1. Did
Jesus Plan an Attempted Coup?
2. The
Image of Jesus in Deedat's Booklets
3. Did
Jesus Defend Himself at His Trial?
4. The
Theory that Jesus Survived the Cross
5. Wild
Statements in Deedat's Booklet
6. Gospel
Truths Deliberately Suppressed by Deedat
The Bible is an anvil on which many hammers have been broken, yet its
enemies never tire of attempting to make some impression on it. Ahmed Deedat of
the Islamic Propagation Centre in Durban made little headway with his booklet
"Was Christ Crucified?" even though over a hundred thousand copies
were eventually distributed, but instead of abandoning his project he has
published a new attack on the Christian faith in the form of his booklet
"Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?"
The whole theme of this publication is that Jesus was a man of weak
temperament and character who plotted an unsuccessful coup in Jerusalem and who
fortuitously survived the cross. This theory has no Biblical foundation and is
contradicted by the Qur'an which teaches that Jesus was never put on a cross
(Surah 4.157). It is promoted only by the Ahmadiyya cult of Pakistan which has
been declared a non-Muslim minority sect. Only Deedat knows why he continues to
espouse the cause of a discredited cult and why he advocates a theory that is
anathema to true Christians and Muslims alike.
In this booklet we shall set forth a refutation of Deedat's publication,
concentrating solely on the subject at hand without dealing with many issues in
his treatise where he goes off at a tangent or writes purely rhetorically.
Deedat constantly employs a theme in the early part of his booklet to the
effect that Jesus planned a coup during his last week in Jerusalem which
eventually had to be aborted. Under the heading 'An Aborted Coup' he says
"... his high hopes did not materialise. The whole performance fizzled out
like a damp squib..." (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p. 10). It
must come as a surprise to all Christians and Muslims to hear a new argument,
first conceived nearly twenty centuries after the event, that Jesus was
planning a political coup. For the one thing Jesus constantly avoided was any
involvement in the politics of his day. He refused to be drawn into debates on
the merits of paying taxes to the Roman oppressor (Luke 20. 19-26), withdrew
from the crowds when they wanted to make him a political leader (John 6.15),
and regularly taught his disciples not to be like those who sought political
power (Luke 22.25-27).
The Jews did everything they could to convince Pilate, the Roman governor,
that Jesus was advocating a revolt against Caesar (Luke 23.2) and yet even
Deedat, in an unguarded moment, is constrained to admit that this charge
"was absolutely false" (p.27). It is thus of great significance to
find that even Deedat acknowledges that Jesus "did not look like a Zealot,
a political agitator, a subversive person, a terrorist!" (p.27) and goes
on to say in his booklet:
His was a spiritual
kingdom, a ruler to rescue his nation from sin and formalism.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p.27).
It is therefore all the more remarkable to find him attempting to prove
elsewhere in his booklet that Jesus was indeed plotting a political coup to
deliver the Jews from their overlords. His comments on page 27 of his booklet
unwittingly pull the carpet right out from underneath his own thesis! He admits
that Jesus was not planning a revolution.
The theory is in any event absurd as appears from an analysis of some of
Deedat's arguments in its favour and we shall briefly consider these to prove
the point. We begin with his treatment of Jesus' statement just before his
arrest that those of his disciples who had no sword should sell their garments
and buy one (Luke 22.36). He interprets this to mean that Jesus was calling
them to arms and to prepare for a jihad a "holy" war, whatever that
might be. What followed on this statement of Jesus is of great significance.
His disciples said:
"Look, Lord,
here are two swords". And he said to them, "It is enough".
Luke 22.38
Two swords would hardly be "enough" to stage a revolution and it
is obvious that Jesus meant "enough of that", that is, your
misunderstanding of what I am saying. Nevertheless, because he is trying to
convince his readers that Jesus was planning a coup, he is at pains to argue
that two swords would have been enough to overthrow the whole Jewish hierarchy
in Israel and immediately thereafter their Roman overlords! As is to be
expected, his argument is hardly persuasive. He resorts to further flights of
fancy in suggesting that Jesus' disciples were "armed with sticks and
stones" (p.13) like some riotous mob. There is not a shred of evidence in
the Bible to support this claim, raised by Deedat purely to try and mitigate
the strange anomaly that Jesus would consider two swords sufficient to stage a
major revolt! At another place Deedat says:
The disciples of
Jesus always misunderstood him.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p.23).
The word "always" is in bold print in this quote in his booklet.
Once again Deedat has unwittingly contradicted himself for, if Jesus intended
that his disciples should arm themselves to the hilt as Deedat suggests, then
his disciples understood him perfectly, for this is precisely what they took
his statement to mean. But he is right in saying that the disciples regularly
misunderstood him - here as much as at any other time. We need to consider what
Jesus said just after saying that they should purchase swords to get a better
understanding of this matter. He said:
"For I tell
you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with
transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfillment".
Luke 22.37
The scripture he quotes is from Isaiah 53, a prophetic chapter written about
seven hundred years beforehand in which the prophet Isaiah foresaw the
suffering of the Messiah on behalf of his people in which he would make himself
an offering for sin (Isaiah 53.10). The whole verse from which Jesus quoted
reads as follows:
Therefore I will
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the
transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors.
Isaiah 53.12
Jesus plainly stated that this prophecy was about to be fulfilled in him and
its meaning is abundantly clear. He would "pour out his soul to
death" the following day on the cross and would be "numbered with the
transgressors" (he was duly crucified between two thieves - Luke 23.33).
Yet he would "bear the sin of many" as he atoned for the sins of the
world on the cross and would "make intercession for the
transgressors" (he prayed for his murderers from the cross - Luke 23.34).
Because of this gracious work God would grant him to "see the fruit of the
travail of his soul and be satisfied" (Isaiah 53.11) and would give him
"the spoil" of his victory - a clear prediction of his resurrection.
Deedat ignores the full statement of Jesus because it contradicts his
purpose, but it is surely clear that Jesus was anticipating his crucifixion,
death and resurrection as the Saviour of the world and was not planning a coup
as if he were a common upstart. The imminent events would take Jesus away from
his disciples, and his exhortations to buy purses, bags and swords was a
colloquial way of advising them to prepare to earn their own living once he had
gone.
Central to Deedat's theme of an abortive coup is the argument that the entry
of Jesus into Jerusalem a week earlier among a crowd of disciples hailing him
as the Messiah was a march on Jerusalem. He uses these exact words when he
says:
The march on
Jerusalem had fizzled out.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.21).
Under the heading 'March into Jerusalem' Deedat acknowledges that Jesus
expressly rode into the city seated on a donkey. Surely this was a most
unlikely vehicle of conveyance for a coup Jesus clearly chose it because
donkeys symbolise peace and docility, and he wished to show Jerusalem that he
was coming in peace and was fulfilling this promise of God recorded in another
prophecy centuries earlier:
Rejoice, greatly, O
daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to
you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass.
Zechariah 9.9
He came in humility and peace on a beast which symbolised his purpose.
"He shall command peace to the nations", the prophecy continues
(Zechariah 9.10). It is grossly absurd to suggest that Jesus was heading a
"march" or that he was instigating a violent "armed
struggle" as people would say today.
Deedat conveniently overlooks the fact that just as Jesus was about to be
arrested the same night his disciples cried out, "Lord, shall we strike
with the sword?" (Luke 22.49). One of them struck the servant of the high
priest and cut off his ear, but Jesus immediately rebuked him and healed the
man who had been injured. All the evidence shows that he was not planning a
destructive coup at all but was preparing for the supreme gesture of love he
was to exhibit to the world in his pending suffering and death on the cross for
the sins of men. In the same book quoted above we read that God once promised:
"I will remove
the guilt of this land in a single day".
Zechariah 3.9
That day had just arrived, and Jesus was making himself ready to
"secure an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9.12) by taking away the sins
of the world on that fateful Friday for which he had come.
The theory that Jesus was planning an abortive coup is a gross injury to his
gracious dignity and a shocking caricature which one does not expect from a man
who is supposed to believe that Jesus was one of the greatest men who ever
lived.
Deedat has never done military training and his ignorance in this field is
exposed on page 14 of his booklet where he suggests that Jesus took Peter,
James and John with him into the Garden of Gethsemane as an inner line of
defence with eight more guarding the gate. He boldly suggests that this was a
masterly tactic "that would bring credit to any officer out of 'Sandhurst'",
a "leading military academy in England" (p.14). A former officer in
the British Army once commented on this claim by saying to me 'that he had
never heard such things taught at Sandhurst! Deedat says of the eight disciples
that Jesus left at the gate:
He positions them
strategically at the entrance to the courtyard; armed to the hilt, as the
circumstances would allow.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.14).
He goes on to say that he took Peter, James and John, "these zealous
Zealots (the fighting Irishmen of their day)" (p.14), to prepare his inner
defense. This argument flounders on closer analysis. Peter, James and John were
peaceable fishermen from Galilee (Jesus had only one Zealot among his disciples
and 5 it was none of these three - Luke 6.15) and they were his closer circle
of disciples throughout his Ministry. On the occasion of his transfiguration
these same disciples alone went up the mountain with him while the rest mingled
with the crowds below (Matthew 17.1, 14-16). Likewise, when he raised the
daughter of Jairus from the dead, he again took the same three disciples with
him into the house (Luke 8.51). He often took these three disciples, Peter,
James and John, into his closest confidence on appropriate occasions and this
shows clearly that Jesus was not planning a masterly defence in Gethsemane when
he took them with him into the inner part of the garden. Rather, he was once
again seeking their close fellowship on yet another of those important
occasions when he desired only the intimate companionship of his closest
disciples. All this shows quite conclusively that there is no substance in the
argument that Jesus was planning a coup.
One of the strangest things about Deedat's booklet is the caricature he
presents of the person of Jesus Christ. Strange, indeed, because Muslims are
supposed to honour Jesus as the Messiah and as one of the greatest of God's
prophets. One or two statements in his booklet are considerably offensive to
Christians and must surely injure sincere Muslims who have learnt to respect
Jesus as a man of honour and dignity. It is hardly surprising that Deedat's
booklet was at one time declared "undesirable" by the Director of
Publications in South Africa (early in 1985). In one place he says:
Jesus had failed to
heed the warning of the Pharisees to curb the over exuberance of his disciples
(Luke 19.39). He had miscalculated. Now he must pay the price of failure.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?,p.10).
On another page he says that "Jesus had doubly miscalculated"
(p.19) in that he thought he could rely on his disciples to defend him and that
he would only have to deal with Jews. As if such allegations were not
sufficient to defame Jesus, he goes on to speak of the "hot and cold
blowings of Jesus" and fills up the measure of his slanders in saying:
It can be claimed
with justification that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was the "Most unfortunate of
all God's Messengers".
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.23).
We are sure that even Muslims must find such statements extremely offensive.
Christians do not hesitate to regard them as blasphemous. Nevertheless it is
not our desire to express emotional indignation but to show how fatuous
Deedat's claims are.
It requires only a cursory analysis of those last hours in the life of Jesus
before his crucifixion to see that there can be no substance at all in the
claim that Jesus had "miscalculated" or ever blew "hot and
cold". For the one thing that characterises everything Jesus said on the
last night he was with his disciples was a total awareness of all that was to
befall him and his willingness to undergo it.
He knew that Judas Iscariot would betray him (Mark 14.18 - he had known this
for a long time in fact as appears from John 6.64) and that Peter would deny
him three times (Matthew 26.34). He predicted that he would be apprehended and
that all his disciples would desert him (Mark 14.27). We just cannot find any
ground at all for Deedat's claim that Jesus hoped his disciples would fight for
him and that he had "miscalculated". For these passages show quite
plainly that Jesus had calculated exactly what was going to happen, for his
disciples all did precisely what he said they would do.
He constantly told them that last fateful night that he was about to be
parted from them (John 13.33, 14.3, 14.28, 16.5) and that they should not lose
heart for his sufferings would be entirely in accordance with all that had been
predicted in the prophecies of the former prophets (Luke 22.22). When the Jews
finally came to arrest him, far from preparing any kind of defence, he walked
straight into their hands. We read:
Then Jesus, knowing
all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you
seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus said to
them, "I am he". Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
John 18.4-5
Jesus came forward, knowing all that was to befall him. He knew that he was
about to be crucified and killed, but that he would rise on the third day, as
he had so often predicted in plain language (Matthew 17.22-23, 20.19, Luke
9.22, 18.31-33). In fact there was no need of a showdown with the Jews at all.
If Jesus had wanted to avoid arrest, all he needed to do was to leave Jerusalem.
Instead he went to the very place where he knew that Judas Iscariot would lead
the Jews to look for him (John 18.2) and when they came, he voluntarily gave
himself over to them. Furthermore he hardly needed the valiant efforts of
eleven disciples to defend him for he plainly testified that he could have
called on twelve legions of angels to help him if he had so wished (Matthew
26.53). Just one angel had the power to destroy whole cities and armies (2
Samuel 24.16, 2 Kings 19.35) and one shudders to think what twelve legions of
angels could have done to protect him.
There is just simply no substance in Deedat's claim that Jesus was plotting
and scheming and became a failure through his miscalculations. On the contrary
it is quite remarkable to see how he knew precisely what was to happen to him.
Far from being a "failure", he became the most successful man who
ever lived the only man who has ever raised himself from the dead to eternal
life and glory. Muhammad failed to conquer death and it brought his life to
nothing in Medina in 632 AD and holds him to this day in its grip. Jesus,
however, succeeded where Muhammad had failed. He is "our Saviour Christ
Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through
the gospel" (2 Timothy 1.10). He triumphed over death and ascended into
heaven where he ever lives and reigns. So much for Deedat's insult that he was
supposed to be the "most unfortunate" of all God's messengers. The
truth is that he was the greatest man who ever lived.
It has became apparent, and will become more so as we proceed, that Deedat's
booklet is nothing but a distortion of the Scriptures. He perverts the meaning
of texts which he feels can be tortured into serving his purpose and simply
suppresses others which refute his theories completely.
On page 28 of his booklet Deedat attempts to discredit the Gospel records of
Jesus' crucifixion further by contesting a prophecy in Isaiah 53.7 which
predicted that he would not open his mouth in his defence at his trial but
would be led to the cross "as a sheep before its shearers is dumb".
It is quite clear from the prophecy that this did not mean that Jesus would say
nothing at all once he was arrested but rather that he would not venture to
defend himself before his accusers. Deedat's whole argument depends on certain
statements made by Jesus which he attempts to draw out as defences made against
his accusers.
He attempts to ridicule Jesus by asking whether he spoke "with his
mouth closed" when he told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world
(John 18.36), when he called on one of the officers of the High Priest to
testify of anything he had said wrongly (John 18.23), and when he prayed to God
that, if possible, the cup of suffering he faced might be taken away from him
(Matthew 26.39).
It needs to be pointed out that NONE of these statements was made by Jesus
during his public trials before the Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas the high
priest, or before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. The first statement was
made to Pilate during private conversation in the praetorium; the second was
made during Jesus' appearance before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas,
which was not during his trial before the Sanhedrin as Deedat wrongly suggests
(p.28) - the trial only took place after this event in the house of Caiaphas as
the Gospels clearly show (John 18.24, Matthew 26.57); and the third was made in
the Garden of Gethsemane before Jesus was even arrested. The evidence brought
forth by Deedat is therefore totally irrelevant to the point and he proves
nothing at all. What does concern us is whether Jesus defended himself either
before the Sanhedrin in Caiaphas' house or during his public trial before
Pilate. It does not surprise us to find that Deedat overlooks what the Gospels
plainly have to say about these two official trials. After hearing the evidence
against Jesus before the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas put Jesus on terms to answer his
accusers and what transpired is of great importance:
And the high priest
stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men
testify against you?" But Jesus was silent.
Matthew
26.62-63
Instead of defending himself he promptly testified, in answer to the next
question, that he was indeed the Son of God - a testimony that prompted the
Sanhedrin to sentence him to death. The important point is that, in answer to
his accusers, we read plainly that Jesus was silent. Likewise we read that when
Pilate put much the same question to him the same thing transpired. He did not
open his mouth to say anything in his own defence.
But when he was
accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer. Then Pilate said to
him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But
he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor
wondered greatly.
Matthew
27.12-14
Deedat subtly conceals these incidents which tell us plainly that Jesus was
silent before the Sanhedrin when accused by the false witnesses that had been put
forward, and that he made no answer not even to a single charge - when accused
before Pilate. In his traditional fashion Deedat suppresses the evidences that
relate directly to the subject at hand and instead tries to draw arguments from
other occasions not relevant to the issues.
It is also interesting to find that exactly the same thing happened when
Jesus appeared before Herod, the Jewish king, before being sent back to Pilate.
When Herod saw
Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had
heard about him, ant he was hoping to see some sign done by him. So he
questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The chief priests and the
scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him.
Luke 23.8-10
Once again, when Jesus was accused, he made no answer. On every occasion
when he was actually on trial before the Sanhedrin, Herod or Pilate, he said
absolutely nothing in his own defence and so fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah
that he would not defend himself at his trial by opening his mouth to speak on
his own behalf. None of the statements quoted by Deedat was made while Jesus
was actually on trial and so yet another of his arguments falls entirely to the
ground.
We have never ceased to wonder why Ahmed Deedat continues to promote the
theory that Jesus was indeed crucified but came down alive from the cross. Our
amazement arises from two considerations. On the one hand, this idea is held to
only by the heretical Ahmadiyya sect in Islam and is denounced by all true
Christians and Muslims. On the other hand, this theory has been refuted time
and again and, whereas Deedat continues to promote it, he can offer no reply to
the arguments produced against it.
For example, on page 36 of his new booklet, he claims that when the
centurion watching over Jesus on the cross "saw that he was dead
already" (John 19.33), this means purely that he "surmised" that
Jesus had died and that there was nothing to verify his death. In a reply to
his earlier booklet 'Was Christ Crucified?', I showed quite plainly that the
centurion's observation was the best possible evidence that Jesus was already
dead. The centurion had to confirm before the Roman governor that the crucified
man was already dead and, if he was wrong, his own life was likely to be
forfeited. We read:
And Pilate wondered
if he were already dead; 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 body to Joseph.
Mark 15.44-45.
The Roman governor Pilate knew that if the
centurion confirmed his death, then it was sure, for in those days any soldier
who allowed a prisoner to escape would lose his own life in consequence.
When the Apostle Peter escaped from prison some time later in the city, the
sentries appointed to guard him were summarily executed (Acts 12.19). Again,
when another jailer supposed that Paul and Silas had escaped from prison as
well, "he drew his sword and was about to kill himself" (Acts 16.27),
until he discovered they had not. He preferred to die by suicide than by
execution. Death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape - what then
could the centurion expect if a man condemned to death had escaped because he
had made some careless and negligent observations? No one but the centurion
could have been such a reliable witness to the death of Jesus on the cross!
Although an emphatic refutation of Deedat's assumption that the soldiers
only "surmised" that Jesus was dead has thus been given, Deedat
continues to promote the same old argument. He casually overlooks the
conclusive evidence against his theory and just simply reproduces it. It is a
poor advocate who can only repeat his original arguments once these have been
thoroughly disproved by his opponent.
Not only did the centurion observe very conclusively that Jesus was dead but
one of the soldiers thrust a spear into his side - an act calculated to ensure
his death. One of the common Roman methods of killing people was to "put
them to the sword", that is, to thrust them through. This is precisely
what the soldier did to Jesus and, even if he had been in perfect health, he
could never have survived such a blow. Yet Deedat ridiculously suggests that
this death-dealing blow "came to the rescue" of Jesus and helped to
revive him by stirring up his blood so that "the circulation could regain
its rhythm" (p. 39). Surely not even the most gullible of his readers will
believe such absolute nonsense - that a death-blow, a spear-thrust through his
body, could help to revive him! When one has to resort to such absurdities, it
is clear that there is no merit in the argument.
A similar absurdity is set before the reader a few pages on in Deedat's
booklet where he is discussing the occasion when Mary Magdalene came to anoint
the body of Jesus shortly after his crucifixion:
In 3 days time, the
body would be fermenting from within - the body cells would be breaking up and
decomposing. If anybody rubs such a decaying body, it will fall to pieces.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.44).
This, too, is sheer scientific nonsense. Jesus had died late on the Friday
afternoon and it was only a day and two nights later, as Deedat admits on the
same page, that Mary Magdalene came to anoint his body. No body will "fall
to pieces" within such a short period. In bold letters Deedat adds that
Mary came alone to the tomb to supposedly help Jesus recover, yet in Matthew
28.1 and Luke 24.10 we discover that she was accompanied by at least two other
women, Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and that only to bring spices which
they had prepared according to the burial custom of the Jews. There is just no
substance in Deedat's arguments. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are
facts of history - the only fiction is his theory that Jesus supposedly
survived the cross and recovered.
We do not propose to go into the moving of the stone, whether Jesus tried to
show his disciples that he was not yet dead, or the subject of the Sign of
Jonah. Although all these subjects are treated in Deedat's booklet, we have
given a thorough answer to them in the second booklet in this series entitled
"What Indeed was the Sign of Jonah?" which readers may obtain from
our Fellowship free of charge.
Another argument once again repeated by Deedat that has often been refuted
is his suggestion that Jesus was reluctant to die. In refutations of his
previous booklet on the subject of the crucifixion I have shown clearly that
Jesus was only reluctant to be forsaken by his Father and be abandoned to the
realm of sin and the wickedness of sinful men. This fear reached its pitch in
the Garden the night before Jesus was crucified when the hour had come for him
to be handed over to sinful men (Matthew 26.45). Had he been reluctant to die,
this fear would only have reached its climax as he faced the cross the next day
but, after he had been strengthened the night before by an angel who ministered
to him (Luke 22.43), he faced death with remarkable fortitude. He calmly walked
forward, knowing all that was to befall him, as we have seen. He walked right
into a course that he knew must lead to his crucifixion and death.
He calmly took all the injuries heaped on him the following day and without
any sign of fear or protest give himself over to be crucified. As he was taken
out of Jerusalem he showed more concern for the women of the city and their
children than for himself (Luke 23.28) and on the cross cared only for those
around him and not for himself (John 19.26-27). Indeed, instead of finding that
he was reluctant to die, we discover in the Gospel narratives that he set his
face towards the cross and, although he had many opportunities to avoid it, he
did not seize them but went on, determined to redeem men from their sins.
Yet another of Deedat's arguments thus comes to nothing. We find him in
considerable confusion in another place when he says:
For God Almighty
will never allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) to be killed -
(Deuteronomy
18.20).
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p. 15).
There is no substance in the suggestion that God would not allow his
anointed one to be killed for there was a specific prediction in the prophecy
of the great prophet Daniel that the "anointed one shall be cut off, and
shall have nothing" (Daniel 9.26). It is in fact from the very use of the
word messiah in this text that the Jews came to call the awaited Saviour of the
world the "Messiah", and yet it is right in this text that we read
that this very Messiah would be cut off - a clear prediction of the crucifixion
and death of Jesus.
We are particularly intrigued to find that Deedat quotes Deuteronomy 18.20
as a reference to the coming "anointed one", the "Christ",
the Messiah, namely Jesus. In his booklet "What the Bible Says About
Mohammed" he labours to prove that the prophecy of a coming prophet in
Deuteronomy 18 is a reference to Muhammad, even though we have proved again and
again that it was an anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, namely Jesus.
(The Qur'an confirms that the only Messiah, the only "anointed one",
al-Masih, was Jesus - Surah 3.45). It is therefore most significant to find
Deedat making one of his occasional slips and conceding in the above quote from
his booklet that the prophecy relates to Jesus, the Messiah, and not to
Muhammad.
Perhaps the most absurd argument in the whole of Deedat's booklet is his
suggestion that God, in hearing Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, sent
his angel to strengthen him "in the hope that God will save him"
(p.35). He goes on to argue that God especially put it into the minds of the
soldiers that Jesus was already dead on the cross and says this was
"another step in God's plan of rescue" (p.36). The argument, thus, is
that after hours of scourging, beating, having thorns pressed into his head,
being forced to carry his cross, being crucified, succumbing into
unconsciousness in exhaustion at the point of death after hours of
indescribable agony, and enduring an awful sword thrust, God wonderfully
stepped in to "save" him by fooling everybody into thinking that
Jesus was already dead when he was really only at the point of death.
One struggles to find any logical progression of thought in this line of
reasoning. If it was God's intention to "save" Jesus, surely he would
have taken him away immediately, as the overwhelming majority of Muslims
believe. What sort of "comfort" or "strengthening" could
the angel have given if God's hand was only to be revealed after hours of
indescribable agony and torture to the point of death on the cross?
Firstly, such pain and suffering would have been unnecessary and God's
deliverance brought about only after a tragic delay. Secondly, it could have
been no comfort to Jesus to know that he faced the horrors of crucifixion only
to be delivered at the point of death. Furthermore, if Jesus was taken down
alive from the cross purely because he was so close to death that all thought
he was already dead, we cannot see how God "saved" him or even where
he intervened. This would have been nothing more than an accident caused by an
illusion.
The whole argument is obviously strained against the logical progression of
the events in the Gospels. The truth of the whole matter is that Jesus was
physically at the breaking point in contemplating suffering for sin. He had
just told his disciples that he was "exceedingly sorrowful - even unto
death" (Mark 14.34). God heard the prayer of Jesus and the angel gave him
strength to proceed and endure the cross and death and so fulfil his mission to
redeem sinners from sin, death and hell.
To save Jesus from dying while at the point of death after hours of agony on
the cross would have been an untimely and senselessly delayed delivers
accompanied by a lengthy period of painful recovery from the horrific ordeal.
To save him from death by raising him in glory and perfect health is sensible,
logical, and is in fact the genuine Biblical accent of the crucifixion.
We press on to Deedat's argument that Jesus disguised himself after
surviving the cross so that no one would recognize him, calling this "a
perfect masquerade!" (p 49). He suggests that when Jesus met two disciples
on the road to Emmaus the day he walked out of the tomb alive (Luke 24.15) he
conceiled his identity until he revealed it in breaking bread before them, and
then went away This is nothing bat an attempt to water down the incident in the
Bible which has a far more dramatic element. It will be useful to quote exactly
what happened:
When he was at
table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to
them. And their eyes were opened and they recognised him; and he vanished out
of their sight. They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within
us as he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?"
Luke 24.30-32.
The drama here unfolds rapidly. Suddenly their eyes are opened and he
vanishes out of their sight! If we look carefully at this passage we can see
what really happened when they recognised Jesus.
The Bible states that after his resurrection his body bore the nature that
all the righteous will bear in heaven He was able to transcend all earthly
limitations and could appear or vanish at will. He could suddenly appear in a
locked room (John 20.19) and could conceal or reveal himself at will.
So here, it was not Jesus who removed a "disguise". The text
plainly says "THEIR eyes were opened" Suddenly THEY were able to
perceive who he was. So likewise we read that the risen Jesus, in his eternal
body, was not only able to open men's eyes to perceive his true identity but
could even open their minds to perceive the meaning of God's revealed Word
(Luke 24.45).
Just as he suddenly appeared in the room (Luke 24.36), so he equally
suddenly vanished out of their sight. The dramatic character of the narratives
in Luke 24 cannot be explained away in rationalistic terms. The thrust of this
whole chapter is the resurrection of Jesus fromn the dead (cf 24.46) and it was
this remarkable event that led to such dramatic incidents
The whole theme of the narratives in the Gospels is the crucifixion, death
and resurrection of Jesus. It requires a good deal of word-twisting to argue
otherwise. An example is Deedat's suggestion that Jesus was laid in a
"big, roomy chamber" (p.79) All the Gospels teach plainly that this
was nothing but a tomb which had been especially hewn out of a rock by Joseph
of Arimathea as his own burialplace. In Matthew 27.60 we read that Joseph took
Jesus' body and "laid it in his own new tomb" (so also Mark 15.46,
Luke 23.53). In John 19.41-42 it is twice said Jesus was laid in a TOMB and
bound according to the BURIAL-CUSTOM of the Jews Deedat's attempts to torture
these accounts of a funeral into his own speculation that Jesus was placed in a
"big roomy camber" so that he might "recover" are a self
evident proof that there is no substance in his argument at all.
Lastly we shall consider his four statements on page 50 of his booklet where
he points out that many people testified on the day of resurrection that he was
ALIVE. The word is placed in capital letters, is underlined, and is accompanied
by an exclamation mark in each case. This purports to be an argument favouring
his theory that Jesus had not died on the cross but was still alive. We marvel
at such reasoning for the whole point of the resurrection from the dead, as set
out in the Gospels, is this very fact - that Jesus was raised ALIVE from the
dead. What, then, is Deedat trying to prove? The testimonies that Jesus was
alive are central to the whole ~ Christian belief that Jesus had risen from the
dead after being killed on the cross.
In his quote from Luke 24.4-5, Deedat only quotes the words of the angels to
Mary and the other women, "Why do you seek the living among the
dead?" He significantly omits these words which follow:
"Remember how
he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day
rise".
Like 24.6-7.
In these words we clearly find the angels speaking of Jesus being CRUCIFIED
and RISING ON THE THIRD DAY. Clearly they proclaimed that he was alive because
he had duly RISEN FROM THE DEAD. Much the same was said by the brethren at
Jerusalem to the disciples from Emmaus:
"The Lord has risen
indeed, and has appeared to of Simon".
Luke 24.34
The united testimony of all was that Jesus was alive because he was RISEN
INDEED. "He has risen" (Mark 16.6) was the universal testimony that
day. He had come alive from the dead and had conquered all the power of death.
He had made it possible for men to be raised with him to newness of life
(Romans 6.4) and to rise with him to eternal life in victory over death and sin
(1 Corinthians 15. 55-57). He had fulfilled his own declaration:
"I am the resurrection
and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live and
whoever lives and believes in me shall never die".
John 11.25
Deedat's whole argument is a pitiful caricature of the glorious event
described in the Gospels. Our brief treatment of his argument that Jesus came
down alive from the cross and somehow recovered proves conclusively that there
is nothing at all in what he says. The misleading arguments he presents lead us
to conclude that he fails to prove his cruci-"fiction" theory because
he comes from an "improper"-gation Centre!
One of the things that struck me again and again as I read through Deedat's
booklets was his unrestrained tendency to make wild statements devoid of good
sense and authority. It seems he trades on Muslim ignorance of the Bible and
simply hopes his readers will accept without question whatever he says. He
surely cannot be endeavouring to convince Christian readers who know their
Bible well and who can only marvel at his presumptuousness. To begin with, he
says in his booklet:
From the "call
to arms" in the upper-room, and the masterful deployment of forces at
Gethsemane and the blood-sweating prayer to the God of Mercy for help, it
appears that Jesus knew nothing about the contract for his crucifixion.
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.16)
The last statement, to the effect that Jesus knew nothing about his
crucifuxion is a fallacy set forth in bare defiance of overwhelming facts to
the contrary. Time and again Jesus told his disciples that he would be
crucified, killed, and rise again on the third day in statements like these:
"The Son of
man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests
and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised".
Luke 9.22
"Behold we are
going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief
priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the
Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the
third day".
Matthew
20.18-19
When he was duly raised from the dead he rebuked his disciples for not
believing all that he had told them as well as the prophecies of the former
prophets that he would be killed and rise on the third day (Luke 24.25-26,46).
On numerous other occasions he made it plain that this was the whole purpose of
his coming to earth. He told them he had come to lay down his life as a ransom
for many (Matthew 20.28), that his body would be broken and his blood shed for
the forgiveness of their sins (Matthew 26.26-28), that he would give up his
life that the world might live (John 6.51), and that he had power to lay down
his life and power to take it again (John 10.18). It is surely absurd to
suggest that Jesus knew nothing about his pending crucifixion. On the contrary,
as he faced this climactic moment on his life when, as the Saviour of the
world, he would redeem mankind and pave the way for many to enter eternal life,
he proclaimed "I have come for this hour" (John 12.27). So aware was
he of the fateful climax that awaited him that he constantly referred to it as
"my hour" (John 2.4) and "my time" (John 7.6). Of no other
man was it more truly said, "cometh the hour, cometh the man". The
hour for the salvation of the world had come, and God had sent the only man who
could achieve it, Jesus Christ.
Deedat makes a similar loose statement when he says that the title "Son
of God" in the Bible "is also another harmless expression in Jewish
theology" (p.25). On the contrary, just as Muslims hold to an austere
unitarianism which does not allow that it is possible for God to have a Son, so
the Jews of that time and to this day reject the concept completely. When the
high priest asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, as he had been reported as
making such a claim, Jesus answered, "I am" (Mark 14.62). If this was
a "harmless expression" as Deedat claims, the high priest would
hardly have taken exception to it, but he immediately cried out "he has
uttered blasphemy" (Matthew 26.65). When Jesus appeared before Pilate, the
Jews cried out:
"We have a
law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of
God".
John 19.7
Muslims to this day attempt to avoid this issue and allege that Christians
have turned the prophet Jesus into the Son of God. But the Jews could hardly
foist this claim on his followers when Jesus himself made this very confession
before them. "He has made himself the Son of God", they cried, and
this was why they condemned Jesus for blasphemy. Through his resurrection,
however, God gave assurance to all men that Jesus was indeed his own beloved
Son just as he had claimed (Romans 1.4).
Deedat makes a similar outlandish claim when he says that "any
Christian scholar will confirm" that the Gospels were only written
anything up to a number of centuries after the time of Jesus. It has been
generally accepted among all good Biblical scholars that the synoptic Gospels
(Matthew, Mark and Luke) were all written about 55-60 AD (less than thirty
years after Jesus' resurrection) and the Gospel of John up to 70 AD. Only the
most prejudiced "scholars" could suggest otherwise, and even hostile
Critics have accepted these dates. How could the Gospels have been written
centuries later when manuscript fragments dating as early as 120 AD still exist
and quotes from the Gospels are found in the writings of the early Christians
in the generation immediately succeeding the apostolic age?
Deedat makes a most unfortunate statement when he says in another place
"Salvation is cheap in Christianity" (p.61). We doubt whether Muslims
will consider Abraham's willingness to offer his son to God a "cheap"
sacrifice. Surely, then, there can be nothing cheap in the willingness of God
to give his own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. The Bible tells Christians
plainly, "you were bought with a price" Corinthians 6.20) - what a
price! - and the apostle can only speak in consequence of God's
"inexpressible gift" (2 Corinthians 9.15). There is no way to
possibly evaluate the price that was paid to save men from sin, death and hell.
Salvation in Christianity is the most expensive thing this world has ever seen
- the life of the only Son of the eternal God. In the same way no man can
obtain this salvation unless he commits his whole life to God through faith in
his Son, and surrenders his whole personality and character to his will.
Lastly, in one of his typically inaccurate charges, Deedat claims that the
story of the appearance of Jesus to his doubting disciple Thomas, as recorded
in John 20.24-29, is a "flagrant 'gospel fabrication'" (p.31), and
has the temerity to claim further:
Biblical scholars
are coming to the conclusion that the "doubting Thomas" episode is of
the same variety as that of the woman "caught in the act" - (John 8.
1-11), i.e., it is a fabrication!
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.76).
Most significantly Deedat does not tell us who these so-called
"Biblical scholars" are. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to
back up the claim that the story of Thomas's unwillingness to believe in the
risen Christ until he had seen him and his declaration on duly seeing him that
he was his Lord and his God, is a "fabrication". The story is found
extant in all the earliest manuscripts available to us without any variance in
reading, and the evidences therefore are unanimously in favour of its
authenticity. There is no support whatsoever for the speculation that this
story may have been invented.
Deedat seems to base his claim on the assumption that Jesus was not nailed
to the cross but only tied with ropes. He makes another really wild statement
when he says "contrary to common belief, Jesus was not nailed to the
cross" (p.31). Archaeological discoveries in the land of Palestine have
confirmed that Romans crucified victims by nailing them to their crosses (a
skeleton was found with a nail through both feet in recent years). Furthermore
it is the universal testimony of the prophecies to and historical records of
Jesus' crucifixion that he was nailed to his cross (Psalm 22.16, John 20.25,
Colossians 2.14). Deedat's argument is not only "contrary to common
belief" as he admits, but, like so many of his points, is also contrary to
the Scriptures, contrary to reliable historical records, contrary to
archaeological discoveries, contrary to the evidences, and, as all too often,
contrary to good sense. He cannot produce even an iota or a shred of evidence
to support his claim that Jesus was fastened to the cross with ropes and,
instead, has to resort to an unwarranted and thoroughly presumptuous attack on
the sound historical record that Jesus was nailed to the cross, once again
without any evidence whatsoever that this record is a "fabrication".
If there had been any merit at all in Deedat's attack on the Biblical record
of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, he would hardly
have had to resort to such ridiculous claims as those we have considered. They
indicate a fair measure of desperation in the critic as he battles against the
odds to prove an untenable thesis.
After all that has gone before it will not surprise our readers to find
Deedat deliberately expunging words from the Bible that do not suit his
purpose. On the day after Jesus' crucifixion the chief priests came to Pilate
and in Matthew 27.62-64 we find a request made by them that the tomb should be
sealed. It appears in Deedat's booklet as follows:
"Sir, we
remember that that deceiver said ... Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be
made secure until the third day, lest ... the LAST error shall be worse than
the FIRST (error)".
(Deedat,
Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.42).
Twice in the quotation one finds three innocuous-looking dots as though
something has been omitted because it is unimportant or irrelevant to the
issues. Deedat's argument is that the Jews had suddenly realised that Jesus
might still be alive and that they might have been "cheated" (p.42).
They supposedly went to Pilate to get him to seal the sepulchre so that he
could not escape and recover. Nevertheless, says Deedat, they were a day too
late and their "last" error was to allow some of Jesus' disciples an
opportunity "to render help to the wounded man" (p.43).
All that has happened here is that Deedat has had so forcibly expunge two
clauses in the quotation referred to, not because they are considered
unimportant, but because they refute his arguments completely and oblige the
reader to discover a totally different picture of what was really transpiring.
We shall record the whole quotation as it appears in a modern translation and
shall place in capital letters the words wrenched out by Deedat and replaced
with dots. The passage reads:
"Sir, we
remember how that impostor said, WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE, 'AFTER THREE DAYS I
WILL RISE AGAIN'. Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure until the
third day, lest HIS DISCIPLES GO AND STEAL HIM AWAY, AND TELL THE PEOPLE, 'HE
HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD', and the last fraud will be worse than the
first".
Matthew
27.62-64.
We see immediately that the Jews did not for one minute believe that Jesus
had come down alive from the cross. They went to Pilate, speaking of something
Jesus had said WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE. These words can only be interpreted to
mean that in their view Jesus WAS NO LONGER ALIVE. And they asked Pilate to
seal the tomb, not because they feared a wounded man might recover, but because
they feared his disciples would steal his body and proclaim that he HAD RISEN
FROM THE DEAD. This is the obvious and plain meaning of the passage.
It is quite clear why Deedat omitted the clauses in italics. They disprove
his theory completely. In fact we have found him regularly using this devious
tactic in his booklets against Christianity. He distorts the Scriptures by
wrenching some texts out of context which he feels can be tortured and
perverted into serving his ends, and then casually ignores others completely
which thoroughly discount his theories. Only in this case he has done this with
just one passage, twisting some of its words to try and prove that the Jews
thought Jesus was still alive, and expunging others which immediately show that
this was not what was in their minds at all.
Surely any sincere Muslim can see that the whole theme of his booklet on the
crucifixion is a contortion of the truth and that he has constantly warped the
clear statements in the Gospels which testify unambiguously to the fact of the
crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We might add that this is not the first time that we have come across
publications published by Deedat's Centre where quotations from other writings
are so mistreated. We would advise all readers to treat such quotations, where
words are deleted and are simply replaced by three dots, with extreme caution.
Invariably what is left has been twisted into yielding an interpretation that
the whole quotation could not possibly yield.
The Jews had remembered Jesus' oft-repeated prophecy that he would rise from
the dead after three days and they wanted to prevent any possible fulfilment of
this prophecy - whether actual through his resurrection or contrived through
the actions of his disciples. There is no warrant for Deedat's claim that the
"Jews doubted his death" and that they "suspected that he had
escaped death on the cross" (p. 79). The words omitted by him in the
quotation on page 42 of his booklet show quite plainly that they were satisfied
that he was indeed dead, but that they did not want his disciples to claim that
he had been raised to life again.
Christians do not object to sincere critical analyses of their scriptures
and convictions. In fact we welcome them in a way because they challenge us to
be sure of what we believe and no true Christian would want to believe things
that could not withstand critical analysis. We do sincerely take offence,
however, at publications like Deedat's "Crucifixion or
Cruci-Fiction?" which do nothing but pervert and distort the evidences for
our faith and which are calculated to injure our feelings. We are persuaded
that most Muslims would feel the same way about any Christian publication that
distorted Islam the way Deedat degrades Christianity.
We are comforted to find that there are many Muslims in South Africa who
have expressed their keen disapproval of such publications. A local Muslim
magazine recently had this to say of Deedat's methods:
It is a well known
fact throughout South Africa, even among Christian evangelical circles, that in
so far as Mr. Ahmed Deedat in particular is concerned, the Muslim community of
South Africa as a whole is not in total agreement with his method of
propagating Islam. The Muslim Digest itself provides ample testimony for having
been reluctantly compelled over the years to condemn in no uncertain terms the
method of Mr. Deedat's propagation of Islam, especially amongst Christians. No
less has Mr. Deedat been condemned by responsible Muslim religious bodies and
individuals for the manner in which he propagates Islam that results in
ill-will being generated against Muslims.
(the Muslim
Digest, Jul/Aug/Sept, 1984)
We shall close with a brief consideration of Deedat's argument that, if it
can be proved that Jesus did not die on the cross, this proves he was not
crucified at all. We have, in earlier publications, shown that such an obtruse
argument arises from a predicament Deedat inflicts on himself with his theory
that Jesus survived the cross For the Qur'an plainly states that Jesus was
"neither crucified nor killed" (Surah 4.157) and the overwhelming
majority of Muslims throughout the world take this (obviously, in our view) to
mean that Jesus was never put on the cross at all. I held a symposium with
Deedat in Benoni on the subject "Was Christ Crucified?" in 1975 and
the local newspaper thereafter summed up his argument perfectly by saying,
"He was crucified, but did not die, he argued" As there are a number
of discerning Muslims who have seen that his whole theory debases not only what
the Bible says but also what the Qur'an says about the crucifixion, he is now
trying to extricate himself from this predicament in which he has placed
himself.
He therefore argues that "to crucify" means to "kill on a
cross" and says that if a man survived the cross, this means he was never
crucified. He shows that in English "to electrocute" means to kill by
an electric bolt and that "to hang" means to kill by hanging.
Therefore he says that in English "to crucify" must also mean to
"kill on a cross" and claims that he cannot be held responsible for a
deficiency in the English language which does not have alternative words for an
attempted crucifixion, electrocution or hanging.
In saying this be misses the point completely. The narratives of the
crucifixion in the Bible were originally written in Greek and more than a
thousand years were to pass before they would ever be translated into English.
The important point is not what "to crucify" might mean in Deedat's
understanding of English but what it meant in Greek when the Gospels were first
written. One quotation will suffice to show that "to crucify" in
Biblical times meant simply "to impale on a cross". The Apostle Peter
once declared to a Jewish multitude:
"This Jesus,
delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you
crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men"
Acts 2.23
The verse clearly reads you crucified and killed, meaning obviously,
"you impaled him on a cross and you killed him there" Therefore it is
absurd to suggest that if a man was not actually killed on cross, this means he
was never crucified. If "to crucify" only eant to kill on a cross,
Peter would just have said "you crucified him", but by adding
"and killed", he shows plainly that "to crucify" meant
simply to impale on a cross. Deedat remains in th predicament of advocating that
Jesus was indeed crucified but did not die - a theory repugnant to true
Christians and Muslims alike.
One struggles to follow the reasoning behind Deedat's line of approach. He
seems to think that if he can prove that Jesus did not die on the cross, this
proves that the Qur'an is true when it says he was not killed by the Jews. But
how can the point possibly stand when the whole argument of necessity concedes
the other thing the Qur'an denies - the actual crucifixion of Jesus? There just
does not seem to be any logic in his argument at all.
For many years Ahmed Deedat has been promoting
a theory that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified but was taken down alive from
the cross. This theory was first promoted in his booklet "Was Christ
Crucified?" and has recently been perpetuated in his new booklet
"Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?" We have often remarked that Mr.
Deedat has been promoting a Qadiani theory, approved only by the Ahmadiyya
Movement which has been declared a non-Muslim minority sect in Pakistan. His
theory must be deplored by true Christians and Muslims alike. Readers will be
interested to know that the same opinion has been expressed by MOHAMMED BANA of
Durban. He says of Deedats theory:
Mr. Deedat is fond
of making lectures about other denominations but very seldom on Islam. He seems
to have a fixed notion about Prophet Jesus' Crucifixion Theory. In his lectures
he hardly gave the Islamic viewpoint or seldom the Christian viewpoint, thus
confusing his audience. I believe he likes to make the Qadiyanis of this
country very happy by mostly giving their viewpoint that Jesus after being put
on the cross, swooned. Now why should Mr Deedat tell his audience that Jesus
was put on the cross and he swooned because nowhere the Qur'an speaks that
Jesus was put on the cross and he swooned. Mr. Deedat is the only person who
can tell us whether he is preachhig either the Christian doctrine, the Muslim
doctrine or the Qadiani doctrine?"
[MOHAMMED BANA,
"Allegations Confirmed", p. 3]
Mohammed Bana has rightly
endorsed our complaint that the crucifixion booklets published by Mr. Deedat
are contrary to the teaching of both the Bible and the Qur'an and should be
rejected by Christians and Muslims alike.