Fair Questions: Is the Mormon faith a Christian religion?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is famous in the United States, and probably in many other places.

There are many religious groups in the United States which claim to be rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and so it is not this claim that makes the faith of the nice young men and women who evangelize on college campuses so controversial or even an object of scorn for some folks.

Nor is it the practices that mainline Protestant or post-Reformation Christian groups in the United States find to be very weird (such as temple garments or baptism for the dead) that make it so controversial among Christians, though some do unfairly scorn the folks generally called Mormons for these practices.

What makes the friendly purveyors of the Book of Mormon (you can access it for free at the LDS website) significantly different from the typical Christian evangelist is precisely that they are offering "another Testament of Jesus Christ" to a majority-Christian public that has often believed that the New Testament was also the last testament.

When I was younger, I believed that this fact did not bear on the question of whether or not the Mormon faith was a Christian religion.  My understanding at the time was that anyone who believed in Jesus Christ was a member of a Christian religion.  And so, Mormons were one of the many religious groups I counted as a Christian religious group.

It wasn't until I researched the LDS website to learn more about their doctrines, and had studied more Christian history, and had become concerned about applying consistent standards to help mitigate my confirmation bias, that I realized that it was time to re-examine my view on this question.

To make sure that I was using a consistent standard, I asked myself:  What makes Christianity a new religion rather than just another Jewish religion?  What makes Islam a new religion rather than another Christian religion?

At the time, I thought that what made it pretty clear that Christianity was a new religion was that it had a revelation compiled in a text that was viewed as superseding the Tanakh.  Once you have a new revelation and a new authoritative text that supersedes the previous text, you have a new religion.

In the same way, Islam is clearly a new religion because it has a new revelation compiled in a text that was viewed as superseding the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Torah and the Gospels while preserving what was true in the texts.  While Jesus features in the Qur'an, it's abundantly clear that he is not the same figure described in the New Testament.

The implication of this standard is pretty clear for the Mormon faith: The new revelations handed down to us by Joseph Smith results in the Book of Mormon, which is viewed as superseding the Torah and the New Testament writings of Christianity.

The fact that Christianity and Judaism strongly influenced the Mormon faith doesn't really make a difference in this case.  Christianity was very strongly influenced by Judaism, but we know that Christianity is its own religion.  Islam was strongly influenced by both Judaism and Christianity (as well as Gnostic beliefs), but we know that Islam is not merely a different version of Christianity or Judaism.

The same applies with Buddhism: we know that Buddhism was heavily influenced by earlier Indian spiritual traditions, but we also know that Buddhism has its own distinctive revelation compiled in the Pāli Canon that supersedes the Vedas.  The same thing is true of the Jains and their sutras and their founder Mahāvīra.

In light of this, I was left with the uncomfortable conclusion that the Mormon faith isn't a Christian religion, that it's something new and distinct.  I changed my mind on the matter.

What I have not changed my mind about is the profound wrongness of anti-Mormon bigotry.  The way many Americans look down on or make fun of Mormons because of their uncommon beliefs or missionary activities or even sometimes because they think they're not true Christians is still wrong in my view.

Even if it's true that Mormons aren't Christians, we should still treat them with love.

By Joseph Smith, Jr. - Joseph Smith, Jr.. Image from The Library of Congress, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4280840

Fair Questions: Why are many Catholics in the U.S. so Protestant in their thinking?

This question was posed recently in a group I'm a part of, and I thought it was worth answering from my perspective because I'm a former Protestant who only very gradually became Catholic in his thinking.

One thing to note is that this is an issue that is not specific to Catholics.  Members of Eastern Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox congregations who grew up primarily in the U.S. often have the same struggle of trying to reconcile their deeply-ingrained and culturally-acquired assumptions that stem from Protestant thinking with the ancient Christian religious tradition which predates such thinking and is different from it at a paradigmatic level.

This is not even an issue that is specific to members of Christian groups.  Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, people who are part of various Indian traditions under the umbrella of Hinduism, and so on are often afflicted with this difficulty as well.  That said, I'm going to examine the situation of Christianity in particular.

We who were raised in America generally inherit a set of intuitions about the meaning of the word "worship" and the word "pray", the nature of human social hierarchies, the nature of our relationship with religion, the place of the Bible in Christian life, the nature of the Church, what it means to be a Christian, and so on.

Because the United States was heavily influenced by Protestant Christians in its culture, its theological language, its popular ecclesiology, its view of the Bible, and its view of human nature, these intuitions are often Protestant intuitions.

I wrote a fairly lengthy series about my own journey to re-examining and ultimately rejecting those intuitions, and that was not an easy process, given how basic many of them are to someone raised in the United States.

Hypocrisy and Truth - Necessity and Tradition - Scripture and Reason

For example, it took me quite a long time to shake the intuition that the Bible is the basis for Christian theological claims and truly understand that the Bible is a written record of early Christian theological claims.  I thought that the Bible was what gave Christianity the authority.  It turns out that Christian authority vested in the Church gave us the Bible.

It also took me many years to understand why my intuition that Mary's role as Queen of Heaven need not be emphasized was wrong, and to unpack the ways in which my American understanding of social hierarchy had unfairly prejudiced my view of the divine hierarchy.

I also had a defective understanding of my relationship to the Church.  I viewed the Church as something I could accept or reject on intellectual grounds, not as the Body of Christ in its earthly fullness to be loved as I love my own body, just as Christ loves the Church.

This intuition that turned out to be false isn't something I developed on my own.  I inherited it from an American culture that has largely agreed that attending churches is just a matter of individual preference in practice, even if in theory some of the congregations assent to the traditional ecclesiological view of the 1st-millennium Church that there is one true Church, and outside the one true Church of Christ there is no salvation.

In a similar way, there are many people in the United States who are raised Catholic and nonetheless take the typical post-Reformation view that leaving the Catholic Church to attend services with another congregation is just their personal choice.  It's not a schism or anything serious like that.  It's just a matter of doing what their conscience tells them.

And given this, it's not surprising that Americans don't see the Catholic Church as an authority to be obeyed, but rather an advisor on morality whose advice can be ignored, because the individual is the final arbiter of what is best for the individual.  The Church can't really be an authority over an individual, because the individual is the ultimate authority.

This American individualism is so deeply rooted in the psyche of most Americans that even the most traditional Catholics who strive for obedience to the Church can struggle with it, sometimes going so far as to set themselves against the Church for not living up to their individual standards.

While some might focus on the problem with Protestant theological language flattening the definitions of the words "pray" and "worship" (for good reasons), I am more concerned about the more deeply-rooted intuitions which make it easy for us to rationalize leaving the Church or rejecting Her teaching while still being attached to the Church for other reasons.

Intuitions like these are doing real damage to the Corpus Christi, as they motivate an increasing number to leave, many to dissent, and some to grumble against the Church for not doing more to strike against those who dissent.

Though it's interesting to consider how American culture tends to make even Catholics and members of other ancient religious groups accept intuitions at odds with how their religious traditions understand the world, it's mostly just sad to watch the Body of Christ breaking again.

Ut unum sint.

Related: The Protestant Intuition: Divine Gifts & Human Works

Note:  Above is a picture of Martin Luther's edited Bible translated into German.

Fair Questions: What are the Biblical alternatives to the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Recently, a friend of mine referred me to this article at the Christian Courier.  Like many other articles on the topic, it sets out to demonstrate that the most plausible reading of the Bible (specifically the Gospels) regarding Jesus' relatives is the one that upholds the claim that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were "out of the same womb" in the sense that Mary gave birth to them.

These articles generally take the stance that the Roman Catholic Church (sometimes they remember to include the Eastern churches as well) is wrong to claim that Mary was not sexually active after the birth of Christ just as she was not prior to the birth of Christ.  Also, they reject the suggestions of the ancient churches that those persons referred to as "brothers" or "sisters" as related to Jesus were either half-brothers and half-sisters from Joseph's previous marriage or cousins of Our Lord.

The article begins with a mention of an ossuary inscribed with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.", and I will come back to that shortly.  Immediately thereafter, the article veers off into a set of assertions about Christian history that would be laughable if they weren't supported by no less a luminary than Edward Gibbon, a famous historian who happened to be anti-Catholic in his views and polemical and speculative in many of his commentaries on the historical evidence.

I could get bogged down in the historiography, but in the spirit of ecumenical dialogue with my brothers and sisters who believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I will keep the discussion centered on Sacred Scripture and what we can learn from it.

Let's consider the ossuary again, the one which was discovered to bear an inscription reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus".  In the Bible, there are two Apostles which we call in the English-speaking world by the name "James" for various reasons.  One of them is referred to as the "Brother of the Lord" by Paul in Chapter 1 of the Letter to the Galatians.

We know from the Bible exactly who the fathers of both Apostles named James were.  One had a father named Zebedee, and the other a father named Alpheus (or perhaps Cleophas), which means that the explanation that either James was "out of the same womb" as Jesus would force us to come up with an explanation as to why Jesus' mother Mary was having kids fathered by someone other than Joseph.

In the spirit of charity, let's consider what possible explanations there might be for such a situation.

• Hypothetical A: Joseph died some number of years after Jesus was born and Mary then was taken in marriage by his relative (perhaps Alpheus), and then she bore more children by him.  
• Hypothetical B: Mary had several children by Joseph after Jesus' birth and they (including James) were later adopted by Alpheus because Joseph had died.
• Hypothetical C: James was the "Brother of the Lord" because Mary committed adultery with Alpheus while she was married to Joseph, though she may or may not have married him after the fact.

Hypothetical A is plausible, but there's no more Biblical evidence of it than the view that Mary was perpetually a virgin.  Hypothetical B is also plausible, but suffers from the same problem of missing Biblical evidence for it being true.

Hypothetical C is probably going to be an unappealing explanation for most committed Christians, but on its face isn't any less plausible than A and B.  And the lack of Biblical evidence for this view is still a problem.

On top of that, all of these hypotheticals make it extremely difficult to explain why Jesus felt it necessary to designate the Apostle John to care for his mother Mary as a son (see John Chapter 19).  If in fact Mary had given birth to other sons (including James) or she had been remarried after Joseph's death, there would be no good reason to do that, as she would already have a son and/or husband to rely on in Jesus' absence.

So unless these hypotheticals (or something very like them) are where we want to go, and we're willing to create some even less plausible non-Biblical explanation for Jesus charging the Apostle John with acting as a son to His mother, then the claim in the Christian Courier article that we must read "adelphos" as being "out of the same womb" in all cases is a dead letter.

Note:  The above is an icon of the Apostle James the Just, known as the "Brother of the Lord" in the ancient churches.

Catena Aurea: The First Lent

The Catena Aurea is a work of Biblical commentary compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas.  It contains the verses of the Gospels immediately followed by the most relevant commentaries of the Church Fathers upon that subject and/or that specific verse.  As I read the English translation commissioned by Cardinal John Henry Newman, I will be providing information about what the Catena Aurea contains regarding certain questions that are generally controversial or interesting to me.

*     *     *

The temptation of Jesus in the desert is briefly mentioned in the Gospel of Mark as set out in the Catena Aurea, and immediately follows His baptism.  Typically of Mark, whose Gospel is the shortest in length by far, he describes the events briefly, jumping from one key event in Christ's life to the next, as we see in this passage from the 1st chapter of Mark's Gospel:

9.  And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
10.  And straightaway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11.  And there came a voice from heaven, saying, 'Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'
12.  And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13.  And he was there in the wilderness 40 days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

So why did Jesus spend 40 days in the desert?  It seems like a rather arbitrary number, the same as the number of days in the season of Lent which is celebrated in honor of Christ's forty-day sojourn.

The Venerable Bede (672 AD - 735 AD), echoing some of St. John Chrysostom's thoughts, explains to us the general importance of Christ's temptation in the desert, and also the importance of the number 40:

Bede;  But He retires into the desert that He may teach us that, leaving the allurements of the world, and the company of the wicked, we should in all things obey the Divine commands.  He is left alone and tempted by the devil, that He might teach us, that all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; whence it follows, And he was in the wilderness forty days and forty nights, and was tempted of Satan.  But He was tempted forty days and forty nights, that He might shew us, that as long as we live here and serve God, whether prosperity smile upon us, which is meant by the day, or adversity smite us, which agrees with the figure of the night, at all times our adversary is at hand, who ceases not to trouble our way by temptations.  For the forty days and forty nights imply the whole time of this world, for the globe in which we are serving God is divided into four quarters.  Again, there are Ten Commandments, by observing which we fight against our enemy, but four times 10 are forty.

The Venerable Bede is working here within a very long tradition of Judaic numerical symbolism that recalls the salvation history of the people Israel, but that's not his primary focus.  He really wants us to draw the spiritual lesson from the Gospel.

Bede;  There follows, and he was with the wild beasts.  Consider also that Christ dwells among the wild beasts as man, but, as God, uses the ministry of Angels.  Thus, when in the solitude of a holy life we bear with unpolluted mind the bestial manners of men, we merit to have the ministry of Angels, by whom, when freed from the body, we shall be transferred to everlasting happiness.

Our Lenten journey is not merely a matter of punishing the flesh in a sort of masochistic ritual, but rather a drawing away from transient pleasures as we are drawing toward the divine life of love.

The next couple of verses in the Gospel of Mark also harbor a deep spiritual meaning, and draw us to think about Lent once again:

14.  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God.
15.  And saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the Gospel."

The words of Jesus here are the words spoken to me by the priest on Ash Wednesday as he makes the sign of the cross on my forehead with ashes: "Repent and believe the Gospel!"  We are reminded at the beginning of Lent of the purpose of the Lenten struggle, to prepare ourselves to believe and live out the Gospel message of Jesus Christ which follows upon our repentance.

Bede; Repent, therefore, and believe; that is, renounce dead works; for of what use is believing without good works?  The merit of good works does not, however, bring to faith, but faith begins, that good works may follow.

The Venerable Bede points out our repentance is demonstrated by the abandonment of our sinful works that lead to eternal death and the taking up of the works of righteousness, and he is careful to note, long before the Protestant Reformation, that good works are a fruit of faith, the supernatural virtue which is a gift from God, rather than a way of earning our way into Heaven.

He also explains over a thousand years in advance of Bart Ehrman's observations why the author of the Gospel of John didn't spend much time on describing the forty days in the desert.

Bede; Let no one, however, suppose that the putting of John in prison took place immediately after the forty days' temptation and the fast of the Lord; for whosoever reads the Gospel of John will find, that the Lord taught many things before the putting of John in prison, and also did many miracles.; for you have in this Gospel, This beginning of miracles did Jesus; and afterwards, for John was not yet cast into prison.  Now it is said, that when John read the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the text of the history, and affirmed that they had spoken truth, but said that they had composed the history of only one year after John was cast into prison, in which year also he suffered.  Passing over then the year of which the transactions had been published by the three others, he related the events of the former period, before John was cast into prison.  When therefore Mark had said that Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, he subjoins, saying, since the time is fulfilled, etc.

The Venerable Bede notes that the narratives in the various Gospels are compatible and indeed mutually reinforcing.  The Gospel of Matthew, for example, has more detail about Christ's sojourn into the desert where he was tempted by Satan.

And the commentaries of the Church Fathers on the Gospel of Matthew are likewise more detailed.  For example, St. John Chrysostom (347 AD - 437 AD) and St. Gregory the Great (540 AD - 604 AD) have interesting comments on the fasting which Christ underwent.

Chrys. But that you may learn how great a good is fasting, and what a mighty shield against the Deil, and that after baptism you ought to give attention to fasting and not to lusts, therefore Christ fasted, not Himself needing it, but teaching us by His example.

Greg.  The Creator of all things took no food whatever during forty days.  We also, at the season of Lent as much as in us lies afflict our flesh by abstinence.  The number forty is preserved, because the virtue of the decalogue is preserved in the books of the holy Gospel; and ten taken four times amounts to forty.  Or, because in this mortal body we consist of four elements by the delights of which we go against the Lord's precept received by the decalogue.  And as we transgress the decalogue through the lusts of this flesh, it is fitting that we afflict the flesh forty-fold.  Or, as by the Law we offer the tenth of our goods, so we strive to offer the tenth of our time.  And from the first Sunday of Lent to the rejoicing of the paschal festival is a space of six weeks, or forty-two days, subtracting from which the six Sundays which are not kept there remain thirty-six.  Now as the year consists of three hundred and sixty-five, by the affliction of these thirty-six we give the tenth of our year to God.

As we can see from these commentaries, the importance of fasting for Christians had not been forgotten by the Early Church.  Also, the Lenten Fast was well established in the first few centuries of Christianity, and was seen as an important part of taking up our cross and following Christ.  It was indeed the fulfillment of the Law of Moses as summed up in the Ten Commandments (or decalogue).

The First Lent, shown to us an example by Christ, is celebrated again and again by those of us who strive to follow Him, just as we celebrate His life, death, and resurrection each year in the liturgical cycle.

The First Lent - The Brothers of Jesus - Jesus Versus the Pharisees

Note:  The above is a picture of my copy of the Catena Aurea (Volume 2: St. Mark).

Catena Aurea: Conceived of the Holy Spirit

The Catena Aurea is a work of Biblical commentary compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas.  It contains the verses of the Gospels immediately followed by the most relevant commentaries of the Church Fathers upon that subject and/or that specific verse.  As I read the English translation commissioned by Cardinal John Henry Newman, I will be providing information about what the Catena Aurea contains regarding certain questions that are generally controversial or interesting to me.

*     *     *

The issue of the virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been debated endlessly for about 2,000 years and continues to be debated endlessly today.  I've read many arguments, both for the position that Mary could not possibly have been a virgin and for the position that she must have been.

Nonetheless, I'm interested to read what the Fathers of the first-millennium Church thought about these things.  In the Catena Aurea, some of their thoughts are compiled as a commentary on the following verse from the Gospel of Matthew:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

One of the things noted by more than one of the Fathers is that this way of describing Christ's conception is quite different from how the preceding genealogies described the conception of his ancestors.  For example, St. John Chrysostom and Remigius, a priest and monk of Auxerre who wrote Biblical commentaries based on the work of earlier Christian scholars:

Chrys. He announces that he is to relate the manner of generation, shewing therein that he is about to speak of some new thing; that you may not suppose when you hear mention of Mary's husband, that Christ was born by the law of nature.   Remig. Yet it might be referred to the foregoing in this way, The generation of Christ was, as I have related, thus, Abraham begat Isaac.

Here, Remigius and St. John Chrysostom observe that the Gospel writer does not simply use the default expression for the conception of Jesus: "X begat Y."  Instead of writing in the same well-known way he had just written many, many times for the genealogy of Christ, he writes of a great discovery.  Namely, that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So why, if Jesus was the Son of God, conceived of the Holy Spirit, did he need an earthly father?  Doesn't that detract from his uniqueness and suggest that Jesus was conceived by more standard sexual means?

St. Jerome and others were answering this question back in the 300s and earlier, well before Islamic thinkers who noticed that the Qur'an doesn't say anything about Joseph in the infancy narrative of Jesus might have pointed out the discrepancy between the texts of the Gospel and the Qur'an and been prompted to inquire as to why Joseph would be needed in God's plan of salvation.

Jerome; But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused?  First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary's family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt that she might have the comfort of a husband.  The Martyr Ignatius adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that his birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.

St. Peter Chrysologus adds that:

If you are not confounded when you hear of the birth of God, let not his conception disturb you, seeing the pure virginity of the mother removes all that might shock human reverence.  And what offence against our awe and reverence is there, when the Deity entered into union with purity that was always dear to Him, where an Angel is mediator, faith is bridesmaid, where chastity is the giving away, virtue the gift, conscience the judge, God the cause; where the conception is inviolateness, the birth virginity, and the mother a virgin.

The point made here by Chrysologus is a sound one: if one believes that the Son of God became a man, then how could one rationally object to the idea that he was born of a virgin?  Which is more implausible from the perspective of one who believes in miracles?

Chrysologus also points us to another concern, which is why the virginity of Mary is important in the grand scheme of salvation history in which God's only-begotten Son enters into the world.

Origen of Alexandria and St. Augustine of Hippo can help us with this concern.  Origen makes a distinction between being espoused (or bethrothed) and united in wedlock via sexual consummation of their union, which generally did not happen immediately upon betrothal.

Origen; She was indeed espoused to Joseph, but not united in wedlock; that is to say, His mother immaculate, His mother incorrupt, His mother pure. His mother! Whose mother? The mother of God, of the Only-Begotten, of the Lord, of the King, of the Maker of all things, and the Redeemer of all.

Aug.  There was no carnal knowledge in this wedlock, because in sinful flesh this could not be without carnal desire which came of sin, and which He would be without, who was to be without sin; and that hence He might teach us that all flesh which is born of sexual union is sinful flesh, seeing that Flesh alone was without sin, which was not so born.

St. Augustine points out that in order for Jesus Christ to be the sinless Son of God, the spotless Lamb who was sacrificed for us, he would need to enter the world in such a way as to avoid inheriting the stain of original sin.  And that in order for Christ's sinlessness to be made clear, he would need to be conceived in a different way than the normal way which was known to pass on the sinfulness inherited from the Fall.

But does that also make Mary someone special for having born Him in her womb and raised Him, or was she a mere fleshly vessel?  St. Cyril of Alexandria helps us to think it through with the mind of the Early Church.

Cyril; What will any one see in the Blessed Virgin more than in other mothers, if she be not the mother of God, but of Christ, or the Lord, as Nestorius says?  For it would not be absurd should any one please to name the mother of any anointed person, the mother of Christ.  Yet she alone and more than they is called the Holy Virgin, and the mother of Christ.  For she bare not a simple man as ye say, but rather the Word incarnate, and made man of God the Father.  But perhaps you say, Tell me, do you think the Virgin was made the mother of His divinity?  To this also we say, that the Word was born of the very substance of God Himself, and without beginning of time always coexisted with the Father.  But in these last times when He was made flesh, that is united to flesh, having a rational soul, He is said to be born of a woman after the flesh.  Yet is this sacrament in a manner brought out like to birth among us; for the mothers of earthly children impart to their nature that flesh that is to be perfected by degrees in the human form; but God sends the life into the animal.  But though these are mothers only of the earthly bodies, yet when they bear children, they are said to bear the whole animal, and not a part of it only.  Such do we see to have been done in the birth of Emmanuel; the Word of God was born of the substance of His Father; but because He took on Him flesh, making it His own, it is necessary to confess that he was born of a woman according to the flesh.  Where seeing He is truly God, how shall anyone doubt to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God?

Cyril was writing in response to the heresies of Nestorius, who denied that Mary was the bearer of Christ in both His divine and human natures.  Nestorius seemed inclined to take the view that Mary was bearer only of Christ's human nature.

Cyril argues that this is preposterous, because it doesn't match with how we understand the motherhood of anyone else.  Though God creates the soul of a person directly, we don't say that a person's mother is only mother of that person's body.  Indeed, the mother bears and bears with the child in its totality, body and soul as a united whole.

In the same way, the mother of Christ bore her son Jesus in His totality, humanity and divinity united in holiness.  Thus, Cyril concludes (as do many other early Church Fathers at the Council of Ephesus and prior) that Mary is indeed the Mother of God (Theotokos is Cyril's preferred term).

And thus was formalized what many Christians had understood intuitively before: that Mary is the Mother of God.  Though Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, was undoubtedly conceived of the Holy Spirit, at least according to the Early Church, the only-begotten Son of God was also undoubtedly born of a woman named Mary according to the Early Church.

The Curse of Jeconiah - The Two Fathers of Joseph - Conceived of the Holy Spirit

Note:  The above is a picture of my copy of the Catena Aurea (Volume 1: St. Matthew).

Catena Aurea: The Two Fathers of Joseph

The Catena Aurea is a work of Biblical commentary compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas.  It contains the verses of the Gospels immediately followed by the most relevant commentaries of the Church Fathers upon that subject and/or that specific verse.  As I read the English translation commissioned by Cardinal John Henry Newman, I will be providing information about what the Catena Aurea contains regarding certain questions that are generally controversial or interesting to me.

*     *     *

Today, it is popular to speak of the contradictions in the Bible as if there were obviously many of them.  One of the many things pointed to in the Bible as an embarrassing contradiction is the discrepancy between the the genealogical details of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

The above passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when compared to a passage from the Gospel of Luke below, looks like they are presenting completely different accounts of Jesus' genealogy.

23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, 25 son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, 26 son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, 27 son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, 28 son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, 29 son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, 30 son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, 31 son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David...

Though some of the names listed are the same, they are listed in different orders, and some of the names are quite different, as if they were describing two different branches of a family tree.  Or, as some have charged, two completely different family trees.

While family trees have multiple branches, and it's quite possible to show someone's ancestry going back to multiple figures by different routes, or even back to the same figures by different routes if a society (like the Jews) practices interarriage regularly, that doesn't explain why Joseph has two fathers.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph's father is listed as Jacob.  In the Gospel of Luke, his father is listed as Heli.  Aha!  A contradiction!  Many critics of the Gospels would charge it with the crime of contradiction, at any rate.

This is not a new modern-era criticism of the Gospels, as we see below in a passage from St. Jerome, a priest and monk of Bethlehem who lived from around 340 AD until 420 AD:

This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists.  Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli.  He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law.  For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother of near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman.  But of this matter Africanus the chronologist, and Eusebius of Cesarea, have disputed more fully.

Eusebius (born about 260 AD and dead prior to 341 AD) writes in Book I of his famous work Ecclesiastical History that:

For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca.  Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name.  As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son.  Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren.  One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son; whereupon also it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph.  But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him.  Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, And Jacob begot Joseph; Luke saying, Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi.  Nor could be have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word begetting throughout even to the end. ... Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to shew forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth's sake, have delivered it unto us.

As Eusebius notes, the language Luke uses is different, describing Joseph as son of Heli (or Eli as it is sometimes rendered) rather than as begotten by Heli, because he was begotten by Jacob though still Heli's son according to the Law.  And this makes a great deal of sense in a society in which part of the Law's purpose was to ensure family stability and justice in matters of inheritance.

This traditional Judaic distinction between being a man's son by the Law and a man's son by nature is one that any of us should be able to understand.  In the West today as in the past, adoption, step-fathers, and absent or dead biological fathers are quite common.  Many of us have adoptive fathers, step-fathers, or other male family members raising us who are no less our fathers than our biological fathers, and for whom we are indeed sons.

St. Augustine of Hippo, who lived at around the same time as St. Jerome, makes much the same point in De consensu evangelistarum (On the Harmony of the Evangelists):

He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born.  Wherefore Matthew, in saying Abraham begot Isaac, and continuing the same phrase down to Jacob begot Joseph, sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob.  Though even if Luke had used the word begotten, we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection.  ... And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ's ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin.  For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God.  But by descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that that Son of God was for us made man.  Luke sufficiently shews that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning.

In addition to making the distinction between fatherhood by nature and fatherhood by adoption, Augustine makes the point that sonship is and always has been more than sperm donorship.  Fatherhood is first and foremost a spiritual, affective, and formative reality which may include but does not reduce to being the mere biological forebear of the son.

Another great theological mind, St. John Chrysostom, in his homilies, notes another interesting choice of phrasing in the Gospel:

Having gone through all the ancestry, and ended in Joseph, he adds, The husband of Mary, thereby declaring that it was for her sake that he was included in the genealogy.

He observes that though Joseph's lineage is important, it is Mary to whom that lineage leads us, and then to Christ through her motherhood.  Joseph was her husband and an adoptive father to Jesus by the Law, and Christ's father who begat Him is our Father in Heaven.

Just as Joseph had two fathers, one by the natural means of begetting a child and another by familial adoption under the Law, Jesus also had two fathers, being the only-begotten Son of God by supernatural means and another by familial adoption under the Law.

The Curse of Jeconiah - The Two Fathers of Joseph - Conceived of the Holy Spirit

Note:  The above is a picture of my copy of the Catena Aurea (Volume 1: St. Matthew).

Catena Aurea: The Curse of Jeconiah

The Catena Aurea is a work of Biblical commentary compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas.  It contains the verses of the Gospels immediately followed by the most relevant commentaries of the Church Fathers upon that subject and/or that specific verse.  As I read the English translation commissioned by Cardinal John Henry Newman, I will be providing information about what the Catena Aurea contains regarding certain questions that are generally controversial or interesting to me.

*     *     *

The Curse of Jeconiah is a phrase commonly used to refer to the events described in the Book of Jeremiah the Prophet, Chapter 22.  In it, Jeremiah the Prophet proclaims God's judgment upon the wicked King.

The King is variously named Coniah, Jeconiah, Jechonias, Jeconias, or Jehoiachin, et cetera.  What he is called seems to depend on the translators and the era in which they did the translating.  Regardless, the important event here is the curse that is placed on him, and I am providing the relevant passage in context below as follows:

24 As I live, says the Lord, even if King Coniah son of Jehoiakim of Judah were the signet ring on my right hand, even from there I would tear you off 25 and give you into the hands of those who seek your life, into the hands of those of whom you are afraid, even into the hands of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and into the hands of the Chaldeans. 26 I will hurl you and the mother who bore you into another country, where you were not born, and there you shall die. 27 But they shall not return to the land to which they long to return.

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken pot,
    a vessel no one wants?
Why are he and his offspring hurled out
    and cast away in a land that they do not know?
29 O land, land, land,
    hear the word of the Lord!
30 Thus says the Lord:
Record this man as childless,
    a man who shall not succeed in his days;
for none of his offspring shall succeed
    in sitting on the throne of David,
    and ruling again in Judah.

As we can see, this is quite a serious curse for a King.  Not only will he be exiled from the land he should be ruling, but it is prophesied that none of his descendants would end up seated on the Davidic throne inherited from the great King David that was at the Jewish seat of government in Jerusalem.

Many years, ago, I was reading debates between Orthodox Jews and Messianic Jews regarding the Curse of Jeconiah and its implications for the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah the Jews were waiting for per the prophecies of the Tanakh.

Understandably, Orthodox Jews (or Jews today belonging to Conservative or Reform temples, for that matter) would see the curse placed on Jeconiah as a serious problem for Christian claims that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, given that the Messiah was to fulfill the Davidic Kingdom, and the genealogy provided in the Gospel of Matthew (written to be read by a Jewish audience) provides the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph's ancestors, one of whom is the accursed Jeconiah.

The relevant portion of the genealogy listed in Matthew verses 12-16 is written in the Catena Aurea as follows:

And after they were brought to Babylon,  Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob.  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The problem here can be stated simply: the Messiah must sit on the throne of Jerusalem, descendants of Jeconiah are barred by God from sitting on that throne, Jesus of Nazareth is a descendant of Jeconiah who was cursed by God, and therefore he cannot be the Messiah promised to the Jews by God.

There are a variety of answers to this problem, and they are readily available online on various Christian apologetics sites.  One of the answers commonly given is that the curse was lifted in the Book of Haggai (Chapter 2) when Jeconiah's grandson (listed above as Zorobabel) is chosen by God as part of the plan of salvation for the Jews.  Alternatively, if the curse applied to ALL of the descendants of Jeconiah rather than just his immediate offspring, why would God later choose Jeconiah's grandson to fulfill His divine plan?

Another answer commonly given is that while Joseph was indeed of the lineage of David through Jeconiah, he did not actually beget Jesus, but rather adopted Jesus because he was wed to Mary (who was also of the lineage of David through Nathan).  Thus, the Curse of Jeconiah would not have applied to Jesus because he was not the offspring of Jeconiah by birth, only by law.

In the Catena Aurea, St. Augustine of Hippo is quoted on this subject:

Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wrong might be done to the male sex, as the more worthy, provided only nothing was taken away from the truth; because Mary was of the seed of David.

St. Jerome is quoted answering those who question why Matthew would bother providing the genealogy of Joseph the adopted father of Jesus, if he wasn't the biological father:

The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does this genealogy traced down to him on order pertain to the Lord?  We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being of one stock.

As we can see, both law and birth were very important when considering parentage in the culture of the Jews and were legitimate topics to bring up, but the Curse of Jeconiah would not have applied to anyone who was his descendant by law only, goes the reasoning.  And this would especially be true when he was the descendant of David through the maternal line that did not contain Jeconiah.

In the Catena Aurea, there is another interesting point made by St. Ambrose of Milan:

Of whom Jeremiah speaks.  Write this man dethroned; for there shall not spring of his seed one sitting on the throne of David.  How is this said of the Prophet, that none of the seed of Jeconias should reign?  For if Christ reigned, and Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah, then has the Prophet spoken falsely.  But it is not there declared that there shall be none of the seed of Jeconiah, and so Christ is of his seed; and that Christ did reign, is not in contradiction to the prophecy; for he did not reign with worldly honors, as He said, My Kingdom is not of this world.

Here St. Ambrose makes the point that Jesus reigns in the heavenly Jerusalem rather than the earthly Jerusalem, and thus never sat on the throne of David referred to in Jeremiah's prophecy.  I'm not sure I agree with his argument, but it stood out to me for its uniqueness.

At any rate, there are a variety of good reasons to think, from a Christian perspective and perhaps even from a Jewish perspective, that the Curse of Jeconiah does not invalidate claims that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah awaited by the People Israel.

This doesn't settle, by itself, the question of whether or not Jesus was the Messiah.  I'm sure that the debate between Christians and Jews on that point will continue regardless.  Nonetheless, it is interesting to read the Church Fathers answering the exact same points 1500+ years ago that are still being brought up today.

Jeconiah may have lost the throne of David, but he has certainly not been lost to history thanks to these perennial religious debates.  Sadly, he lives on in history because he was cursed to lose everything that mattered to him. I'm not sure if that makes the curse better or worse.

The Curse of Jeconiah - The Two Fathers of Joseph - Conceived of the Holy Spirit

Note:  The above is a picture of my copy of the Catena Aurea (Volume 1: St. Matthew).

Fair Questions: What does the Qur'an say about unbelievers, Jews, and Christians?

Listen to the embedded podcast version of this post or read the written version below.



There are many references to unbelievers (sometimes rendered as infidels) in the Qur'an, and because some of them are in the same passages as the passages about Jesus or immediately following those passages, I would like to examine those first as an extension of my previous work on what the Qur'an says about Jesus.

Also, in previous passages it was made clear that Christians are understood to be unbelievers (kafir in Arabic) and Jews are understood to be covenant-breakers.  For that reason, I will begin where I left off in the "House of Imran" surah, with the passage immediately following the laying of God's curse upon the unbelievers who lie about God.

Say: 'People of the Book!  Come now to a word

common between us and you, that we serve

none but God, and that we associate not

aught with Him, and do not some of us take

others as Lords, apart from God.' And if

they turn their backs, say: 'Bear witness that

     we are Muslims.'

People of the Book!  Why do you dispute

concerning Abraham?  The Torah was not sent

down, neither the Gospel, but after him.  What,

     have you no reason?

Ha, you are the ones who dispute on what you

know; why then dispute you touching a matter

of which you know not anything?  God knows,

     and you know not.

No; Abraham in truth was not a Jew,

neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim

and one pure of faith; certainly he was never

     of the idolaters.

Surely the people standing closest to Abraham

are those who followed him, and this Prophet,

and those who believe, and God is the Protector

     of the believers.

There is a party of the People of the Book

yearn to make you go astray; yet none

they make to stray, except themselves, but

     they are not aware.

People of the Book!  Why do you disbelieve

in God's signs, which you yourselves witness?

People of the Book!  Why do you confound

the truth with vanity, and conceal the truth

     and that wittingly?

We see in this Quranic passage that there is a reiteration of the idea that Christians and Jews are lying about God, and doing so knowingly, that they disbelieve in God's clear signs.  We also see a very common assertion that the Prophets of old were actually Muslims and that Islam is a return to the pure monotheism of Abraham (Ibrāhīm in Arabic).

Those who kept to the Abrahamic monotheism or had returned to it were known as reverts (Ḥanīf in Arabic), and were generally respected by the early Islamic community for maintaining the ancient truth which had been corrupted by the Christians and the Jews.  Though the Christians and Jews feature frequently among those considered to be unbelievers, they aren't the only ones singled out.

In the surah called "The Cow" (Al-Baqara in Arabic), there's another group that gets mentioned during an admonition that follows a discourse about Moses and the Israelites who followed him out of Egypt and through the desert.  But I will begin with the first passages of that surah, "The Cow":

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

  That is the Book, wherein is no doubt,

     a guidance to the godfearing

who believe in the Unseen, and perform the prayer,

and expend of what We have provided them;

who believe in what has been sent down to thee

   and what has been sent down before thee,

     and have faith in the Hereafter;

  those are guidance from their Lord,

     those are the ones who prosper.

As for the unbelievers, alike it is to them

whether thou hast warned them or hast not warned them,

     they do not believe.

God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing,

     and on their eyes is a covering,

and there awaits them a mighty chastisement.

     And some men there are who say,

  'We believe in God and the Last Day';

     but they are not believers.

  They would trick God and the believers,

     and only themselves they deceive,

         and they are not aware.

     In their hearts is a sickness,

     and God has increased their sickness,

and there awaits them a painful chastisement

        for that they have cried lies.

  When it is said to them, 'Do not corruption in the land',

  they say, 'We are the only ones that put things right.'

     Truly, they are the workers of corruption

         but they are not aware.

When it is said to them, 'Believe as the people believe',

they say, 'Shall we believe, as fools believe?'

     Truly, they are the foolish ones,

        but they do not know.

When they meet those who believe, they say, 'We believe';

but when they go privily to their Satans, they say,

  'We are with you; we were only mocking.'

  God shall mock them, and shall lead them on

  blindly wandering in their insolence.

  Those are they that have bought error

     at the price of guidance,

  and their commerce has not profited them,

     and they are not right-guided.

"The Cow" is the first surah in the Qur'an after the opening prayer, and it starts with God speaking of believers and unbelievers, echoing some things that come up in other passages of the Qur'an about unbelievers being punished harshly.

In this surah, the Quranic narrative depicts a God who makes unbelievers remain in their belief, somewhat reminiscent of passages in the Tanakh regarding God hardening Pharaoh's heart.  The first set of unbelievers described in this passage are those claim to be believers, but are deluded about their being true believers and are lying about God.

Also, these unbelievers are depicted as publicly professing belief while privately mocking the true belief in the One God, and mocking those who submit to God alone (Muslims) as fools.

Shortly after in the surah "The Cow" it is made clear what awaits those who are unbelievers and the doubters.

And if you are in doubt concerning that We have

sent down on Our servant, then bring a sura

like it, and call your witnesses, apart from

     God, if you are truthful.

And if you do not--and you will not--then

fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones,

     prepared for unbelievers. 

Give thou good tidings to those who believe

and do deeds of righteousness, that for them

await gardens underneath which rivers flow;

whensoever they are provided with fruits therefrom

they shall say, 'This is that wherewithal

we were provided before'; and there

for them shall be spouses purified; therein

     they shall dwell forever.

As mentioned previously, the Fire is another term for Jahannam, the Islamic word for Hell.  That's where the unbelievers will be going, but the believers have a Paradise prepared for them, and within it they will have married love indefinitely and a restoration of the rich bounty of the Garden of Eden.

This paradise is referenced many times in the Qur'an, and the phrases used often use the word Garden in them or simply refer to them as The Garden (Al-Jannah in Arabic).  Shortly after this passage in "The Cow" surah, the topic shifts to the Garden of Eden and Adam's sin after being tempted by Satan.

And We said, 'Adam, dwell thou, and thy wife,

in the Garden, and eat thereof easefully

where you desire; but draw not nigh this tree,

     lest you be evildoers.'

Then Satan caused them to slip therefrom

and brought them out of that they were in;

and We said, 'Get you all down, each

of you an enemy of each; and in

the earth a sojourn shall be yours, and

     enjoyment for a time.

Thereafter Adam received certain words

from his Lord, and He turned towards him;

truly he turns, and is All-compassionate.

We said, 'Get you down out of it, all together;

yet there shall come to you guidance from Me,

and whosoever follows My guidance,

no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.

As for the unbelievers who cry lies to Our signs,

those shall be inhabitants of the Fire,

     therein dwelling forever.'

Children of Israel, remember My blessing

wherewith I blessed you, and fulfil My Covenant

and I shall fulfil your covenant; and have awe of Me.

And believe in that I have sent down, confirming

that which is with you, and be not the first

to disbelieve in it.  And sell not My signs

for a little price; and fear you Me.

And do not confound the truth with vanity,

and do not conceal the truth wittingly.

And perform the prayer, and pay the alms,

and bow with those that bow.  Will you bid

others to piety, and forget yourselves

while you recite the Book?  Do you not understand?

Seek you help in patience and prayer,

for grievous it is, save to the humble

who reckon that they shall meet their Lord

and that unto Him they are returning.

Children of Israel, remember My blessing

wherewith I blessed you, and that I

have preferred you above all beings;

and beware of a day when no soul for another

shall give satisfaction, and no intercession

shall be accepted from it, nor any counterpoise

be taken, neither shall they be helped.

The Quranic narrative about the loss of the Garden of Eden to which faithful Mulims will be restored at the end of all things is followed by a series of admonitions to the Jews that recognizes their status as God's chosen people and exhorts them to not break their covenant with God.  In other parts of the Qur'an, it is made very clear that the Jews have indeed broken the covenant and that this will have serious consequences for them.

The surah "The Cow" continues with the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, the Golden Calf idol, the manna and quails, and Moses striking the rock to bring forth water because of their complaints.  This is followed by another passage about the Jews and others.

And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them,

and they were laden with the burden of God's anger;

that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God

and slain the prophets unrightfully; that,

because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.

Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry,

and the Christians, and those Sabaeans,

whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works

righteousness--their wage awaits them with their Lord,

and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.

When the Qur'an mentions the Sabaeans or Sabians, it could be referring to a variety of different religious groups, and it's difficult to know for sure which group (or set of religious groups) it would mean.  They could have been Gnostics of some stripe or members of another Abrahamic faith.

What is more obvious is that the Quranic narratives repeatedly mention the disobedience of the Jews and their breaking of the covenant and killing of the prophets.  At the same time, it seems that the Qur'an is indicating that righteous people among the Jews, Christians, and Sabians have a reward awaiting them from God.

But that's not a wholehearted endorsement of those religious groups by any stretch of the imagination.  In the surah "The Table" (Al-Ma'ida in Arabic), Muslims are admonished:

O believers, take not Jews and Christians

as friends; they are friends of each other.

Whoso of you makes them his friends

is one of them.  God guides not the people

     of the evildoers.

Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickness

vying with one another to come to them,

saying, 'We fear lest a turn of fortune

should smite us.'  But it may be that God

will bring the victory, or some commandment

from Him, and then they will find themselves,

for that they kept secret within them,

     remorseful,

and the believers will say, 'What, are these

the ones who swore by God most earnest oaths

that they were with you?  Their works have failed;

     now they are the losers.

O believers, whosoever of you turns

from his religion, God will assuredly

bring a people He loves, and who love Him,

humble toward the believers, disdainful

towards the unbelievers, men who struggle

in the path of God, not fearing the reproach

of any reproacher.  That is God's bounty;

He gives it unto whom He will; and God is

     All-embracing, All-knowing.

Your friend is only God, and His Messenger,

and the believers who perform the prayer

and pay the alms, and bow them down.

Whoso makes God his friend, and His Messenger,

and the believers--the party of God,

     they are the victors.

O believers, take not as your friends those

of them, who were given the Book before you,

and the unbelievers, who take your religion

in mockery and as a sport; that is

because they are a people who have

     no understanding.

This passage in "The Table" surah continues on with an extended discourse about the Jews, and it might, at least in part, explain why there is a large portion of the Islamic world which believes that most Jews are evildoers.  There are obviously political reasons for anti-semitism in the Islamic world as well; it's not purely a matter of appeals to the Qur'an.

But it's still good to know what the Qur'an says about Jews and People of the Book more generally:

The Jews have said, 'God's hand is fettered.'

Fettered are their hands, and they are cursed

for what they have said.  Nay, but His hands

are outspread; He expends how He will.

And what has been sent down to thee from

thy Lord will surely increase many of them

in insolence and unbelief; and We have cast

between them enmity and hatred, till the Day

of Resurrection.  As often as they light

a fire for war, God will extinguish it.

They hasten about the earth, to do

corruption there; and God loves not the

     workers of corruption.

But had the People of the Book believed

and been godfearing, We would have acquitted

them of their evil deeds, and admitted them

to Gardens of Bliss.  Had they performed

the Torah and the Gospel, and what was

sent down to them from their Lord, they would

have eaten both what was above them, and

what was beneath their feet.  Some of them are

a just nation; but many of them--evil are

     the things they do.

This passage in "The Table" surah indicates that there is a reason for God punishing the People of the Book by increasing their unbelief, and the reason is their failure to follow the Torah and the Gospel (Al-Injil in Arabic) that God gave them as guidance.

The last part of this passage states that some of the People of the Book are righteous, and also that many of them are evildoers.  This may be a reflection of the fact that the Prophet Muhammad had both good relationships with some groups of Jews and quite literally embattled relationships with other groups of Jews.

There are further references to unbelievers, Sabians, and Christians, and Jews in the surah, "The Pilgrimage" (Al-Hajj in Arabic).  As in many passages in the Qur'an there is a strong emphasis on the quite different outcomes from believers and unbelievers.

God shall surely admit those who believe

and do righteous deeds into gardens

underneath which rivers flow; surely God does

     that He desires.

Whosoever thinks God will not help him

in the present world and the world to come,

let him stretch up a rope to heaven,

then let him sever it, and behold

whether his guile does away with what

     enrages him.

Even so We have sent it down as signs,

clear signs, and for that God guides

     whom He desires.

Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry,

the Sabaeans, the Christians, the Magians

and the idolaters--God shall distinguish

between them on the Day of Resurrection;

assuredly God is witness

     over everything.

Hast thou not seen how to God bow all who are in the heavens

     and all who are in earth,

the sun and the moon, the stars and the mountains,

     the trees and the beasts,

and many of mankind?  And many merit the chastisement;

     and whom God abases,

there is none to honour him.  God does whatsoever He will.

These are two disputants who have disputed

concerning their Lord.  As for the unbelievers,

for them garments of fire shall be cut,

and there shall be poured over their heads

     boiling water

whereby whatsoever is in their bellies

and their skins shall be melted; for them await

     hooked iron rods;

as often as they desire in their anguish

to come forth from it, they shall be restored

into it, and: 'Taste the chastisement

     of the burning!'

The visceral and graphic descriptions of the tortures of Jahannam remind me somewhat of one of the Buddha's discourses and various artistic depictions of hell dimensions in Buddhism.  As before, unbelievers, Christians, and Jews are mentioned in the same passages, making it difficult to deny that there is a meaningful connection between the fate of unbelievers and the People of the Book.

Islamic scholars have differing views about whether or not Christians and Jews are unbelievers.  There is no perfect consensus as to the answer to that question, though Christians and Jews have often been treated more leniently than other religious groups by Muslims who conquered their lands.

And this lack of consensus is a reflection of the various Quranic narratives that speak of Jews and Christians in sometimes more positive and sometimes quite negative terms, in one passage suggesting that they will be rewarded by God for their righteousness and belief, and in another suggesting that they are evildoers or unbelievers whose fate is the Fire.

Yet there are some things that are very clear in the Qur'an: unbelievers are destined for a torturous Hell, Jews are covenant-breakers and murderers of the holy prophets (many of whom are evildoers), and Christians who claim that Jesus is the Son God are unbelievers (which the overwhelming majority of them).  It's also clear that Muslims are called by God to befriend their fellow Muslims and avoid falling in with Christians and Jews who might cause them to stray from Islam.

These passages may be interpreted in various ways, through contextualization and cross-referencing the passages with various hadith, for example, because there really isn't a central magisterium that can adjudicate the different interpretations.  And as with most religious texts, the interpretation is usually made in light of our existing beliefs about morality and politics, so it's inevitable that some Muslims will prefer to emphasize the more negative passages about unbelievers, Christians, and Jews while other Muslims would prefer to emphasize other passages.

*     *     *

These are not the only references to unbelievers in the Qur'an, and if you want more information about those references and how unbelievers are viewed in Islam, I recommend both reading the Qur'an for yourself and reading the thoughts of Islamic commentators on it (from multiple interpretive traditions).

Note:  The above image is a Persian painting of Mary and the infant Jesus.

Unfair Questions: Is Islam a religion of peace or a religion of war?

This question is the question posed for a debate, one that sharply divided Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz, though they later reconnected and became friends and allies.  There is an excellent podcast introducing their collaboratively-written book on Sam Harris' website.  When they discuss their first meeting, they reference the debate that began their dialogue.

The question posed for debate at that event was: Is Islam a religion of peace or a religion of war?  Maajid Nawaz rightly thought this was not a very fair question, that it proposed a false dilemma between two poles while ignoring the immense space available to stand in between them.

It's not a simple thing to assess a religion (as distinct from the cultures in which it functions and the political and economic structures in those cultures) in such a way as to accurately answer the question of whether it is inherently a religion of war or a religion of peace in most cases.  Unless the religion in question is the cult of Ares the God of War or an explicitly pacifistic religion like Jainism, the answer to the question won't be completely obvious and easy to sort out.

And given the normal human capacity for acting in a way that ignores their explicit beliefs, it's entirely possible that even an explicitly pacifistic religion or a religion which worships a deity of war might have members which are extremely violent and extremely peaceful, respectively.  The line from belief to lifestyle is far from straight and smooth in many cases.  In light of these difficulties, how can we even begin to answer such a question?

Many Westerners who were shaped by some form of Protestant Christianity in their upbringing (of which I am one) and therefore shaped by the doctrine of sola scriptura, tend to want to look at the texts of a religious tradition first as a way of understanding it.  That's not a bad place to start: it tells us something important about the explicit beliefs of the religion, at least in cases in which the sacred text is meant to establish the explicit beliefs of the religion, which is sometimes the case and sometimes not the case.

I agree with Sam Harris that we can't ignore the role that specific religious beliefs play in shaping the behavior of religious adherents.  His opponents on what he and Nawaz call the "regressive left" cannot seem to believe that not at religious people are rank hypocrites, that there are many who sincerely try to live by the teachings of their religion as they understand them.  His fairly uncontroversial claim (uncontroversial to ISIS at least) that the violence of ISIS flows directly from the teachings of Islam is responded to by many of his fellow secularist liberals with charges that he is an anti-Muslim bigot.

Sam Harris just has a perfectly normal post-Christian Westerner's tendency to actually read the texts of a religion (in the case of Islam, the Quran and hadith) and enough respect for devoutly religious people to assume that they take them seriously.  And what happens when we use text analytics software to look at the primary texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that we find out that the Tanakh has far more violence in it than the Quran, and that the violence levels in the New Testament and the Quran are very close.

But this doesn't get us very far toward answering even the only somewhat useful question of which religion is a religion of war, because the literary forms just aren't comparable.  The Tanakh has a history of the building of the Israelite kingdom, and the Quran does not contain a set of books of comparable length about the building of the Islamic caliphate by Muhammed and his companions.  If it did, the references to violence in the Quran would be far higher, and I'm not sure which way it would come out.

So if we can't answer the question based on religious texts, can we look at the history of violence performed by the members of those religions?  Well, even if we suppose that we could agree upon a fair metric that took into account the age of those religions so that we could control for the length of time their adherents had to rack up a body count, how could we gather enough evidence to demonstrate that one religion was a religion of war and the other a religion of peace?  Do we really want to convict a religion of being more warlike on the basis of it having preserved more written records of its violent adherents?

Or do we want to assume that a lack of written records means that religion's adherents have been so successful in their violent acts that no records survived the unspeakable events?  Or in the other direction, that a lack of records of violent acts means that religion's adherents have been consistently peaceful?  Or do we stop looking at history and just look at what a religion's adherents are doing now as if that were necessarily a good indication of what the religion as a whole is about?

It is a far more difficult thing to answer the question of whether a religion is one of peace or one of war than either its friends or enemies would like to admit.  Its friends are inclined to say that it is peaceful regardless of the evidence, and its enemies are inclined to say that it is violent regardless of the evidence.  As someone who was glad to pray with my Muslim brothers, I count myself as a friend to Muslims.

Nonetheless, I don't think it is easy to claim that Islam is straightforwardly a religion of peace any more than I think it is easy to claim that my own religion is straightforwardly a religion of peace.  It is certainly the case that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are not interested in going to war and want to just live their lives without conquering their neighbors, though some of the ones who are so inclined seem to very serious about Islamic theology and practice.  That is also generally the case with members of my religion.

And unlike members of my religion, Muslims have a duty to support the formation of a global religious government.  In the letter from many Sunni scholars across the Muslim world condemning the actions of ISIS, it becomes clear that there is widespread agreement that all Muslims should help form the caliphate and establish it everywhere.  There are certainly differences of opinion about whether violence is the best way to establish the global caliphate, and thankfully the current consensus among Muslims seems to be that violence is not the best way to do so.

While there are certainly liberal Muslims who want to reform Islam and live in secular societies not dominated by Islamic sharia, it's fairly clear that mainstream Islam is, like most religions of the ancient world, not a religion that can be easily separated from political structures.  Many ancient religions, including Judaism which influenced Islam, were inextricably linked to a tribal or nationalistic political ideology, and Islam is no exception to this.

There is probably no good way to determine whether or not any particular religion is a religion of peace or a religion of war, but it's obviously the case that when religions become closely entangled with the state, it then becomes difficult to avoid the perception that it is the religion as much as the state which goes to war.  This has been true of all religions which become entangled with governments, not just Islam.

In the end, I have to agree with Maajid Nawaz that Islam is neither a religion of peace nor a religion of war; it's simply a religion, and it is the adherents of that religion who decide how their behavior is shaped by the doctrines of the religion.  Thankfully, the majority of Muslims have decided that it is not a religion of war and have acted accordingly, following their conscience and the teachings of Muhammed to a more peaceful destination.