Were the Crusaders and
Inquisitors Christians?
Yes, No, Maybe

PART ONE: The Crusaders

“Crusader” is a negative word to many, and maybe deservedly so, but we may have to reconsider the negative position. Following is a summary and examination of the history of the crusades themselves.

There were eight crusades in all, from 1095 to 1294. Oddly enough, no Arab tribes played much of a role, if any, in fighting the crusaders. This is not to say that Muslim armies were not involved, but exactly who within Islam actually participated is another issue.

The French initiated the first crusade led by Godfrey of Bouillon. The purpose was to wrest control of Jerusalem away from the Muslim Seljuk Turks, who had taken it in 1070. Jerusalem had previously been part of the Fatimid Empire, composed mostly of Shi’a Berbers from North Africa, and during their control of the Holy City, Christians were allowed to visit their special religious sites. But such was not the case with the Seljuks, who violently persecuted the Christians and desecrated and destroyed churches. After a time, Pope Urban II called for the rescue of the Holy City from the Islamic infidels.

Bouillon, certainly a member of the Roman Catholic Church, managed to murder 70,000 Muslims and even burned down synagogues crowded with Jewish people hoping to escape the violence around them. Despite the slaughter, many of the European soldiers married local Muslim and Jewish women; they settled down, and for at least forty years, the Christians and Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side. The fact remains, however, that Crusaders slaughtered a host of people.

The second crusade in 1144 was undertaken when a Kurdish army from Mosul (now in the modern state of Iraq) attacked a Christian fortress in Edessa (now in the modern state of Turkey). As a result, Pope Eugenius III called for a crusade. Two Christian armies, one French, the other German, were completely decimated by the Seljuk armies while on their way to join the battle at Edessa. A monk named Bernard of Clairvoux was engaged in this one. Following the crusade nearly forty more years of peace ensued. 

The third crusade was called in 1189 by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa after the army of Saladin (1137–1193), the famous Kurd who became the Sultan of Egypt, defeated the crusader army on July 4, 1187, at the Horns of Hittin, a site just above the Sea of Galilee. It proved to be the most famous of all the battles during the crusade period. Jerusalem surrendered, and Saladin dealt humanely with the survivors; there was no sacking or murdering, and the city was kept open to Christian pilgrims. But Jerusalem’s fall inspired Barbarossa to lead a French army into Turkey, where he died crossing a creek. The Seljuks quickly destroyed his army.

There was, however, more to the third crusade. King Richard the Third of England (the “Lion Heart”) gathered an army of Norman Knights, set off for the Holy Land, and proceeded to capture Acre and Jaffa on the Mediterranean Coast, even defeating Saladin at the battle of Arsuf.

The two commanders treated each other with respect and signed a peace treaty on September 2, 1192, the terms of which left Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims, while the Christians retained the coastal areas where Acre, Caesarea, and Jaffa are located.

Pope Innocent III in and around 1195 called the fourth crusade. This one had nothing to do with the Holy Land or Muslims, but the goal was to liberate Jerusalem. The French crusaders entered Constantinople, home of the Greek Orthodox Church, who resented the presence of the Roman Catholics and rose up against the crusaders. In the battle that resulted, the crusader “Western” Christians did not kill many Greek “Eastern” Christians, but they did completely pillage the city. After a short period, the crusaders made off with their loot and headed for home. Nothing was accomplished.

Pope Honorius III, Innocent’s successor, could not accept the results of the fourth crusade and called for a fifth crusade. This time mainly Germans and Hungarians marched off to Jerusalem by way of Egypt in 1217. The army spent three years in skirmishes with the Kurdish Ayyubids in Egypt. They failed to make headway and finally called it quits and sailed home.

The sixth crusade’s outstanding personality was the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, who was the grandson of the famous Barbarossa. Frederick II’s daughter was married to John of Brienne, who now ruled Jerusalem. Thinking that marriage gave him authority over Jerusalem, he called for the sixth crusade in 1225. Due to the knowledge and negotiating skills of the remarkable Frederick, the crusade was peacefully conducted without one battle or casualty.

Frederick had studied a great deal about Islamic literature, science, and philosophy, which gave him a solid platform for interaction with the leader of the Islamic army, Malik al-Kamil, who was the nephew of the great Saladin. The two leaders resolved the confrontation by signing a ten-year treaty in 1229. (Ten years was the maximum time allowed for a treaty according to Sharia Law.) Christians and Muslims alike welcomed the terms of the treaty. Unhappily, the new pope, Pope Gregory IX, hated Frederick and refused to ratify the treaty, denouncing it vigorously.

Things went from bad to worse after Sultan Kamil’s death in 1238, when a maverick Turk from Russia named Baibars led a Mameluk (Muslim) army against Jerusalem, sacking it and slaughtering the citizens in 1244.

King Louis IX of France called the seventh crusade. In 1250 King Louis brought an army to Egypt and sailed up the Nile to Cairo, where Baibars demolished that army. Baibars warred against everyone, Christian and Muslim alike, in an effort to establish his power and authority. His hate and murderous anger were mostly directed toward Christians, and he attacked one city after the other along the Mediterranean coast—Caesarea, Safad, Jaffa, and Antioch. He killed and enslaved thousands of Christians. Jerusalem was now firmly in the hands of Muslims, and the seventh crusade came to an end.

The eighth crusade flowed out of the outrage perpetrated against Christians in the seventh crusade. Louis IX demanded a new crusade in the year 1270. His plan was to come through Tunis on the way to Egypt, but a few days after landing in Tunis he died of dysentery.

Baibars died in 1277 (these crusades could last for years), and his successor, Sultan Khalil, managed to finally defeat the crusaders at Acre in 1291, killing or enslaving some 60,000 Christians there.

Impact of the Crusades

The crusades deepened the divide between the Eastern and Western wings of the Catholic Church, a rift that was already well underway centuries earlier.

Related to that, the crusades greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire, which succeeded the Holy Roman Empire.

The crusades also permanently embittered relations between Christians and Muslims, and they are used to this day to rationalize a continuing hatred that often erupts into violence. The fact that both Christians and Muslims committed horrible atrocities is often forgotten or conveniently submerged. Muslims have cited Christian crusader actions as justification for their own brutality. This is not a surmise, but openly declared by contemporary Islamic jihadists, whose portfolio of rallying cries includes something close to, “Remember the crusades.” They legitimize their call for revenge by pointing to what the Christians did in the crusades. This is, of course, completely disingenuous but nevertheless effective.

Promotion of religion by force of arms demonstrates the weakness of Muslim ideals, ethics, and message. To spread the faith by means of intimidation is the worst possible program, one that no one can respect. Not only the Muslims but also Christians have been guilty here. (This topic will be explored in greater detail in the second section of this essay, “The Inquisitors.”)

As early as the fifth century, and many say long before, becoming a Christian required baptism by an ordained priest of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. Faith and grace now abandoned, the Church became a power structure and fell into the same tactics employed by many other secular institutions. Some use the word “Christendom” to describe the Church as empire, combining religion with the state.

The crusades marked a departure from the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel to all nations. By picking up the sword, it was giving in to the barbaric culture of that day. The Church was intertwined with the state, the state using the Church and the Church using the state to advance goals and consolidate power.

As a result, the core doctrine of conversion was severely compromised. To coerce a person into leaving one faith for another is absolutely unbiblical. Requiring a choice of whether to convert, die, or pay the tax is not exactly proper evangelism, but the Church was guilty of this just as were the Muslims, and contemporary Muslims still employ these means. It cannot be said today that the Christian Church advances by means of force and fear. (Note: Instances of wrongly motivated attempts to convert so-called “primitive” people groups were occurring well into the nineteenth century, e.g., the forcing of Western/Christian culture and religion on Native Americans on reservations and similar activities by British missionaries in India. Broadening the argument to include these examples or others is not possible in the space allowed, but we acknowledge needing to discuss this elsewhere.)

The same mentality that was seen in the crusades also resulted in the persecution of those we today call evangelical Christians, especially those who reject infant baptism, transubstantiation (Jesus being actually present in the Bread and the Cup), and the necessity of receiving other sacraments in order to go to heaven—in other words, those who adhere to salvation by grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone.

***

The story of two ancestors of mine might be of interest now. The first concerns Sir John Philpott.

John Philpott was a “Salter and Pepperer” (a grocer) who lived in the latter part of the fourteenth century in London, England, while the One Hundred Years War with France was underway. He relied on his merchant fleet to bring foodstuffs into England from the Continent, but a combination of a weak English king and an aggressive French king meant Philpott’s business was faltering. He was able, however, to convince the English king to allow him to outfit his ships into a navy and be crewed by convicts from London’s prisons, of which there were plenty. The result was a series of victories by Philpott’s navy, and on the strength of that he was elected Lord Mayor of London in 1388 and 1389. He was a faithful Christian, and in his will, he left 100 pounds to be distributed amongst the poor of London at Christmas time each year. In the old city of London there is still Philpott Lane where a plaque commemorating this faithful Catholic and Christian man has been installed.

Then there was another Englishman, again named John Philpott, this time living in the sixteenth century. He was a Puritan, meaning he hoped that the newly founded Church of England that broke away from the Roman Church, precipitated by King Henry VIII, would be purified—that is, would conform more closely to what we see of the church in the New Testament. Philpott was forced into the Court of the Inquisitors and found guilty. Refusing to recant, he was burned at the stake in 1555. (Burning at the stake was desirable form of execution because it was thought the destruction of the body made resurrection impossible.)

PART TWO: The Inquisition

Although the story of the development of the Church in the centuries leading up to the “Dark Ages” (stretching from approximately AD 500 to 1500) is not so easy to uncover, there is evidence that the faith of Jesus and the early disciples was not extinguished. That it was diverted, perverted, and undermined, especially toward the end of the third century, is plain history, at least as evangelicals read it.

During that dark time, the vibrant faith we see in the New Testament gradually shifted to a more formalized, mechanical, ritualistic, even magical understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus. Especially after the so-called conversion of Constantine in the early fourth century, people became members of the Church and were counted among the faithful, despite their never hearing the real Gospel message or knowing much of anything about the core doctrines of Scripture.

The power of the Church over salvation, the only really important issue in life, was under the control of an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Those who rebelled against this were the targets of the Inquisition, the first court of which was formed around the year 1231 and continued for some three or four centuries. From the Church’s point of view, the Inquisition was necessary, because many good Catholics were turning away from the doctrines of the Church, especially after publication of the Bible in common languages, which allowed people to see what the Bible actually taught. For nearly a thousand years it had been hidden in a dark covering of non-intelligible Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.

The renaissance of Biblical understanding forced the established Church to react, and energetically; heresy became the most heinous of all crimes.  There is evidence that many were troubled by the means used to keep the Church pure. Ecclesiastical leaders would often plead with secular authorities for sentences to be carried out mercifully. In the early days of the persecution, Roman Church officials acted ruthlessly. For instance, the Cathari (or Albigenses) and the Waldenses were persecuted, sometimes to death, during the 1220s by the order of Pope Gregory IX.

Fringe Christian groups were not the only ones to be sought out by the Inquisitors. As with John Philpott in 1555, the point at the center of the trials had to do with the elements of the Mass, otherwise known as Communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper. Along with the Reformers (i.e., Martin Luther and John Calvin), Philpott believed the bread of the Eucharist was just bread and the juice in the cup just juice. But the Church had developed the concept that the bread was transformed by an act of the priest into the actual body, the flesh, of Jesus. Likewise, the juice invisibly, magically, became the actual blood of Jesus.

Two Latin words were pronounced by the priest before the Mass began—hocus pocus—and when the words were pronounced, the magical power inherited from Peter and passed down through the properly ordained priesthood transformed the substances, shazam!

How this came to be is not possible to describe here, but there is an actual history to it. The short version is this: The Church had become far too Western in its understanding of the Middle Eastern document we call the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. And when Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:53-55), the Roman Church took His words literally.

To take Jesus’ words literally, however, would have been ludicrous for a Jewish person in the first century. And the early history of the Church clearly reveals that the passage was taken metaphorically—after all, the Church was composed mostly of Jews for the first generation. The point was that the disciples were to trust in and believe in Jesus as the Savior and that His death on the cross, with His broken body and shed blood, was the once-forever sacrifice for sin. Therefore, long after the “Eastern” sense of things was lost, the “Western” mindset misunderstood much of the nature and means of salvation.

The Inquisition was aimed at Christians, but Muslims and Jews were also tried, and many were executed. It is only natural that Muslims and Jews would have a negative reaction to this, and it is certainly possible that it yet lingers as something else horrible that Christendom perpetrated and thus could be avenged in whatever era.

During the period of the Inquisition there were undoubtedly thousands of bishops, priests, and regular members of the Roman Church who sincerely thought they were being faithful Christians to support and participate in what they perceived as a cleansing of their Church from heretical doctrine and practice. Undoubtedly, there were thousands of Christians who were horrified at what was being done in the name of Jesus Christ. And during the period of history when the Church and state were wed, significant resistance was virtually out of the question. Such resistance finally came in 1517 under the inspiration of a Catholic monk named Martin Luther.

PART THREE: Yes, No, Maybe

Were those who conducted the Inquisition real Christians?

Were the crusaders real Christians?

Were the Muslims who fought against the crusaders real Muslims? Or, to put it another way, are those Muslims who engage in violent jihad today the real Muslims?

To these questions the answers are, Yes, No, and Maybe.

Looking at Christians

It must be said that no one could possibly know for sure whether real and actual born-again Christians committed atrocities against Muslims and Jews, in that day or in this. If a group of careful observers had watched the murder of Muslims and Jews at the hands of people known as Christians during the crusades and at other times, would they have known for certain which was the right conclusion? The proper answer would have to be, No!

Why is this so? The core of the answer lies in the mystery of conversion. While one can be baptized, join a church, and even reform his or her life, this is far from genuine Christian conversion. Being a part of a church does not mean one is a Christian. Conversion means that the Holy Spirit indwells the one believing in Jesus, the one who has had all sin removed and forgiven. It is a profound spiritual experience not an intellectual or emotional one. It is something God does completely apart from anything an individual can do. It is miracle and mystery. Every pastor who has ministered to a congregation for ten or more years knows that in that congregation are those who have truly been born again and those who have not.

Not that every real Christian does right and lives right. The Christian life is a growing up into the fullness of Christ, little by little—first as an infant, then a toddler, young child, older child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, adult, older adult, and senior. Still after a lifetime of maturing, the Christian is not anywhere perfect until in heaven and in the presence of our holy God.

Is it possible that a Christian could be deceived into thinking that killing and persecuting others because they believed differently is justified? Yes, it is possible.

Might Christians commit horrific acts because they were told to do so by powerful religious authorities? Maybe. Might Muslims? Maybe.

Would a Biblically literate Christian believe he or she was serving God by persecuting or even killing “infidels”? No, unless there was some unknown source of intimidation going on behind the scenes and/or such Christian had his or her mind bent to the point that they became merely tools of evil.

Perhaps the right answer for all of these questions is, Maybe!

Would persecuting or killing a non-Christian win approval with God? Would it ensure a place in heaven? To both, the answer is an unequivocal, No!

Would defending the cause of Christianity, the Church, a Christian leader, or anything else in all creation by harming others merit the favor of God? Certainly not! Would dying in defense of the God of Scripture assure a place in paradise? In no way!

This is my solemn opinion as a follower of Jesus.

Chapter Two. Passover and Unleavened Bread

The authors’ thesis is that Jesus completed, or fulfilled, both Passover and Unleavened Bread, in that He was crucified, or sacrificed, on Passover and was buried, taking sin away, on Unleavened Bread. Is this warranted on the basis of the biblical material itself?

The very first Jewish holiday in the religious year is the first spring feast of Passover, or Pesach, which is the transliterated Hebrew for Passover. Passover is also the first of the “pilgrimage feasts” along with Pentecost and Tabernacles. On these three holidays male Jews were to travel to the Temple in Jerusalem. Since Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits came within the span of three days, most pilgrims would be present for all three.  

The second holiday is Unleavened Bread, or matsot, which is the transliterated Hebrew for Unleavened Bread. We find both feasts in a single section in Scripture.

Leviticus 23:4-8

“These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for them. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD’s Passover. And on the fifteenth of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. But you shall present a food offering to the LORD for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.”

Notes on the passage:

One. Passover was a one-day feast to be observed during the first month, called Nissan, on the fourteenth day of that month. Numbers are significant in Scripture, especially three, seven, ten, twelve, and multiples thereof. Here the fourteenth is seven doubled. Unleavened Bread came on the fifteenth day of Nissan and was to last seven days.

Two. “Appointed” and “holy”—these words, used for all the feasts, point to the importance of the feasts, which are established by God alone.

Three. No ordinary work was to be done on Passover or Unleavened Bread, so then we see a focus on resting from work. In the short description of the first two feasts we find two statements that no ordinary work was to be done.

Four. Unleavened bread is bread made without yeast. Yeast became a symbol or a metaphor for sin. When Paul the apostle wrote to the Corinthians around A.D. 55, he was able to communicate with a mixed Jewish and Gentile church and rely upon a common understanding that there was a connection between leaven and sin:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

It is important to note that by A.D. 55 Jesus is referred to as the Passover lamb, a lamb that had been sacrificed. This identification probably depends on the words of John the Baptist, who saw Jesus approaching the Jordan River where the baptizing was taking place and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

One feast or two?

Passover and Unleavened Bread were so closely connected in the centuries before the birth of Christ and during His ministry that both would be referred to when only one was mentioned. The clearest example of this is found in Matthew 26:17. “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?’” It was at the traditional Passover Seder when the Lord’s Supper, also known now as Communion or the Eucharist, was instituted. Only unleavened bread was used at that Seder. Other references are Mark 14:1, 12; Luke 22:1, 7; Acts 12:3, 6; 20:6.

In modern times the term “Unleavened Bread” is usually not used, and the designation “Passover” refers to an eight day period incorporating both holidays.

Background to Passover 

The Passover is the story of God bringing His people out of Egypt to fulfill His earlier promise to Abraham (the full account is to be found in Exodus 12). Originally, that promise was given in Genesis 15:12-16, where God said, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions” (Genesis 15:13-14). An approximate dating of this event is 2100 B.C.

While Jacob, also named Israel, and the grandson of Abraham, was still living, he brought his whole family to Egypt in order to survive a severe famine. At first they were favored guests due to his son Joseph’s high rank in the Egyptian government, but the Israelites (also called the Hebrew people by this time) were eventually enslaved and lived miserably for four hundred and thirty years until the days of Moses (see Exodus 12:40). The dating of these events varies among biblical scholars, with some dating the exodus about 1446 B.C. and others about 1260 B.C. A discussion of the dating goes beyond our purposes here, but the important point is that God did redeem the people of Israel out of Egypt.

God commanded Moses to go to the Egyptian Pharaoh and demand that he let the Israelites go. Pharaoh hardened his heart and said no. In order to change Pharaoh’s mind and show him that the God of Israel was superior to the Egyptian gods, a series of devastating plagues ensued, and the last one, the tenth plague, threatened death to the first born of each household, both Israelite and Egyptian.

A remedy, however, was provided by God, who instructed the children of Israel through Moses to take one unblemished lamb per family on the tenth day of the month of Nisan and for four days to inspect it to make sure it was a truly flawless or clean lamb. Then at twilight on the fourteenth day of Nisan, they were to slaughter that lamb without breaking any bone, they were to collect the blood in a basin, then they were to take a hyssop stock, dip it into the blood, apply the blood to the lintel (top part) and the side doorposts of their houses. That night, when the angel of the LORD saw the blood, he would pass over those houses, thereby delivering the firstborn of that family from death.

According to Leviticus 23, God’s people were to keep or observe, actually “proclaim” Passover every year. And many centuries later we find that Jesus, accompanied by His disciples, also observed Passover.

The Passover with Jesus and His disciples

It was at a Passover Seder, that meal that occurred the evening of Jesus’ arrest and the day before His crucifixion, where Jesus reinterpreted and applied the meaning embedded in the story of the first Passover in Egypt:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and after blessing it, broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until the day that I drink it new with you in my father’s kingdom.”

Matthew 26:26-29

This Seder took place on the evening of the crucifixion. Jesus and His disciples

were going to celebrate the Passover. The bread would have been unleavened bread—matzoh—which He distributed and said, “This is my body.” Then He took the cup, probably the third cup, known as the “Cup of Redemption,” and said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

            Soon after that supper, Jesus and several disciples went to the Garden of Gethsemane where He was arrested following the betrayal by Judas. He was put through a series of trials, one before the current high priest Caiaphas, one before the former high priest Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, then finally before Pilate. The result was that Jesus, though innocent and flawless, was sent away to be executed. He was taken outside the walls of Jerusalem and there crucified along with two others. He was placed on the cross at 9 A.M., the time of the morning sacrifice at the Temple. It was the fourteenth of Nissan—Passover. He died at 3 P.M., the hour of the evening sacrifice at the Temple. But it took some time before Pilate issued the order to remove the body from the cross. It often took days to die on a cross, which is one of the reasons the Romans employed such a horrific method of execution, but Jesus died after only six hours. Pilate needed to ascertain that Jesus was actually dead before releasing Jesus’ body to those who asked for it. We find the story in Mark’s Gospel:

And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. 

Mark 15:42-45

John’s Gospel contains another account of this, with slight differences:

After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

John 19:38-42  

Jesus died in time to be buried exactly on the day of Unleavened Bread. There was just enough daylight left for His burial. That burial took place on the fifteenth of Nissan.  

How much did the prophets know?

Long before Jesus was born of Mary in Bethlehem, the Passover was the focus of

the attention of Hebrew prophets. As we read through the Old Testament, it appears that prophets were studying the Passover, looking for clues to what God would do in the future. From the reading of the introduction to Isaiah chapter 53, it seems possible that the prophet had been studying and considering the Passover story as he quoted from Exodus 12:1-6, which talks about the preparation of a lamb. Then in the body of chapter 53, Isaiah introduces that lamb—he describes how God would send a “suffering servant,” one that His people would reject and that would be pierced for our transgressions. This suffering servant would be led like a lamb to the slaughter and die for the sins of the people, die just like the lamb sacrificed in the first Passover in Egypt.  

            How much the Hebrew prophets knew cannot now be fully known. It is plain that they saw the hand of God extended far into the future at least. They knew of the faithfulness and the power of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is reasonable to think that they saw the fulfillment of the many promises in those things that God had already revealed, and the yearly holidays might well have been continual reminders of those promises.

Is there a biblical warrant?

Is it possible to state that Jesus completed, satisfied, and fulfilled, in His death and burial something that God had embedded in those holidays and which mark the roadmap of world history?

            Since nothing said here is testable using the scientific method it must be that our conclusions will be based upon faith. But this faith is not without something tangible behind it, some evidence that is clear, consistent, and easily understood. It is undeniable, based on the biblical evidence, that Jesus was crucified on Passover and buried on Unleavened Bread. Is this extraordinary? Yes it is, and there is more evidence to come. Next we will see that Jesus also fulfilled Firstfruits. That would make it three in a row.

Gospel Meditation

Galatians 3:15–29

Find a quiet place, alone and apart from distractions. Be comfortably alert, still, and at peace. Recite the Lord’s Prayer. Sing or cant the Jesus Prayer. Pray for family, friends, neighbors, and yourself. Slowly and carefully read the passage of Scripture.

1. Paul reminds the Galatian believers that they consider human made contracts, that after being endorsed by both parties, cannot be broken.
2. Thus was the agreement between Abraham and to his offspring, and this offspring was Jesus Christ the Messiah, that through him all the promises of God would come.
3. The Law, of Moses, is not a new contract neither does it cancel the contract made with Abraham, which still stands as a promise that is to come.
4. Paul makes it clear that the Law was given to Israel that they would know what sinful behavior was.
5. Keeping the Law cannot “give life” but does point to doing that which was right. Yet the Law could not give life but this only through “the promise of faith in Jesus Christ.”
6. The Law, though not an instrument of salvation, yet it served as a “guardian,” however, and all who are in Christ Jesus are sons and daughters of God, and this through faith and not by Law keeping.
7. Therefore, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, no male and female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.
8. And thus, all who are in Christ are Abraham’s seed or offspring.

Chapter 1 7

Charles Simpson in Mobile

Ollie Heath had migrated to California from Mobile, Alabama, where he had attended the Baptist church pastored by Charles Simpson. In the early days of Soul Inn in San Fran-cisco, Ollie invited Pastor Simpson to visit us and preach and teach. This was an experienced pastor who was kind, generous, and encouraging. In no time, he became a mentoring influence for us, especially since he was the first person I knew who actually spoke in tongues.

By that time, I was newly charismatic, the story of which is coming up in the next chapter. Pastor Simpson was one of the few charismatic Southern Baptist pastors at that time, meaning that he claimed to receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues.” The Catholic charismatic movement was still a really big deal in 1968, and, along with the resurgence of the Pentecostal phenomenon, sig- nificantly impacted the fledgling Jesus People Movement. Until then, evangelicals were generally resistant to anything Pentecostal and thus shied away from the tongues-speaking Jesus freaks. Lacking acceptance from mainline evangelicals (with the exception, at least in my own circumstance, of a number of American Baptist pastors and just a few Southern Baptists), the Jesus People therefore listened to the charismatics. Charles Simpson came along side us and was admired and appreciated.

The trip that Paul, Ollie, and I made across the country terminated in Mobile. Pastor Simpson invited me to preach at the church he pas- tored, Bay View Heights Baptist Church. He later joined with others to form the group we called the “Fort Lauderdale Five” that included Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Don Basham, and Ern Baxter, all men we would learn to value and regard highly. (The details of this, and what came to be called The Shepherding Movement, will be presented in a later chapter.)

It was around this time in 1968 that a dangerous mind-set began to develop in me. Since tongue speakers were, for the most part, not well received by evangelicals and were outright rejected by most fun- damentalists, defensiveness regarding the spiritual experiences took hold of many, including me. Perhaps to counter the rejection, I began to think that those of us who were “baptized in the Holy Spirit” were spiritually superior to those who were not. I and those like me did not necessarily hold that speaking in tongues was the evidence or even a sign of conversion, like many mainline Pentecostals did, but our trouble was more subtle than that. We thought we were moving “in the Spirit” and empowered by the Spirit. A “we-they” mentality developed, which I later admitted to be a cultic or toxic mentality. But I thought there were two types of Christians, those who were being used by God to do miraculous works on the one hand, and the rest who sat in the pews doing next to nothing, on the other. Charles Simp- son did not teach this, but a separation was taking place, a division that grew as time went on.

My own view of the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” was that it was indeed a second working of the Holy Spirit, but not for becoming holy or for speaking in tongues. My reading of Acts, chapter one verse eight, was that the Holy Spirit empowers the witness of the Christian. The primary work of the Holy Spirit, as I saw it then and continue to believe today, is to convict a person of sin and reveal to the person who Jesus is and what He did, showing the person that they are lost and hopeless without Him. I believed, then and now, that the Holy Spirit works conversion, the new birth, regeneration, and salvation, and that the individual can do nothing to save him or herself.

Awakened by Speaking in Tongues!

The day I began to speak in tongues in 1968 marked a turning point in my witness. I had graduated from seminary, my family was staying with my parents at their house in Sunland-Tujunga, a suburb of Los Angeles, and I lived sometimes at the Anchor Rescue Mission in San Francisco. After joining Lincoln Park Baptist Church, I regularly stayed, keeping my sleeping bag rolled up and stashed inside the pulpit during the day and sleeping on the floor next to it at night. One night at 2 a.m., having spent all day on the street evangelizing, followed by walking all the way back to the deep Richmond District and the church, I awoke loudly speaking in tongues. I was absolutely shocked.

Acquaintances had previously tried to get me to speak in tongues, but I had resisted. The most notable example of this took place some months prior at the Clayton House, a ministry run by Dick Key, who was an Assembly of God minister. I visited there from time to time for fellowship and a cup of coffee and donuts. One day a group of the young people who ran the ministry literally pushed me onto a table and tried to work my mouth to get me to speak in tongues. I had to fight myself away from them, gather my coat and Bible, and flee from the scene. I never came back, and I felt a significant sense of loss, since these Christian brothers and sisters were the only other evangelicals reaching out to the hippies in the Haight-Ashbury at that time. It wasn’t long before Ted Wise and friends opened The Living Room on Page Street, but until then I was alone.

Nonetheless, now I was a tongues-speaker, and I continued to be one for many years, slowing down in 1972 and eventually ceasing all together in the mid to late 1970s. What tongues speaking triggered for me was a dramatic change in my ministry. Prior to this, a steady but small stream of conversions followed my ministry; but now the number began to grow significantly. There was such a marked differ- ence, that I could only account for it by assuming I had been empow- ered by the Holy Spirit that night I woke up speaking in tongues.1 It was Charles Simpson who helped me understand what had taken place.

Writing this book forces me to once again consider what happened then. I am doubtful that the conversions and sometime miracles had anything to do with me. Of course, it could not be so, since only God does these things. Perhaps it is that Acts 1:8 was operational—God’s Spirit empowered the witness, and that is the beginning and end of it.

By Faith, or by Works of the Law? &

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

Find a quiet place, alone and apart from distractions. Be comfortably alert, still, and at peace. Recite the Lord’s Prayer. Sing or cant the Jesus Prayer. Pray for family, friends, neighbors, and yourself. Slowly and carefully read the passage of Scripture.

1.         The Judaizers, those Jewish Christians, by their insistence that Gentiles who came to Christ must be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law, caused considerable turmoil among the Galatian believers.

2.         Paul appeals to these by stating they have been foolish to yield to those who denied that salvation was by grace alone. He points out the extreme difference between law keeping and faith in the work of the crucified Christ.

3.         Indeed, the God who gave them the indwelling Holy Spirit did so not by law keeping but through “hearing with faith.” Paul refers to Abraham’s faith, who was accounted righteous and this centuries prior to the giving of the Law.

4.         Therefore, all who believe in Jesus, even the Gentiles, are accounted as “sons of Abraham.”

5.         Those who depend upon keeping the Law are even “under a curse” since none are accounted as righteous by the keeping of the Law. Those who are righteous live by faith.

6.         The “curse of the law,” resulting from our failure to keep the Law of Moses, is removed by the crucifixion of Jesus, who took the curse upon Himself. Thus, salvation extends to the Gentiles, and that on the basis of faith alone.

Chapter One

God rested on the seventh day. For six days God created, then He ceased working and rested.[1] This is a central part of the opening revelation of God to Moses in Genesis.

            Sabbath, in the Hebrew transliterated[2] shabbat, means rest or cease from labor. It is not as though God became tired after creating the universe, but that His resting points to something above and beyond the normal idea of resting. The Sabbath is perhaps the most important key in understanding the Jewish holidays; in fact, as we shall see, it occupies the center of each of the holidays.

            In Leviticus chapter 23, situated before the listing and descriptions of the holidays or feasts, is the following vital introduction.

Leviticus 23:1-2

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.”  

Notes on the passage:

One. The word LORD, all capital letters, indicates that the covenant name for God is in the Hebrew text, that name which God gave to Moses as His actual name (see Exodus 3:1-15). It may be transliterated Yahweh, and its pronunciation cannot be known for certain. Attempts at arriving at the meaning of this covenant name of God include but are not limited to “I am that I am,” “I am the only one,” “I am being,” and “I am the unnamable one.”

Two. Moses is the author of the material, originally.

Three. The feasts are directly appointed, determined, authorized, and established by God; they are not of human origin.

Four. The feasts are holy—special and not ordinary.

Five. The feasts are occasions for the gathering of the people of Israel. A synonym for convocation would be assembly. 

 Leviticus 23:3

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.

Working is normative then and is to be followed by a day of rest. God worked, or created, six days, and then there was a day of rest—this is the pattern. That day of rest, the Sabbath, is therefore special; it is solemn, holy, and set aside, and on it there was to be a gathering of the people of God.

Although by Jesus’ day, the Sabbath came to be tied to a day of worship for

the Jewish people (synagogue attendance and Scripture reading), the primary

purpose of the Sabbath is rest. Although there are still debates in the

church about what day a believer should worship, most arguing for Sunday as

that day, the debates are grounded in a flawed view of the nature and

purpose of the Sabbath. The Mosaic Sabbath was intended as a weekly

reprieve (so to speak) from the curse in Genesis 3, and as a foretaste of

the Messianic Sabbath to come. Thus, believers are free to choose the day

on which they worship, whether that be on a Friday, a Saturday, or a

Sunday–or even a Tuesday. The day of worship, however, should not be

confounded with the Sabbath. Many believers have mistakenly argued that

Sunday is the new Christian Sabbath (the Lord’s Day), and that believers

must worship on Sunday (although nowhere does it say in Scripture that the

Lord’s Day is a new Sabbath). Others insist that the Sabbath is still on

Saturday, and believers must worship on Saturday. But both positions miss

the point of the biblical Sabbath (a one day rest anticipating an eternal

rest), and the clear statement of Paul in Romans 14:5: “One person esteems

one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be

fully convinced in his own mind.”

The Biblical Sabbath

The Sabbath began on Friday at sunset. It lasted until sunset of the next day, Saturday. The Sabbath was the last day of the week. Six days of work were followed or concluded by one day of rest—exactly the formula for the creation in Genesis chapter one.

On the Sabbath no work was to be done, and to ensure that no work would be done on the Sabbath, traditions were developed by Jewish rabbinical scholars over the centuries; these would sometimes be called the traditions of the elders (see Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-8). The Sabbath became overrun by rules and regulations never intended by God, and were almost impossible for the ordinary person to carry out. Much of the conflict Jesus had with the religious authorities of His day had to do with Sabbath observance.

Some Christians still observe the actual biblical Sabbath as their special day of worship, but the majority of Christians began to worship on Sunday, the first day of the Jewish work week. This change may be because the resurrection occurred on a Sunday and also because Jewish believers in Jesus began to be excluded from attending synagogues. Sunday, the first day of the week became known, very early on, as the Lord’s Day (see John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). This however is an historical observation. However, Jesus fulfilled the intention of the Sabbath.

Rest as a view into the nature of salvation

God revealed to Moses that Adam was to take care of the home created for him—the Garden of Eden. All that was necessary for life was in that garden. After The Fall, that willful disobedience to a clear command of God, Adam and Eve were evicted from their home, cut off from fellowship with their God, and were forced to toil, to labor painfully, for their survival. Everything had changed.

            Rest was where God was. God was present in the garden and walked and talked with the first humans created in His image, which probably means that the Creator God actually entered into intelligent communion or fellowship with His creation.

 Rest is always where God is. God was present in the Tabernacle in the wilderness and wherever it traveled before later residing in the temple in Jerusalem, and He dwelt in the place of worship that God directed Moses to build, in the inner most holy place, the Holy of Holies. Away from God there was no rest, only work and labor instead.

The Sabbath—an historical, dramatic, prophecy

Embedded then in the story of rest and work is the story of salvation. God created the Sabbath for His people, and He was present with them. When that paradise was lost, God worked, with the emphasis on worked, so His chosen people would be able to enjoy His rest and cease from their work.

            Long before God’s plan could be fully understood by anyone He put into place the very heart of the nature of salvation—resting in the work of God. The people of God were promised in the creation of the Sabbath itself that there would be a resting. The writer of Hebrews, chapter 4 verses 9 and 10, describes this:

So, then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

Summation

David Baron wrote in Types, Psalms and Prophecies, “The weekly Sabbath was appointed by God as a prophecy and pledge” (page 6). The weekly rest was a reprieve from the bitter effects of the curse described in Genesis 3:17-19. Adam would now find that to survive required hard work and the ground would not easily yield its fruit. A weekly rest would be necessary. There would then be instilled into human beings a desire for something more, something lost—a resting from hard labor.

True rest would and could only come when the curse would be lifted from the whole of creation. The Mosaic Sabbath was a temporary reprieve, but only the Messiah Himself, the seed of the woman, would restore the rest that was lost. (see Genesis 5:29) So it is all the more interesting that Jesus would proclaim, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

            In the description of the feasts or holidays appointed for the people of Israel by God, the Sabbath holds center stage. There was an actual Sabbath day to be observed, but it pointed to something more, a restoration of the rest Adam and Eve had enjoyed in the presence of God. There would always be a Sabbath for God’s chosen people, and the weekly observance continually pointed to it.

---

[1]Varying views of the nature of God’s creative act are held. Whatever view one might have will not substantially alter or negate the fundamental underlying concept that God rested or ceased from working (creating), and the Sabbath as a concept entered into the human experience and understanding.

[2] A transliteration is the rendering or spelling of a word with the letters of one language in place of another. In this case, the corresponding English letters are used in place of Hebrew letters, in order to assist in pronouncing the Hebrew words.

Chapter 16

In the spring of 1969, Paul Bryant, Oliver Heath, and I set out in Ollie’s new, red Volkswagen bug for Mobile, Alabama. The little car was stuffed with printed material ready for handing out along the way. On the road we stopped at every college or university we came across. I would haul out my guitar, set up someplace on campus, sing some songs, and preach short little sermons when a crowd gathered. Our California license plates were usually enough to attract atten- tion, and I looked somewhat like a hippie, which few had ever seen up close in many of the places we visited. After the short preaching, we would hand out literature and talk individually with those who were interested. Paul and Ollie were exceptionally adroit at personal

evangelism during such times.

My friend, Prince Altom, arranged our visit to his Southern Baptist alma mater, Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas. Word had not trickled down to the campus police, and we were ordered off the campus and threatened with arrest. But after some pressure from the students, the school officials understood we really were Christians and not troublemakers. They made an abrupt turnabout, welcomed us, and gave us freedom to do our ministry.

Secular schools all along our route received us to some degree. I doubt this would happen now, but it was characteristic of the Jesus Movement to be welcomed on campuses of all kinds. Of course, the “One Way” theology we constantly proclaimed ruffled some feathers, but it seemed to us then that God’s hand was upon us.

In most places we visited, no one was aware of a spiritual awaken- ing or revival happening. However, the news media knew about it to some extent and alerted many to the events taking place in California,

On the Road with Paul and Oliver       55

and that opened doors for us as we went. Some churches welcomed us, and some did not, but the group most open to us was youth who were trying to emulate the hippie thing. In almost every town we vis- ited there was someplace where the kids hung out, maybe a coffee house, a café, or a park. We only had to drive around a short while to find the spot.

Paul, Ollie, and I were not exactly naturally outgoing people, but during this period we were able to easily approach a group of kids and start handing out literature. Conversations ensued, and almost always some would trust Jesus as Savior. Since we were meeting the kids mostly on the street, on the campus, or in a hangout, we didn’t give an altar call or invitation of any kind, which was what I practiced in my pastoral min- istry. Instead, while we talked, people simply experienced the new birth.

This, too, was typical of the Jesus Movement; people seemed to be specially brought to us, and then, in some way, were touched by the Holy Spirit.

A Texas Story

I will relate an event, one of the many wild and crazy things that happened on that trip. We were in Houston, Texas. Dr. Francis DuBose had arranged for us to visit several churches he knew from having lived there. Somehow, we were also invited to one of the flag- ship churches among Southern Baptists, First Baptist Church of Dal- las, where Dr. W. A. Criswell was pastor. While we were in Houston, we discovered a scheduling error: we were to be in both Dallas and Houston at the same time. In fact, on that one Sunday morning we were supposed to be in two Houston churches and the one in Dallas. We had to split up. Paul and Ollie covered the Houston churches while I drove the “bug” to Dallas.

It was a dark and stormy night, however, and the windshield wip-

56       Chapter 16

ers were not working on Ollie’s car. Over two hundred miles separate the two great Texan cities, and I left after a Saturday evening youth gathering in a huge Houston church. For hours it poured, and I was scared to death. Every car on the road seemed to be traveling at top speed, and I had to lean out the window and use my left hand as a wiper blade in order to see the road ahead. I finally made it to Dal- las about four in the morning, found the church I was to speak at, parked across the street, and tried to get some sleep. In a while the rain stopped, but soon the police pulled up behind me and made me get out, while they questioned me, patted me down, and checked the inside of the car for contraband. I explained what I was doing and why I was parked there, but they made me move. I circled around for a while, found another spot, but soon they were back and I had to move on. To kill time I simply drove around the downtown area of Dallas and waited for the sun to come up. Tired, dead tired, and par- tially wet, I was in no shape to do any preaching.

Around seven a.m., and right on the same block as the church building, I happily entered a little

café and took a chair at the counter. The place was packed, and I waited as the guy behind the counter kept going back and forth in front of me, serving other customers. Though I tried to smile at him, he would not serve me. Finally I got up some cour- age and asked for a cup of coffee. He stopped in front of me, put his hands on the counter, leaned forward, and in a loud voice said, “We don’t serve your kind here.”

I was wet; I was tired, and now I was mad. Sliding off the stool I stood there and said, “I am a Southern Baptist preacher, and I am preaching at the church next door. You can bet I am going to be talking about this little incident.” With that, I walked out.

After a couple of hours, folks began to arrive for the Sunday school gathering I was to address. (I was also to give a testimony at the main worship service later on.) When the young man who was leading the class saw me, it was evident he was taken aback. He hesitatingly

On the Road with Paul and Oliver        57

allowed me to speak to the college age group, which was really large, and before I spoke I was able to get some coffee and donuts down me. With a simple explanation of what was going on in San Francisco, I emphasized how God was working things in a way I had never heard of before. I basically talked about a miracle-working God.

Those young men and women, who were not much younger than me, received me warmly and mobbed me when I was finished. As I was preparing to go to the main auditorium, the contact person, the guy who was somewhat startled at my appearance, told me there had been a change and I would not be able to give a testimony after all. I accepted that, said I understood, and instead of leaving to head back to Houston, I found my way into a balcony and got to listen to the great Dr. Criswell preach. It was worth the trip to Dallas.

This essay will examine three questions. First: Who is Gabriel? The answer prompts a second question: Who is Allah? The answers to these provoke a third question: Who is Muhammad? All that is Islam hangs on the answers to these three questions.

GABRIEL OF THE BIBLE

The name Gabriel is found in four places in the Bible: Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, and Luke 1:19 and 1:26. The name Gabriel means, “God is mighty.”

First, the two passages from the Old Testament book of Daniel:

When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.” (Daniel 8:15-16)

While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. (Daniel 9:20-21)

Gabriel is thus introduced in the Book of Daniel, and we see more of him in the New Testament.

Second, the two passages from the New Testament Gospel of Luke

While the priest Zechariah was on duty at the Temple in Jerusalem, an angel of the Lord appeared to him. The angel announced to Zechariah that the prayers of him and his wife Elizabeth had been answered to the effect that Elizabeth would bear a son and his name would be John. We pick up the story in Luke chapter 1:

And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.” (Luke 1:18-19)

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27)

Now we look at the words of Gabriel to Mary in verse 28: “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” Mary, greatly troubled at the greeting, tried to understand what the angel meant. Gabriel continued:

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:30-33)

Is the angel in Matthew also Gabriel?

Joseph, about to marry Mary to whom he was betrothed, was troubled when he learned she was pregnant. Thinking to divorce her quietly, he had a visit from an angel while in a dream. The angel (no name given) said to him:

“Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

Is the angel who spoke to Joseph the same one who spoke to Zechariah and Mary? We cannot be completely sure, but it seems as though it must be the case. However, the argument I am about to make does not depend on the answer to that question, as both angels in Luke and in Matthew are clearly angels of the Lord.

What have we learned so far?

The angelic appearances have to do with the birth of Jesus, the one who would save His people from sin. The birth was miraculous, accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and this is all the explanation for the pregnancy we have. The point is clear: no human being had sex with Mary. Neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary. The birth was miraculous, and this fits perfectly with the word God revealed to Isaiah six hundred years earlier:

Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

The passage is referred to as “The Sign of Immanuel,” meaning that the virgin’s child is God come to be with us in a miraculous, non-human manner—thus a sign. God actually became flesh, which the Creator of the universe could do. And He did.

The child born to Mary was not called Immanuel but Jesus. Immanuel, in traditional Jewish understanding, is what He, Immanuel, is, which is God become man. The name Jesus refers to what He would do. “Jesus” is a word derived from the Hebrew name for Joshua. It means, “God saves.” Joshua was the one who brought the Chosen People across the Jordan River into the Promised Land of Canaan. Moses would not be allowed to do this, and the concept is that the Law of Moses cannot bring salvation. No, salvation is a gift of God and is not by works of the Law. In His dying for sin, Jesus became the Savior, and this is proven by His resurrection. Jesus is Immanuel, God with us.

One last word from Gabriel, the angel of the Lord

Gabriel said to Mary in reference to the child she would bear: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32). This virgin birth, not the result of sexual intercourse, would be miraculous. The child would be of the same nature as the Father.

Then Gabriel said, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:33). The meaning is obvious—the child will be the reigning King forever, just as Isaiah had announced: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Without question, the Prophet Isaiah states that the child born is God Himself.

This takes us into the mystery of the Trinity. We will never fully comprehend how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and complete God all at once. Christian historians and theologians simply note what the evidence reveals.

The point is plain enough—the child born is God in the flesh. He is Jesus born of the virgin in Bethlehem, the one who would die in our place, taking our sin upon Himself, then on the third day be raised from the dead. He is alive now in heaven, one day to return to receive His own.

Nearly six hundred years later, however, there appeared another “Gabriel.”

GABRIEL OF ISLAM

The majority of Muslims today hold that the Qur’an is eternal (eternal as Allah is eternal), was brought down to earth by an angel, and was then recited by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Allah spoke each and every verse to the angel who then recited them, piecemeal, over the course of about twenty-two years, to Muhammad. Muhammad, unable to write, memorized the recitations and spoke them to others, who then wrote them down. (Qur’an means recitation, or that which is recited.)

The angel that appeared to Muhammad at a cave on the slopes of Mount Hira near Mecca, about 610 CE, also had the name Gabriel. It was the custom of many Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Gnostics to retire to secluded places in hopes of receiving spiritual dreams and visions and thereby experience a direct connection with deity. Muhammad was one of these.

Ascetics would fast, meditate, and stay awake for days in order to empty the mind and receive dreams and visions. Muhammad, after a time, achieved trance-like states during which the angel Gabriel, as the angel announced himself to Muhammad, spoke to him. We find a hint of this in the hadith of Abu Dawud, Book 12, No. 2247a, which reads, “When the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) came to himself (after the revelation ended) ….”

Muhammad reported his visits by Gabriel to his wife Khadija, who supported the idea that it was indeed an angel speaking to her husband. Though Muhammad was not sure of the nature of the vision he had, he eventually adopted his wife’s opinion.

At the very beginning of Muhammad’s encounter with Gabriel, he wondered if he was actually in contact with a jinn (demon) rather than an angel. This is stunningly apparent based on a hadith reported by Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers and favorite wife of Muhammad) as found in the most trusted of all hadiths, Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, No. 3:

The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good dreams, which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.”

The Prophet added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for a third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) and has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.

Muhammad was so harshly treated by what he thought was the angel Gabriel that he doubted it was an angel from Allah at all. He became depressed and considered throwing himself off the mountain of Hira. It was only through the intervention and convincing of Khadija, his first wife, that Muhammad was prevented from doing so.

There is an interesting account referred to as “The Lap.” The story is that Muhammad continued to believe the being that appeared to him was a jinn, a demon. Khadija, in the midst of Muhammad’s fears and doubts, asked him to sit on her lap, first one side then the other. When he did, she asked him if he saw the angel. He responded, yes. Then she asked him to again sit on her lap and once again asked if he saw the angel. Again, yes. Then she disrobed and asked Muhammad to sit on her lap again. She asked if he saw the angel, and Muhammad said, no. With that Khadija convinced Muhammad it was indeed the angel Gabriel by saying that only a good angel would not look upon a woman’s nakedness.

The above account is a paraphrase from the Sira,the official biography of Muhammad. Below now is the account, called “The Lap” as reported by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s biographer:

Ibn Ishaq recorded that when the spirit came to Muhammad another time, Khadija tested him:

Ishma’il b. Abu Hakim, a freedman of the family of al-Zubayr, told me on Khadija’s authority that she said to the apostle of Allah, ‘O son of my uncle, are you able to tell me about your visitant, when he comes to you?’ He replied that he could, and she asked him to tell her when he came.

So when Gabriel came to him, as he was wont, the apostle said to Khadija, ‘This is Gabriel who has just come to me.’ ‘Get up, O son of my uncle,’ she said, ‘and sit by my left thigh.’

The apostle did so, and she said, ‘Can you see him?’ ‘Yes,’ he said. She said, ‘Then turn around and sit on my right thigh.’ He did so, and she said, ‘Can you see him?’ When he said that he could she asked him to move and sit in her lap.

When he had done this she again asked if he could see him, and he said yes, she disclosed her form and cast aside her veil while the apostle was sitting in her lap. Then she said, ‘Can you see him?’ And he replied, ‘No.’ She said, ‘O son of my uncle, rejoice and be of good heart, by Allah he is an angel and not a satan.

(Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p. 107)[1]

Gabriel in the Qur’an and hadith

Gabriel appears in only three verses in the Qur’an: Sura 2:97-98 and Sura 66:4.

Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind)[2]: Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed (this Scripture) to thy heart by Allah’s leave, confirming that which was (revealed) before it and a guidance and glad tidings to believers. Sura 2:97

Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers. Sura 2:98

If ye twain turn unto Allah repentant, (ye have cause to do so) for your hearts desired (the ban); and if ye aid one another against him (Muhammad) then lo! Allah, even He, is his protecting Friend, and Gabriel and the righteous among the believers; and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. Sura 66:4

THE GABRIELS: SAME OR DIFFERENT?

Of incredibly significant importance is the question: Is the Gabriel of the Bible and the Gabriel of Islam one and the same?

The reader, of course, will be alerted that I am going to make the case that the two are different, in fact, very different. However, it is easy to be fooled. The apostle Paul warned the Church at Corinth that demons could disguise themselves as angels: 

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

(2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Let me be clear: the Gabriel of the Bible and the Gabriel of the Q’uran are both angels. One is an angel of the Lord; the other is a fallen angel, a demon. My contention is that a fallen angel—a jinn or demon—appeared to Muhammad on Mount Hira. Muhammad was right in his first assessment.

The Ultimate Offense

To state that Islam’s Gabriel is a jinn is to state the ultimate offense for Muslims, since it utterly negates the big three: Allah, the Qur’an, and Muhammad. Allah, because it is Allah who is relaying to Gabriel what is in the Qur’an. Then Gabriel is no angel but a demon. And Muhammad is merely passing along what a demon is reciting to him. Islam is then based upon absolute error, even deception, and nothing more.

Such accusations, let alone suggestions, can earn one the death penalty in Muslim-majority societies. Religions or governments that forcefully, even ruthlessly, stifle dissent show their weakness. This is true of Islam, even in countries where the Muslim population is small. If a Muslim abandons Islam, which is called apostasy, he or she may be punished by death, though this is not clearly spelled out in the Qur’an.

The Christian’s obligation

With the understanding of this enormous deception, what must a Christian do? Must we remain silent and not voice even the possibility that the whole of Islam is based on demonic deception? To refrain from speaking out is immoral and unethical.

Writers of Scripture were known for denouncing false religion and the behaviors they spawn. Many paid the ultimate price for standing with the truth. Many are dying today in Muslim-dominated nations for speaking their hearts and minds.

In the face of terror and considering the great commission given Christians by Jesus Himself (see Matthew 28:19-20, among others), it is necessary to stand up to the murderous lying of the chief demon, Satan. Jesus, while countering the attacks of religious opponents, was clear. Jesus said:

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

It is not disrespectful to challenge error, especially when the difference is between heaven and hell, both of which are eternal.

ANOTHER ISLAMIC TEACHING ABOUT GABRIEL

Some spokesmen for Islam identify Gabriel as the Holy Spirit in both the Bible and the Qur’an. From where in Islam’s authoritative texts do they get this? In Sura 2:87 and Sura 2:253, and without the word Gabriel appearing, we find, “We supported him with the Holy Spirit.” Islamic interpreters say this “We” is the angel Gabriel. But the plain text of the Qur’an does not state this.

Not only does the Qur’an not identify Gabriel with the Holy Spirit, but neither does the hadith. Instead, we find just the opposite, as illustrated by Sahih Muslim, in book 30: “Gabriel, the Apostle of Allah is among us, and the Holy Spirit who has no match.” Gabriel is not the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit in the Bible

            The Hebrew Bible

Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament show the nature and identity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is deity, often referred to as the Spirit of God, in that the Holy Spirit is holy, and only God is holy. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent, is referred to as a “He” and thus is personal, and is omnipotent, meaning all powerful. And the Holy Spirit can only be God as are the Father and the Son.

The second verse of Genesis speaks of the Holy Spirit being involved at the moment of the creation of the universe. “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

2 Samuel 23:2-3 identifies the God of Israel with the Spirit of the LORD.[3]

The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me; his word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me: When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God ….

Isaiah 40:13 reads, “Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD or what man shows him his counsel?” We notice “LORD” in the phrase “Spirit of the LORD” clearly identifying the Holy Spirit with God.

The New Testament

There is much more, but now we turn to the New Testament, first to the third chapter of the Gospel of John.

A leader of the Jewish people named Nicodemus approaches Jesus at night, presumably to speak with Him in private. He says he knows Jesus is from God because of the miracles Jesus performs. Jesus, however, redirects the conversation by saying, “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Of course, the elder statesman does not understand how a person can be reborn. Jesus replies, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” To be born of the flesh is one thing, but to be born of the Spirit is quite another. And we must be clear: Jesus was not talking about any angel much less one named Gabriel. Only God brings life, both physical and spiritual.

The Holy Spirit works the new birth or conversion. This is clear in the passage in John 3, and we find the same in Acts 8:14–20. Also in Acts 3:1–4, the Holy Spirit is directly referred to as God. The writer of Hebrews also declares that the Holy Spirit is eternal when in reference to the power of the shed blood of Jesus: “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:14).

Looking back to the birth passages in Luke’s Gospel, we find an answer to Mary’s question to the angel Gabriel as to how she will have a baby when Gabriel says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you” (Luke 1:35). It is obvious that the angel Gabriel separates himself from the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the Holy Spirit and Gabriel are not the same at all.

Clearly, neither the Qur’an nor the Bible anywhere identify Gabriel with the Holy Spirit.

Angel or Holy Spirit?

The intended goal of Islamic scholars who claim that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit is to contaminate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Which is it then? Is Gabriel an angel or the Holy Spirit, or maybe both at once, at least from an Islamic point of view? Our arguments above show that Gabriel is actually a jinn or demon, thus further clouding an already murky subject.

WHO IS ALLAH?

The Name “Allah”

“Allah” was the name used by Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula for centuries before the Islamic era. Indeed, the word Allah was used by Jews in the Arabian Peninsula for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before the Christian era.

To put it another way: Neither Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, nor Uthman invented the word Allah. They would have known the word Allah from childhood.

It is not the word that counts; it is the content or meaning of the word.

To the Jew of that period, Allah would be the creator, the lawgiver, and the one who led the family of the patriarchs out of Egypt and gave them the Promised Land, the land of Canaan.

To the Christian of that period, Allah would be the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ in addition to all that the Jewish people believed about God.

It would be only natural for Muhammad to also use the term Allah in reference to the creator God. Clearly, however, Muhammad gave new definition to who or what Allah is.

Islam’s Allah

Islam claims that Allah spoke to Gabriel, who then spoke to Muhammad, who then recited the revelations that originated with Allah by way of Gabriel to other people, who at some point committed them to written form.

The narrative of the collecting of the Qur’an is fascinating. There were so many variations going about that Uthman, the third caliph after Muhammad, ordered all the renditions be gathered together in order to make a uniform document. All the other manuscripts were then burned. But the picture of Allah in the Qur’an is interesting.

Allah is distant, speaks through an angel, loves those who love him, and hates those who do not believe in him. Allah is called the greatest of deceivers and leads astray unbelievers but might also lead astray even the best of Muslims.[4] Though Allah repeatedly refers to himself as the most beneficent, the most merciful, the most forgiving, and so on, evidence of this is lacking or scant other than what he says of himself.

It is not unfair nor a misrepresentation to say that the God of the Qur’an is far different from the God spoken of in the Bible, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the God who loves and takes a people to be His own, His children.

Transcendence versus Immanence

One of the major differences between the Bible’s God and Islam’s Allah is whether he is present with his creation. What we find in the Qur’an and hadith about Allah is that he is transcendent and not immanent.

In contrast, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is transcendent but is also immanent, in that He interacts personally with His people. He walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, otherwise known as Paradise. He did so until the Fall, the moment that his single law was broken, about which we read in Genesis chapter three. The terrible consequence of that event was that God’s human creation was sent east of Eden. But he never left them entirely alone; he did not abandon them completely.

God once again spoke with a human being out of a burning bush on Mt. Horeb (Mt. Sinai) in the Arabian Desert, when God appeared to Moses and told him his name, Yahweh (YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton). When Moses later led the children of Israel through the wilderness, God commanded and directed him to supervise erection of a Tabernacle, which contained a special place within it, the Holy of Holies, where would God dwell.

This was a foreshadowing of what would come later. The prophets pointed to a time when God would arrive in person. This is what the word Immanuel means—God present. We can see this in the word itself, even if we are not Hebrew literate. The last two letters of Immanuel—“el”—is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word for God, El. Then “imman,” from which we get our word immanent, means present. Simply put, God with us.

This is who Jesus is.

Is Allah a fiction?

Again, my premise is that Gabriel is indeed an angel, but a fallen angel. Muhammad was correct when he thought the being that presented itself at the cave on Mt. Hira was a jinn, which is an Arabic word meaning demon. It was only his wife, Khadija, who convinced him otherwise.

The point then is: If Gabriel is a demon, and Gabriel is reciting to Muhammad what is supposedly spoken by Allah, then just who or what is Allah?

It is clear from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that Satan and his demons are surely angels but fallen angels who became the enemies of God. And Satan is a god, too.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

“The god of this world,” Paul says, and some chapters later in the same letter he writes of those who “veil” the gospel:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

(2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

(Note: An apostle is a messenger, one sent with a message.)

Is Allah a fiction? No, there is an Allah, but it is Satan in disguise who directed an underling demon to approach Muhammad while Muhammad was in a trance state and therefore open to demonic invasion.

Have I committed blasphemy and of the worst sort against the Islamic trinity? Yes, indeed I have but not out of meanness or an attempt to deceive.

To say that Allah is the chief of demons (Shayton or Satan), that Gabriel is also a demon (jinn), and therefore that Muhammad was very cleverly deceived is the only possible conclusion given the evidence and arguments above. And this is what most Christians do believe, but it is a fearful endeavor to put these ideas out into the public purview, given what we have seen of Islam in these past few decades.

WHO IS MUHAMMAD?

Is Muhammad a true prophet of God?

Was he duped into thinking he was hearing words from Allah?

Did he make the whole thing up?

Was it all a dream?

Was it a scheme to acquire power and prestige?

Is Muhammad a prophet to be trusted?

Is he to be obeyed? Is he to be believed?

Is he a false prophet?

We cannot be afraid to ask these questions. Lives, both temporal and eternal, hinge on the answers, especially for Muslims. I am aware that Muslim people are sincere seekers after God. Even the most radical among them are only pursuing what has been communicated to them from the cradle.

Muslim people, in my experience, are more “religious” than most Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. Few on earth other than Muslims desire so much to be with God in Paradise. And many will do anything to assure themselves of being there. After all, no Muslim can be sure he or she will be in paradise after death, since Allah is a great deceiver and will lead astray any he chooses. Unlike the Christian who experiences assurance of salvation, the Muslim can only hope and work hard on a daily basis to earn Allah’s favor.

Some commentators doubt Muhammad even existed. I am not one of these. As to whether there were those who embellished the story, especially in the latter part of the seventh and into the eighteenth century, that is a possibility. We are aware of Gnostics in the second and third centuries who did that with Jesus, who made Him into a super hero and magician.

It is well established that Muhammad was not certain in his own mind as to the nature of the entity he encountered on Mt. Hira. At first, he thought the ‘angel’ was a jinn, a demon; his wife Khadija convinced him it was an angel of God.

What is the truth?

That which was revealed to Muhammad differs utterly from what we see of God in the Bible. Which account is the true one?

Islam, of course, says that the revelation to Muhammad supersedes or replaces what is found in the Bible and in several significant ways. For instance, Jesus is not God come to be with us and die on a cross for our sin. Jesus is a prophet but not of the rank of Muhammad. Jesus plays a role in the last days, but he dies and ends up being buried next to Muhammad. It is rather complex, but the Jesus (Isa) of the Qur’an is not even similar to the Jesus of Christian Scripture.

Then, God in the Qur’an is separated from humans and speaks through an angel. In the Bible, God becomes flesh and dwells among us. Also, being in Paradise/heaven in the Qur’an depends upon believing that Allah alone is God and that Muhammad is his messenger. But that is only the beginning. Heaven is earned by habitually doing good deeds, working for salvation. In the Bible forgiveness, salvation, and being assured of heaven depends upon God’s gift alone.  

MY CLOSING STATEMENT

Who is Allah? Allah is either a chief demon, perhaps Satan himself, or a fantasy figure invented by Muhammad. At minimum, Allah is not the Creator God.

Who is Gabriel? Gabriel is either a jinn, meaning a demon, or again is a fantasy figure invented by Muhammad. Gabriel is not an angel of the Lord God.

Who is Muhammad? He is a seventh century man living in Arabia who was either deceived by a demonic entity or who developed a fictional account of receiving communications from God. Muhammad is not a prophet of God; he is a false prophet.

Another contradiction within Islam:

There is a cascading danger for Islam in its claim that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. Islam is supposed to be monotheistic, meaning that Allah has no partners. If Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, then Gabriel is deity as well—Allah has a partner. Add to that the doctrine held by the traditionalists in Islam who believe that the Qur’an is eternal in heaven. Another partner? Consider also the reverence shown to Muhammad. Is it so complete that he is lifted to the status of deity as well? One more partner for Allah?

Muhammad is not God and never claimed to be, despite how Muslims tend to view him, and neither is Gabriel. If Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, and the Quran is eternal alongside Allah, and if every Muslim must model his own life after the “perfect man” Muhammad, it is not a stretch to say that Islam has a fourfold divinity: Allah, Gabriel, the Qur’an, and Muhammad.

The list of inner contradictions emanating from Islam is long, and this essay only introduces some of them. For further details, please consult Islamic Studies: Equipping the Christian Witness to Muslims, published by Earthen Vessel Publishing at earthenvesselmedia.com.

---

[1] The Sira has for centuries been linked with the Qur’an and hadith as authoritative on the life of Muhammad. In more recent years the Sira has been largely neglected, as the accounts of what Muhammad said and did are rather fantastic, problematic, and embarrassing.

[2] Words in parentheses-( )-indicate explanatory notes made by editors of the Qur’an. Without them so very many passages of the Qur’an would be unintelligible.

[3] LORD, all capital letters shows that the Hebrew text has Yahweh, the name of God as revealed to Moses in the burning bush incident. See Exodus 3:14.

[4] See Q’uran 4:142 “Surely the hypocrites try to deceive Allah, and He is deceiving them…” and

3:54 “And they cheated/deceived, and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers.

Gospel Meditation: Galatians 2:11-21

Find a quiet place, alone and apart from distractions. Be comfortably alert, still, and at peace. Recite the Lord’s Prayer. Sing or cant the Jesus Prayer. Pray for family, friends, neighbors, and yourself. Slowly and carefully read the passage of Scripture.

1.         Cephas, known as Peter, when he arrived in Antioch where Paul was, withdrew from eating with Gentiles, that is, uncircumcised Christians, and even walked away from fellowship with these because he feared the circumcision party, those Jews who believed in Jesus but also taught one had to follow the Mosaic Law. Unhappily even Barnabas aligned with Peter.

2.         Paul, when he saw this, challenged Peter and Barnabas, and argued that a Gentile did not have to obey the Jewish laws.

3.         Paul then presents the fact that keeping the Laws of Moses, meaning being circumcised, observing the food laws, and celebrating the feasts of Israel (like Yom Kippur), will not justify, or save, a person.

4.         Paul actually confronted his brother in Christ, Peter, with his hypocrisy, and proclaims that salvation is by faith and not by keeping of the works of the law. Indeed, despite how careful a person may keep all the Laws of Moses, still there is no justification.

5.         Paul will not rebuild what he rejected, that is, to have salvation from God by keeping the Mosaic Law.

6.         And then comes one of the most wonderful verses in all Scripture, Galatians 2:20, stating salvation is a gift from God and not the result of Law keeping.

7.         Paul then points out that if salvation is achieved by law keeping, then Christ died in vain.

Today is Yom Kippur, otherwise known as the Day of Atonement, and it is a “fast” not a “feast” like the other six Jewish holidays. Kind of long, and it is in my unpublished book, God’s Calendar.

Six. The Day of Atonement

The authors’ thesis is that Jesus will complete or fulfill the fast known as the Day of Atonement at the time of His return, which will include the saving of all of Israel. Is this warranted on the basis of the biblical material itself?

The second of the fall holidays is the Day of Atonement. The literal transliteration from the Hebrew is yom hakippurim—day of the atonements, in the plural.

Leviticus 23:26-32

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Now on the tenth day of this

seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be for you a time of holy

convocation, and you shall afflict yourselves and present a food offering to

the LORD. And you shall not do any work on that very day, for it is a Day

of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. For

whoever is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people.

And whoever does any work on that very day, that person I will destroy

from among his people. You shall not do any work. It is a statute forever

throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. It shall be to you

a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth

day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you

keep your Sabbath.”

Notes on the passage:

One. A dominant theme of the fast is affliction, which would include fasting from food and drink, confession of sin, and repentance.

Two. Another theme is refraining from work; again the emphasis is on rest.

Three. If one failed to afflict oneself and avoid work, an individual would be cut off from among the chosen people of God—a most serious and solemn warning. Four. To “cut off” and “destroy” are probably synonymous terms.

Five. The nation of Israel can only receive atonement; it cannot achieve it or earn it. It must be made on their behalf.

Purpose of the fast

The Day of Atonement–a day of humiliation and removal of the sins of the nation so that Israel could be restored to God through the ministry of the high priest. The Day of Atonement was observed by fasting from food and drink, avoiding daily labor, and by a holy convocation or gathering of the people for worship at the Temple. On that day and that day only, the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies wherein God dwelt.[1] So Israel was vicariously[2] brought into God’s presence. Having been excluded from the Genesis Garden of Eden, God’s chosen people are given the hope of one day being fully included in God’s rest or Sabbath.

Leviticus 16

The entirety of Leviticus 16 is devoted to a detailed explanation of the sacrifices and

rituals to be performed, mainly by Israel’s high priest, on the Day of Atonement. There

are three distinct rites required to atone for the high priest and the other priests, the sanctuary itself, and the people.

            One. The high priest sacrificed a young bull to atone for his personal sin and for the sins of all the priests. The high priest bathed first and wore simple white linen clothing rather than the usual ceremonial attire. The first time the high priest entered the Holy of Holies he brought in a censer, which was a device to hold live, hot coals taken from the main altar. The smoke would fill the chamber, especially the area around the mercy seat that rested on top of the ark containing the Ten Commandments. Then, the high priest brought in the blood from the bull that had been sacrificed and sprinkled it on the mercy seat and on the floor of the Holy of holies.

            Two. The second sacrificial rite performed by the high priest was to ceremonially cleanse the sanctuary from the sins of the priests and worshipers. Then the people would have free access to the sanctuary.

Days earlier, specially designated people, representing the nation, selected two goats, which were presented to the high priest. He cast lots to determine which goat would be designated “For the LORD” and which would be designated “Azazel.” (The meaning of “Azazel” is uncertain but it may contain the idea of being sent away, out of the camp and away from Israel.) The Azazel would be the “scapegoat.”

            The goat designated “For the LORD” was sacrificed by the high priest who then  took some of the blood and entered the Holy of Holies a third time and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat and on the floor as he had done earlier.

Three. The high priest then placed his hands upon the head of the

goat designated Azazel and confessed over it the sins of the people thus ceremonially transferring all national sin to the goat. The goat became the sin and guilt bearer—not his own sin and guilt, of course, but that of God’s chosen people. A man previously selected would lead the goat out into the wilderness and let it go free. The sin of the people was removed.

            Later generations enlarged on the sending away of the Azazel or scapegoat. Among the additions included the goat being taken out some ten or more miles to a cliff and then pushed over to its death.            

The high priest of Israel

The high priest acted alone throughout the Day of Atonement. He was not without sin and thus the first sacrificial act was intended to atone for his own sins. The high priest alone worked—no one else did. This is an essential point embedded into the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement. All the nation received cleansing of sin through the work of one man—but for one year only.

            Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, this high priestly and completed work, cleanses God’s chosen people forever. The writer of Hebrews, a Jew writing for Jewish people, put it this way:

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 7:23-27     

The Day of Atonement after A.D. 70

The ceremonies of the Fast centered upon the high priest and the Holy place in the Temple in Jerusalem. In A.D. 70 that grand Temple was destroyed by a Roman army under the Roman general Titus, who would soon be emperor of Rome, The Day of Atonement is kept to this day by observant Jews in ways not found in Leviticus 16 or 23, although confession of sin, repentance, and contrition are still practiced. 

            The ceremonial Law could not procure forgiveness and salvation. The sacrifices had a limited effectiveness. The Temple with its altar would be lost along with the priesthood and all else that belonged to the sacrificial ministry. However, these were all meant to be temporary and designed to point to a greater reality.

The Azazel or Scapegoat

Jesus was crucified “outside the camp” on Golgotha Hill outside the walls of Jerusalem, with all the sins of God’s chosen people placed upon Him. He was sent away like the scapegoat; He died and was buried, exactly fulfilling the heart of Passover and Unleavened Bread. Then on Firstfruits He was raised from the dead. On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit whom Jesus sent to us to glorify this Son of God, reaped a harvest and fulfilled that fourth spring feast.

            The work of the high priest, Jesus the Messiah, has made possible the fulfilling of the Day of Atonement, which is partially fulfilled already—but there is more to come. The work of redemption has already been accomplished, as the writer of Hebrews pointed out nearly two thousand years ago:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:11-12

            Jesus, as high priest, did not sacrifice an animal and use that blood to cleanse the sanctuary as a way for God’s people to enter into His presence. No, the cleansing blood was His own, and upon His resurrection He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. God dwells in heaven, no longer in the Holy of Holies, and we can enter into His presence right now because of the high priestly work of Jesus. God’s people have access to His presence by prayer, and upon their death are raised to God’s presence to enjoy Him forever. Paradise, walking and talking with God, will be regained through the work of the Anointed One alone. 

Zechariah foretells a great day of redemption for Israel

Zechariah the prophet declared that the LORD would give salvation to Israel. The words of prophecy are found in chapter 12 verse 10:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

God will pour out upon Jewish people a spirit of grace, and their pleas for mercy will yield forgiveness. Indeed, Israel will once again, as a people, afflict themselves; they will mourn and weep bitterly as for the firstborn and only child.

            This dramatic and miraculous change of heart will come upon them after they “look on me.” This is the crux of it.

Who is the “me?” The only help in identification is “on him whom they have pierced.” But notice the “me” and the “him” are one and the same. The “me” is the LORD. And He will be “pierced,” a word usually meaning thrust through, with death as the result.   

How is it that the LORD could be pierced? This LORD is the LORD who, in Jesus, became flesh. This is Jesus the Messiah who was crucified, nailed to a tree, and having become a curse for His people, was punctured by a Roman spear. The eye witness to the crucifixion, John the Apostle, said: “But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water” (John 19:34). Between the nails in the hands and feet and the spear in the side, Jesus was indeed “pierced.”

How the Day of Atonement will be fulfilled

How will they look upon the one pierced? It is not evident in the text.

Jesus the Messiah is at the right hand of the Father in heaven and has been for the long interval between the spring and the fall holidays. But the Messiah will return, and those who are Israel will see Him, mourn for Him, and turn to Him as Messiah and Savior. These authors think that the Day of Atonement will be fulfilled when Paul’s end of the age prophecy comes to pass:

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

Romans 11:25-27

            A “partial hardening” did come upon Israel, not a complete hardening, since we do know that many Jewish people have trusted in Jesus as Messiah and Savior down through the centuries. Indeed, two of the authors of this book are Jewish.

            The partial hardening will end and yield to the salvation of all who are Israel, after those Gentiles chosen by God have also been saved. And so, the Day of Atonement will be fulfilled.

            Paul quotes two passages from Isaiah, first Isaiah 59:20-21 and then Isaiah 27:9, in support of his claim that all Israel will be saved. The Deliverer will come—this is none other than the return of Jesus, the conquering Messiah, the great King, coming to establish His kingdom. Jesus, having already borne our sin, like the sin of the Israelite was placed upon the Azazel, will save all those who look upon the One they pierced and mourn. These will recognize the pierced One as one of their own, even their firstborn as in Zechariah’s prophecy. This will be a saving lookand not a work on the part of the one who looks. It will be a resting in the completed work of the Messiah, His death, burial, and resurrection.

            Thinking again about Zechariah’s prophecy, chapter 12 verse 10, we find that Israel will “look on me,” and it is possible that the prophet had Numbers 21:4-9 in mind. The story is that a bronze snake was lifted up and those who were dying as a result of the poisonous bites of snakes were safe when they looked. “So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Numbers 21:9).

            At the return of Messiah Israel will look and be saved.

The Day of Atonement, Feast of Trumpets, and the Jubilee

Leviticus 25:8-12

You shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall give you forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of itself nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you. You may eat the produce of the field.

On a Day of Atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month, every fifty years, there was to be a Jubilee, transliterated yobhel from the Hebrew and meaning “ram,” or “ram’s horn.” The word Shofar appears in our passage as well, verse 9, and also was a ram’s horn. After seven sabbaths of years there would be the grand sabbatical year.

On the Day of Atonement every fifty years the Shofar was to be sounded and the year of Jubilee commenced. It meant that slaves went free, land returned to the original owners, and the fields were to lay fallow. It was a reminder that land, people, and produce of the fields belonged to God.

The Jubilee is of interest, because Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2 and this passage is filled with words and phrases very reminiscent of the Levitical Jubilee passage. At the outset of His ministry, at a synagogue in His home town of Nazareth, Jesus was given the scroll of Isaiah and read, as a part of the worship service:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to

the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the lord’s favor.”           

            Luke 4:18-19

This is likely Jubilee language from the prophet Isaiah, and Isaiah may have been referring to Leviticus 25:8-17. But that is not all. Jesus, after finishing the passage from Isaiah said, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21).

            Jesus identified with the Isaiah passage as being the One whom the Spirit of the Lord had anointed to proclaim the good news of freedom to the slaves. And the New Testament has running through it the message of the good news that Messiah Jesus sets people free from their bondage to sin. He does so by bearing sin, then taking it away in His death and being buried. Then in His resurrection and ascension glorified once again, being directly in the presence of the Father.  

            Jesus has fulfilled not only the Day of Atonement but also the grand Sabbath of them all, the Jubilee. Jesus is the One who brings the Sabbath rest of God. The associations and meaning are obvious and utterly captivating.

Warrant for an eschatological interpretation of the Day of Atonement

Although there are no explicit messianic interpretations of the Day of Atonement in the Hebrew Bible, there is evidence that the Day of Atonement attached itself to the eschatological expectations of the Old Testament saints. Daniel’s vision of the seventy weeks of years (Dan. 9:24-27) envisions a time at which sins would be finally and fully atoned for and when the Holy of Holies would be anointed. In context, this period of “seventy sevens” is not only Gabriel’s interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years (9:2), but the language used here is reminiscent of the description of the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-12). The Jubilee year was to occur every seven times seven years (forty-nine years). At that time, the ram’s horn was to be sounded in the seventh month on the Day of Atonement. At such a time (as previously stated) all debts were pardoned and every person would return to his ancestral possession in the Promised Land. Thus, this heavenly explanation of Jeremiah’s prophecy likely incorporates a messianic interpretation of the Year of Jubilee with its associated Day of Atonement. In the fullness of time for the people of Israel (seventy times seven years), God would bring about the ultimate pardon from all spiritual debts, a cleansing of the heavenly Holy of Holies (clearly an allusion to Leviticus 16), and the sealing up of all vision and prophecy through the coming of the Messiah.

Is there a biblical warrant?

Is it possible to state that Jesus completed, satisfied, and fulfilled, in His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost something for which  God had laid the foundation in the Jewish holidays and which mark the roadmap of world history?

            In the case of the Day of Atonement we know that Jesus, through His sacrifice on the cross, atoned for all the sin of God’s chosen people for all time. That had already happened on that Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits. The question is: Will He fulfill, at His return, the Day of Atonement for Israel according to the promise of Romans 11:25-26? And again, as with the Feast of Trumpets, there is a large clue in Colossians 2:16-17:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

---

[1] Some Jewish people think that by fasting they are making atonement for their sins. In fact, only the high priest could make that atonement: the Jewish people could only receive the finished work of the high priest.

[2] Vicarious means through the agency of another. The people of Israel entered into God’s presence by the agency of the high priest. The Israelites were considered present in the person of the high priest.