaten too much and drunken too much. He even goes on to say that food and drink was all free. Let’s address these points one by one:

1. Jesus’ disciples did not have the concept that all their food was free - “For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.” – John 4:8
2. "When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow.” - Luke 22:45 - People often do cry themselves to sleep. Could it be that the disciples were sad that their master was about to get killed?
3. The eating and drinking that the disciples had before going up to Gethsemane was the last supper with Jesus Christ. Yes there was bread and wine there, but are we to believe that Jesus would have some kind of party? This was a most solemn occasion whereby He wanted His disciples to remember Him.
4. If the disciples were drunk, then would they have been able to cut off the ear from the servant of the high priest? (Luke 22:50). If Peter was drunk, would he have remembered the Lord’s word about denying him three times?
5. The text itself explicitly says that they slept because of sorrow. If they were falling asleep because they were drunk, the text would certainly have mentioned this instead. If a drunk driver falls asleep at the wheel, he might be a sad person, but the police report would not say that he slept because he was sad, it would say because he had too much alcohol.
6. Jesus prays for them not to fall into temptation prior to falling asleep. If the disciples had over-indulged in food and wine, then such a statement would be meaningless because they would have already fallen into temptation.

We notice that the suggestions from Deedat find no evidence in the scriptures. He has to conjure up peculiar circumstances to support his theories, and yet the Christian can simply read the text for what it says.

Not only does Deedat have to twist the bible, but he has to attribute these scenarios to miscalculations on Jesus’ part. We read:

“Jesus had doubly miscalculated:-
1. Regarding the enthusiasm demonstrated by the disciples in that upper-room. Believing that he would only have to contend with the Jews in a clandestine arrest.
2. The Jews were more wily then he had thought. They brought with them Roman soldiers.
The Christian scholars are no less wily in their translations and manipulations of the Bible. They have changed the words "Roman soldiers" to simply "soldiers" and from the word soldiers to now "band of men" and "the guard".
"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN1 and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons" (HOLY BIBLE) John 18:3
1. "Band of men": here and in verse 12 following, the words in the so-called original manuscripts are speira and chiliarchos respectively. Both Roman military terms, meaning "cohort" and "tribune". "That John is the first Evangelist to mention Roman soldiers among the party which went out to arrest our Lord . . ." See Knox's — "A New Testament Commentary", page 260.”
We deal with the two supposed miscalculations of Jesus according to Ahmed Deedat. He suggests that Jesus thought he would have little or no opposition from the Jews because of the enthusiasm of his disciples in the upper room. Is Deedat serious here? Are we honestly to believe that Jesus based the level of opposition from the Jews upon the reception he received from his closest followers? This claim is false on so many levels.

Firstly, we note that Jesus predicted that He would be mocked, persecuted, crucified, and killed before his time in the upper room with the disciples. (Luke 18:32-33, Matthew 16:21)

Secondly, we note that in the upper room itself he spoke of the same death He was about to face - Luke (22:19-22).

Thirdly, if Jesus was going to receive little opposition, then why would Deedat claim he was preparing for a Jihad, a Holy War, an impending showdown? I am using Deedat’s own words here.

Fourthly, why do we see no indication from Jesus that He would meet little opposition? Instead we see him going ahead with the anticipation of meeting his persecutors who would ultimately bring about his death.

Fifthly, why did Jesus show no surprise at his arrest? Everything unfolded as He had predicted.

Sixthly, if Jesus truly wanted to fight, why did he rebuke the disciple who struck the slave’s ear and say that if He really wanted to fight He could summon over twelve legions of angels?

Seventhly, if Jesus was surprised, why did He say that the situation that He faced with His arresters was in order to fulfil the scriptures? The whole concept of having a Jihad, a show-down to resist the oncoming seizure would mean that Jesus would try to deliberately go against what the Scripture had prophesied concerning Him. Let us read Matthew 26:54-57 –

"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way ?"
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber ? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. "But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets." Then all the disciples left Him and fled. Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.

Deedat says Jesus wanted to resist this situation. Jesus said it must happen this way, that all of this has taken place to fulfil the scriptures. We see that Ahmed Deedat’s theorizing falls apart completely.

Deedat wants to argue about the use of words in John 18:12, referring to speira and chiliarchos. He thinks that band of men does not sound close enough to the original Greek. Well, Deedat did not know Greek, nor Hebrew, needless to say, when I see the words “band of men,” it carries the connotation for me as a group of soldiers or some other such thing. I have no problem if the translation says “bands of men” or “soldiers”, because Jesus said that this is what must happen to fulfil the scriptures and Deedat cannot escape this. The arrest with the soldiers, leading to his mockery, flogging, beating, crucifixion and death were all known by Jesus to be a fulfilment of scripture. None of this came as a surprise, and in the midst of it all, He submitted to the Father’s will to proceed through it.

I hope by now you are realising how much Ahmed Deedat has misrepresented the text of scripture. He has tried his uttermost to subdue the plain reading of the gospel accounts in order to support His position of the swoon theory. We shall continue on and see further why all the evidence points to the historical fact of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.