The “Gospel” of Peter: A Rebuttal to Islamic Rejection of the Apostle Paul Doug Clark* Introduction In the December 2010 issue of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Yale professor Lamin Sanneh reviewed a new book on a very old and obscure subject: Sergius Bahira (Sanneh 2010). Few modern Christians have heard of Bahira, but they have a good excuse. This seventh-century Syrian Christian monk would have sunk unnoticed beneath the waves of history but for a meeting with a boy named Muhammad. Both Muslim and Middle Eastern Christian authorities accept the historicity of the meeting itself. What is disagreed is the nature of the conversation between the two men. Christians see it as an early polemic against Muhammad’s prophethood, while Muslims see it as precisely the opposite. According to Muslim tradition, Bahira saw the “seal of prophethood” between the shoulders of Muhammad (Ayoub 2007; Parrinder 1995, 164) More interesting than the review itself, however, is the background Sanneh provides on the development of a Christology in Islam. In the centuries leading up to Bahia and Muhammad, he says, Christians were consumed with protecting their faith against the assault of Greek philosophy. Muslim scholars, meanwhile, seized theological and doctrinal territory by re- historicizing the Old Testament and New Testament. (Or, from a Christian perspective, DE- historicizing the biblical accounts.) If the appearance of Jesus heralded a radical move of God to confront the Jews with his claims, then Islam would claim that the appearance of Muhammad heralded a radical move of God to confront all mankind with a message even more universal than that which Jesus brought. This could only be true if Jesus were detached from both the prophetic history that preceded him and the Christian faith that followed him. * Doug Clark is a semi-retired veteran of 37 years of missionary work in the Muslim world. He pastored one of the four earliest Muslim-background believer fellowships in Turkey, served 24 years as Assemblies of God area director for the Arab world, and completed his overseas work as a founding co-pastor of a church in Istanbul. His e- book Four-letter Word: A Brief History of Turks and Missionaries (private distribution) explores the 1400 years of Christian engagement with Turkish culture. International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 5 (2017) To accomplish the first objective, Old Testament references to the coming Messiah and his divine mission were re-historicized as fabrications by the Jews, who, according to Islam, resisted God’s true message—Islam—over the centuries between Adam and Jesus. To accomplish the second objective, New Testament references that conflicted with the Qur’anic view of Jesus were similarly re-historicized. They were mere fabrications by Christians who also were resisting the true message of Islam. The final blow to biblical Christology, then, was struck by discrediting the Apostle Paul as the premier interpreter of Christian faith and practice. Instead, Paul was declared to be a kind of first century theological “pirate,” hijacking the true message of Jesus the prophet of Islam and raising Jesus to “partnership” alongside God (the cardinal Islamic sin of shirk). Jesus was thus detached from Old Testament prophecy affirming his messiahship; from New Testament references to his teaching, miracles, and his ultimate sacrifice on the cross; and from Pauline interpretation of the eternal missio dei. All of which left the prophet Muhammad standing as the exemplar of true islam (submission to God), and the Qur’an as the sole complete and untampered revelation of God. To this day, as Sanneh points out, Islam has commanded the high ground in this strategic conflict. The world’s 2.2 billion Christians (Operation World 2011) may see Jesus as God Himself, come into this world clothed in flesh (however one’s theology interprets that event) as the perfect, sinless sacrifice for the sin, guilt, and shame of men and women in every culture through all time. But for the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims (Pew Foundation 2011), absolute faith in the Exalted Qur’an, in Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets, and in Islam as the divinely mandated deen (religion) is as axiomatic as saying the sun rises in the east. Islamic Objections to New Testament Christology The scriptures or traditions of one religion should not be used as criteria to judge the truth or errors of the other. (Ayoub 2007, 67) Islam has turned the Christology of the New Testament into a theological “free fire zone.” No Christian affirmation of Christ’s divinity or missio dei is allowed to raise its head unchallenged, and no Muslim is allowed to explore the territory with anything like scholarly dispassion. This is ground where Muhammad’s prophethood, the Qur’an’s eternality, and Islam’s 130 Clark, Missiological Reflection raison d’etre stand or fall. Accordingly, this paper will focus on the objections of four Muslim authors: Pakistani scholar Muhammad ‘Ata ur-Rahim, Lebanese professor Mahmoud Ayoub, Palestinian professor Tarif Khalidi, and Al Azhar University Sheik Muhammad Abu Zahra. Islamic Objections to the Gospels In Muslim thinking, the four canonical gospels are, at best, merely corrupted fragments of the original injil (gospel) that Jesus brought to his people. Generally, Islamic scholars fix on the following assertions: 1) The gospel of Jesus has been lost to history. Muhammad brought the Qur’an to his people, so Jesus too must have had a real, physical book. The multiplicity of gospels in existence today—canonical and extra-canonical—only proves that Jesus’ book has been lost. Ayoub expresses it well: [The Gospel=the single book that Jesus preached from=the Qur’an] is the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount and whatever is in the Gospel that can be isolated as the teaching of Jesus, but it is not the story of the life, ministry, and passion of Christ (Ayoub 2007, 12). 2) The gospels have been corrupted by in-fighting and theological disagreement among Christian sects. The early centuries of Christianity were full of struggle with Greek philosophy, hair-splitting interpretations of Christ’s nature, and bloody confrontation between pagan secular authorities and Christian faith. When Khalidi points out, “Islam was born amid many, often mutually hostile Christian communities” (Khalidi 2003, 7), he is only drawing attention to an uncomfortable but true fact of Christian history. 3) The gospels contain doctrines Jesus never taught (crucifixion, atonement, and especially tritheism). Khalidi observes: [Jesus] is the only prophet in the Qur’an who is deliberately made to distance himself from the doctrines that his community is said to hold of him. In answer to God, Jesus explicitly denies any responsibility for advocating tritheism” (Khalidi 2003, 12). 4) The gospels were written by men who did not know Jesus personally and who therefore were not reliable witnesses. “None of the gospels are written by people who personally saw and heard the events and words they describe” (Ur-Rahim 2000, 9). He continues, “The author of the [Gospel of John] should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was another man” (2000, 9). 131 International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 5 (2017) 5) The gospels are corruptions of a “proto-gospel” that Muslims know as the Qur’an, and Christian scholars know as “Q”. Quoting al-Azhar University sheik Abu Zahrah, Ayoub says: ‘Should we then understand that there actually was a true Gospel that was revealed to Jesus and which he preached as they [Christians] claim? . . . and that this Gospel must be considered as the foundation of his religion?’ He sees a possibility for this in the ‘Q’ document, which he renders into Arabic as al-qalb (the heart) (Abu Zahra 1965; Ayoub 2007, 225). 6) Jesus was a Sufi saint. Khalidi echoes many Muslim writers when he sees Jesus as a mystical, ascetic Sufi saint: “The Jesus of Islamic Sufism became a figure not easily distinguishable from the Jesus of the Gospels” (Khalidi 2003, 41). Islamic Objections to the Apostle Paul More pointedly, Muslim authorities revile the Apostle Paul. To them, he is the author of all the doctrines that distinguish Christians from Muslims: the Crucifixion as atonement; Jesus as the divine Son of God; and the Church as the earthly ‘body’ of Christ. Here, too, are specific points of interest for Muslim scholars: 1) Atonement, sin, and repentance versus the “guidance” of the Qur’an. Islam believes humans simply lack knowledge. Better guidance from God, and greater diligence on our part will rectify man’s shortcomings. Paul’s doctrine of human sinfulness strikes at the very heart of Islam. Ur-Rahim responds, The theory of redemption was Paul’s brainchild, a belief entirely unknown to Jesus and his disciples. It was based on a mistaken belief in ‘original sin’, the ‘crucifixion’, and the ‘resurrection’, none of which have any validity (Ur-Rahim 2000, 72). 2) Paul’s trinitarianism versus Qur’anic unitarianism. Muslim thinkers attribute trinitarianism (which they confuse with tri-theism) to the Apostle Paul. Al-Azhar sheik Abu Zahrah calls it “pagan tritheism” (Abu Zahra 1965; Ayoub 2007, 228). Yet ur-Rahim admits, “Paul never actually preached the divinity of Jesus, nor the doctrine of Trinity” (Ur-Rahim 2000, 69). And Abu Zahrah contradicts himself when he credits trinitarianism to Paul but then says, “the period of unitarianism, which went to [lasted until] the Council of Nicaea” (Abu Zahra 1965; Ayoub 2007, 228). 132 Clark, Missiological Reflection 3) The Church versus the Ummah of Islam. The Church is mentioned only once by our four Muslim authorities, but it is a critical issue. If Jesus instituted the Church, then the Ummah of Islam is excluded from God’s people. Ur-Rahim flatly declares: “The Church was not instituted by Jesus” (Ur-Rahim 2000, 225). 4) Paul abandoning Moses and Jesus. In Islamic tradition, Moses and Jesus are the two greatest prophets after Muhammad. Paul’s teaching, rather than being built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament revelation of Jesus, is a distortion of all that came before him. His assertion that he is a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” falls on deaf ears in the world of Muslim scholarship. “How is it possible for Paul to annul the law of Moses and Jesus?” asks Rashid Rida (Ayoub 2007, 218). Ur-Rahim concurs: “Paul rejected both the rewritten law of the Jews [rewritten by Jesus] and the original Law of Moses” (Ur-Rahim 2000, 71). 5) Paul versus Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas are the historical justification for Muslims to condemn trinitarianism. Barnabas is the leader of a Semitic Unitarian party, and Paul an unrestrained European Trinitarian. Ur-Rahim (2000, 73) summarizes as follows: Very soon after the disappearance of Jesus, there was a sharp disagreement, followed by a parting of the ways, between the true followers of Jesus and the enthusiastic followers of Paul, which in time was to develop into all-out war between what became the Unitarian church on the one hand, and the Trinitarian church on the other. 6) Paul as an unreliable authority. Finally, Paul’s apostolic authority is challenged. Quoting Al-Azhar sheik Abu Zahrah again, Ayoub (Ayoub 2007, 227) writes: Luke, who is our main source on the apostles, was himself neither a disciple of Christ nor a disciple of his disciples. Therefore, his claim for the apostleship of Paul or any of the other apostles cannot be accepted . . . Paul only called himself the apostle of Christ and not the apostle of God. Needed: A New Reference Point So where does this leave us? If Paul is a traitor to the true teaching of Christ, if he is the poisoned wellspring of trinitarianism, to what other source can the Christian faith appeal against Islam’s assaults? Pakistani scholar Sayyid Anwar Ali (Ayoub 2007, 204) honors Peter by calling him “Christ’s true vicegerent,” no mean title. Throughout the Synoptics, to a lesser extent in John, and across the early chapters of Acts, Peter’s influence is considerable. Additionally, he leaves 133 International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 5 (2017) behind two letters written to expatriate Jewish fellowships in Asia Minor (today the western half of the modern nation of Turkey). We will briefly note Peter’s relationship to Jesus and the other disciples. More important, though, are 1) his leadership of the early Christian community, and 2) the teaching he left behind in his two letters written near the end of his life. This corpus constitutes a genuine, albeit fragmentary, “gospel of Peter” that allows us to determine if he was indeed a “Semitic Unitarian.” The “Gospel” of Peter “None of the gospels are written by people who personally saw and heard the events and words they describe.” (Ur-Rahim 2000, 9) In Qur’anic terms, Peter is the most trustworthy (sahih) witness to the life and teachings of Jesus—an eyewitness. He was the first disciple Jesus called, the last one to have a private conversation with him, and one of the three disciples who constituted the innermost circle of Jesus’ followers. Scholars agree that Peter did not write a gospel with his own hand. Church history, however, credits Peter as the source of the Gospel of Mark, compiled as Mark traveled with Peter and heard his preaching. Ur-Rahim’s statement, however, raises doubts as to whether he ever actually read the gospel accounts he dismisses. 1. Peter’s Position Among the Disciples of Jesus. The preeminence of Peter among the twelve disciples of Jesus is beyond dispute. Just a few of the many references to his position among the disciples of Jesus will suffice. Peter is always mentioned first (Matt. 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:1). Jesus visits Peter’s house and heals Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38). When Jesus walks across the surface of a storm-tossed lake at night, he invites Peter to join him (Matt 14:29; Mark 6:45; John 6:16). Peter is first to call Jesus “Lord” and worship him. When Jesus asks the disciples, “But who do you say that I am?”1 Peter confidently answers: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). Before his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus takes Peter, James and John up a mountain for prayer. His appearance is “transformed,” Moses and Elijah appear on either side of him, and Peter blurts out, “Let’s make three shelters as memorials—one for you, one for Moses, and one 134 Clark, Missiological Reflection for Elijah.” In Jerusalem during Jesus’ final week, when Peter asks what will be the sign of the end of history, Jesus prophesies the end of Jewish semi-autonomy under the Romans. In the Upper Room, Jesus reveals that Peter will betray him (Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter rises to the defense of Jesus, slashing off the ear of the servant of the High Priest (Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50; John 18:10). True to Jesus’ prediction, Peter denies three times that he even knows Jesus (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71; Luke 22:57; John 18:26-27). Three days pass. The women who followed Jesus go to the tomb to anoint his body. There, an angel announces the resurrection, and says, “Go and tell his disciples, including Peter . . .” that Jesus is risen and will meet them in Galilee (Mark 16:7). When Peter and John run to the tomb, Peter peers inside and concludes the body has been stolen (Luke 24:24; John 20:3-7). Later in Galilee, Jesus restores Peter by eliciting a threefold confession of love that undoes Peter’s earlier three denials (John 21:15-17). And in a final walk together on the beach, Jesus reveals how Peter will die. When Peter, possibly out of jealousy, asks after Jesus’ plans for John, Jesus says it is none of Peter’s business. In a court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness is usually validated by four elements: substantial detail, agreement with other accounts, verifiability, and balance (the bad presented with the good). All four elements are present in the canonical gospel accounts of Peter’s story. 2. Peter’s Post-Resurrection Leadership As we move from the four canonical gospels into the Book of Acts, the Apostle Paul is most closely associated with the planting of churches across Asia Minor (today’s westernmost third of Turkey) and Greece. But Peter actually dominates Acts for most of the first fifteen chapters from Pentecost through the Council at Jerusalem. Peter at Pentecost Pentecost is a Jewish feast on the fiftieth day after Passover (the day after Jesus was crucified). Acts says the resurrected Jesus was continually appearing to his disciples over the forty days between Passover and Pentecost, thus placing the Ascension of Jesus one week before Pentecost.2 The disciples and other followers of Jesus were commanded to wait this one week in Jerusalem for the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). 135 International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 5 (2017) During the week of waiting (for the feast day itself, not for some “moment of readiness” in the disciples themselves), Peter conducts a vote to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26). The chosen replacement, Matthias, is never heard from again. Pentecost is a different story. As the Holy Spirit fills the 120 and enables them to speak at least fifteen different languages none of them has learned, the group apparently spills out into the street, mingling with the crowd below. This time, Peter is anointed by the Holy Spirit, not simply driven by a need to lead. His address to the largely Jewish and convert crowd below (assuming he finds a window or balcony in the Upper Room from which to be heard by the masses of people in the street) is prophetic:  What you hear is direct fulfillment of ancient prophecy;  The empowering of the Holy Spirit is now made available to men, women, boys and girls of every class, generation, and age to come;  The Jews enlisted the Gentiles to carry out the execution of Jesus on the cross;  In fulfillment of prophecy written 1000 years earlier by King David himself, God has raised his Holy One to life again;  Jesus is beyond doubt the long-awaited Messiah of Israel; and  All Israel must turn to Jesus in repentance, accept him as Savior and Lord, and be filled with the same Holy Spirit who is at work this day. In a sermon heard by more than 3000 people, Peter testifies to the divinity of Jesus, his relation as Son to God the Father, his redemptive death on the cross and resurrection three days later, his ability to save all who come to him in repentance, and to the separate and powerful work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of all who come to Jesus in faith (Acts 2:1-42). Each affirmation stands in contradiction to a foundational claim of Islam’s prophet and sacred book; none is the product of a canonical gospel writer or the Apostle Paul. Peter’s Miracles Ur-Rahim challenges the integrity of the canonical gospel writers when he says, “None of the Gospels are written by people who personally saw and heard the events and words which they describe” (Ur-Rahim 2000, 9). Ayoub, quoting Abu Zahra again, supports him: “The apostle to whom [a sacred book] is revealed . . . must prove his claim by miracles and unbroken 136 Clark, Missiological Reflection testimony. . . . [N]either the apostles nor the books attributed to them meet these essential conditions” (2007, 227). The “hadith” of the Christian Scriptures, however, contradicts Ayoub, ur-Rahim and Abu Zahra. Peter and the 3000 new followers of Jesus continue to meet in the temple as they have always done. At the gate of the temple one day, Peter commands a beggar “in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene” to get up and walk. The miracle brings 5000 more followers into the Church (Acts 3). For a brief time, the believers share all their possessions in common. A couple named Ananias and Sapphira sell a piece of property, but keep a portion of the proceeds and then tell Peter they have brought the entire amount as an offering. Peter first rebukes Ananias, then, some hours later, Sapphira—and both are struck dead by God for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). The anointing of the Holy Spirit is so heavy on Peter that his shadow passing over someone is sufficient for that person to be healed (Acts 5:12-16). Peter’s ministry increasingly includes the role of evangelist among his leadership responsibilities (Acts 10:32). Near the coastal city of Lydda, his prayer in the name of Jesus restores a man bedridden eight years, and then raises to life a woman named Dorcas who is dearly loved by all the believers (Acts 9). In these miracles, Peter invokes the name of Jesus as Healer and the source of life itself, the Holy Spirit as both the Spirit of Truth and the daily indwelling Spirit. Peter’s miracles exceed the number performed by any other apostle, including the Apostle Paul, again validating his leadership in the Church and the testimony of his “gospel.” Peter’s Leadership Before the Temple Authorities As mentioned earlier, the preaching and miracles that accompany Peter often take place in and around the temple precincts. There, the temple authorities arrest Peter and John in an attempt to stifle this new movement while they can. Peter’s accusation that the Jewish leaders colluded with the Romans to crucify Jesus is simply too dangerous to be left hanging in the air. In the subsequent interrogation of Peter and John by the Council, Peter again takes the lead in responding to the accusations laid against them:  Yes, he and John are guilty of praying for a cripple in the name of Jesus and seeing him healed; 137 International Journal of Pentecostal Missiology 5 (2017)  That same Jesus was crucified by the very men now sitting in judgment on Peter and John; and  No salvation remains for any Jew who rejects the work of Jesus on the cross (Acts 4:1- 22). Unable to devise a punishment for Peter and John that will not incite a riot among the people, the Council frees the two men. But some time later, as Peter’s mere shadow brings healing to those he passes by (and further swells the ranks of the followers of Jesus), the high priest and the Sadducees re-arrest Peter and the apostles and throw them in jail. After an angel of the Lord frees them in the night, “Peter and the apostles” (probably the remaining Ten) are all called a third time before the Council. This time the threats of the high priest fall on deaf ears as Peter declares, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29), thus drawing a line in the sand that will divide Jews and so-called “Messianic Jews” for centuries. Peter at Cornelius’ house Peter’s expanding ministry throughout Israel sets the stage for one of the most dramatic events of his career as pastor and leader among his people. It begins with Philip’s visit to Samaria, and culminates with Peter’s visit to the seacoast garrison town of Caesarea. One of the “other disciples,” Phillip, travels to Samaria. The Samaritan community has its own temple, its own Pentateuch, its own meta-story affirming Samaritan identity as distinct from their Jewish cousins. But Phillip’s proclamation of Jesus as Savior, together with his miracles of healing and deliverance, produce a response beyond expectation (Acts 8:1-13). News of “Phillip’s revival” reaches Jerusalem, and the apostles task Peter and John to check it out. Arriving in Samaria, they lay hands on the new believers and pray for the Holy Spirit to come upon them. Then, on their return to Jerusalem, they preach in Samaritan towns and villages that Peter almost certainly would have had cultural reservations about visiting had the Holy Spirit not obviously been at work in great power. The ensuing period between the Samaria awakening and the Council at Jerusalem is difficult to determine, but may be as long as several years. Certainly, between Pentecost (Acts 2) and the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), a period of at least ten years passes, during which the Messianic Church learns to embrace the Samaritan Church. Peter, meanwhile, continues to encourage the predominantly Messianic churches and believers, a path takes him once again to a 138