In this article we can now discuss the famous "Paraclete"
of the Fourth Gospel. Jesus Christ, like John the
Baptist, announced the advent of the Kingdom of God, invited the people to repentance, and baptized them for the
remission of their sins. He honorably accomplished his
mission, and faithfully delivered the message of God to the
people of Israel. He was not himself the founder of the
Kingdom of God, but only its herald, and that is why he
wrote nothing and authorized no one to write the Holy
Gospel that was inscribed in his mind. He revealed the
Gospel which meant the "good news" concerning the "Kingdom of God" and the "Pereiklitos" to his followers, not in
writing, but in oral discourses, and in public sermons. These
discourses sermons, and parables were transmitted by those
who had heard them to those who had not. Later on it was
that the sayings and teachings of the Master were reduced
to writing. Jesus was no longer the Rabbi, but the Logos
- the Divine Word; no longer the Forerunner of the Paraclete but his very Lord and Superior. His pure and true
words were adulterated and mixed with myth and legend.
For a time he was expected at any moment to come down
from the clouds with legions of angels. The Apostles had
all passed away; the second coming of Jesus Christ was
delayed. His person and doctrine gave rise to a variety of
religious and philosophical speculations. Sects succeeded
one another; Gospels and Epistles under different names and
titles appeared in many centers; and a multitude of the
Christian scholars and apologists combated and criticized
each other's theory. If there had been written a Gospel
during the lifetime of Jesus, or even a book authorized by
the College of the Apostles, the teachings of the Prophet of
Nazareth would have preserved their purity and integrity
until the appearance of the Periqlit - Ahmad. But such
was not the case. Each writer took a different view about
the Master and his religion, and described him in his book
- which he named Gospel or Epistle - according to his
own imagination. The high-soaring flight of thought concerning the Word; the prophecy about the Periqlit;
the inexplicable discourse of Jesus upon his flesh and blood;
and a series of several miracles, events, and sayings recorded in the Fourth Gospel were unknown to the Synoptics
and consequently to a great majority of the Christians who
had not seen it at least for a couple of centuries.
The Fourth Gospel, too, like every other book of the
New Testament, was written in Greek and not in Aramaic,
which was the mother-tongue of Jesus and his disciples.
Consequently, we are again confronted with the same
difficulty which we met with when we were discussing the
"Eudokia" of St. Luke, namely: What word or name was
it that Jesus used in his native tongue to express that which
the Fourth Gospel has translated as "the Paraclete" and
which has been converted into "comforter" in all the versions of that Gospel?
Before discussing the etymology and the true signification of this unclassical or rather corrupt form of the Paraclete it is necessary to make a brief observation upon one
particular feature of St. John's Gospel. The authorship
and authenticity of this Gospel are questions which concern the Higher Biblical Criticism; but it is impossible to
believe that the Apostle could have written this book as we
have it in its present shape and contents. The author,
whether Yohannan (John) the son of Zebedee, or someone
else under that name, seems to be familiar with the doctrine
of the celebrated Jewish scholar and philosopher Philon
concerning the Logos (Word). It is well known that the
conquest of Palestine and the foundation of Alexandria by
Alexander the Great opened up, for the first time, a new
epoch for culture and civilization. It was then that the
disciples of Moses met with those of Epicurus, and the
mighty impact of the spiritual doctrines of the Bible on the
materialism of the Greek paganism took place. The Greek
art and philosophy began to be admired and studied by
the Jewish doctors of the law both in Palestine and in
Egypt, where they had a very numerous community. The
penetration of the Greek thought and belles-lettres into the
Jewish schools alarmed their priests and learned men. In
fact, Hebrew was so much neglected that the Scriptures
were read in the Alexandrian Synagogues in the Septuagint
Version. This invasion by a foreign knowledge, however,
moved the Jews to make a better study of their own law,
and to defend it against the inauspicious new spirit. They
endeavored, therefore, to find a new method for the interpretation of the Bible in order to enable the possibility
of a "rapprochement" and reconciliation of the Biblical truths
with the Hellenic thought. For their former method of a
literal interpretation of the law was felt to be unworkable
and too weak to stand against the fine reasoning of Plato
and Aristotle. At the same time the solid activities of the
Jews and their profound devotion to their religion often
aroused against themselves the jealousy and hatred of the
Greeks. Already, under Alexander the Great, an Egyptian
priest, Manetho, had written libels or calumnies against
Judaism. Under Tiberius, too, the great orator Apion
had resuscitated and envenomed the insults of Manetho.
So that this literature poisoned the people who, later on,
cruelly persecuted the believers in the One true God.
The new method was accordingly found and adopted.
It was an allegorical interpretation of every law, precept,
narration and even the names of great personages were considered to conceal in them a secret idea which it attempted
to bring to light. This allegorical interpretation soon
arrogated to itself the place of the Bible, and was like an
envelope enclosing in itself a system of religious philosophy.
Now the most prominent man who personified this
science was Philon, who was born of a rich Jewish family
in Alexandria in the year 25 before the Christian Era.
Well versed in the philosophy of Plato, he wrote his allegorical work in a pure and harmonious Greek style. He believed that the doctrines of the Revelation could agree with
the highest human knowledge and wisdom. What preoccupied his mind most was the phenomenon of the
dealings of God, the pure Spirit, with the earthly beings.
Following Plato's theory of the "Ideas," he invented a series
of intermediary ideas called "the Emanations of the Divinity,"
which he transformed into angles who unite God
with the world. The fundamental substance of these ideas,
the Logos (Word), constituted the supreme wisdom created
in the world and the highest expression of the Providential
action.
The Alexandrian School followed the triumph of
Judaism over Paganism. "But," as rightly remarks the
Grand-Rabin Paul Haguenauer in his interesting little book
Manuel de Litterature luive (p. 24). "mais d'elle surgirent,
plus tard, des systemes nuisibles Li l'hebraisme" indeed
noxious systems, not only to Judaism but to Christendom
too!
The origin of the doctrine of the Logos is to be traced,
therefore, to the theology of Philon, and the Apostle John
- or the author of the Fourth Gospel, whoever he be -
only dogmatized the theory of the "ideas" which had
sprung up first from the golden brain of Plato. As remarked in the first article of this series, the Divine Word
means the Word of God, and not God the Word. The
word is an attribute of a rational being; it belongs to any
speaker, but it is not the rational being, the speaker. The
Divine Word is not eternal, it has an origin, a beginning; it
did not exist before the beginning except potentially. The
word is not the essence. It is a serious error to substantialize
any attribute whatever. If it be permitted to say "God
the Word," why should it be prohibited to say, God the
Mercy, God the Love, God the Vengeance, God the Life,
God the Power, and so forth? I can well understand and
accept the appellation of Jesus "the Spirit of Allah" ("Ruhu
l-Lah"), of Moses "the Word of Allah" ("Kalamu 'I-Lah"),
of Muhammad "the Messenger of Allah" ("Rasul Allah"),
meaning the Spirit of God, the Word of God, the Messenger
of God respectively. But I can never understand nor
accept that the Spirit, or the Word, or the Messenger, is a
Divine Person having divine and human natures.
Now we will proceed to expose and confute the
Christian error about the Paraclete. In this article I shall
try to prove that the Paraclete is not, as the Christian
Churches believe, the Holy Ghost, nor does it at all mean
the "comforter" or the "intercessor;" and in the following
article, please God, I shall clearly show that it is not
"Paraclete" but "Periclyte" which precisely signifies
"Ahmad" in the sense of "the most Illustrious, Praised,
and Celebrated."
1. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DESCRIBED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS OTHERWISE THAN A
PERSONALITY
A careful examination of the following passages in the New Testament will
convince the readers that the Holy Spirit, not only is it not the third person
of the Trinity, but is not even a distinct person. But the "Paraclete" foretold
by Jesus Christ is a distinct person. This fundamental difference between
the two is, therefore, a decisive argument against the hypothesis of their
being one and the same person.
(a) In Luke xi. 13 the Holy Spirit is declared to be a "gift" of God. The
contrast between the "good gifts" which are given by wicked parents and the
Holy Spirit which is bestowed upon the believers by God entirely excludes
the idea of any personality of the Spirit. Can we conscientiously and positively
affirm that Jesus Christ, when he made the above contrast, meant to teach
his hearers that "God the Father" makes a gift of "God the Holy Spirit" to
His earthly "children"? Did he ever insinuate that he believed the third person
of the Trinity to be a gift of the first person of the Trinity? Can we conscientiously
admit that the Apostles believed this "gift" to be God the Almighty offered
by God the Almighty to mortals? The very idea of such a belief makes a Muslim
shudder.
(b) In 1 Cor. ii. 12 this Holy Spirit is described in the neuter gender "the
Spirit from God". Paul clearly states that as the Spirit which is in man makes
him know the things that appertain to him so the Spirit of God makes a man
know the things divine (1 Cor. 11). Consequently, the Holy Spirit here is
not God but a divine issue, channel, or medium through which God teaches,
enlightens, and inspire those whom He pleases. It is simply an action of God
upon human soul and mind.
Just as the philosophy of Plato is not the Plato, and the Platonist Philon
not the creator of that specific wisdom, so Peter was not God because of his
enlightenment by the Spirit of God. Paul clearly sets forth, in the passage
just quoted, that the human soul cannot discern the truths concerning God
but only through His Spirit, inspiration, and direction.
(c) Again, in 1 Cor. vi. 19 we read that the righteous worshipers of God
are called "the temple of the Holy Spirit" which they "received from God."
Here again the Spirit of God is not indicated to be a person or an angel,
but His virtue, word, or power and religion. Both the body and the soul of
a righteous believer are compared with a temple dedicated to the worship of
the Eternal.
(d) In the Epistle to the Romans (viii. 9) this same spirit that "lives"
within the believers is called alternately "the Spirit of God" and the "Spirit
of Christ." In this passage "the Spirit" means simply the faith and the true
religion of God which Jesus proclaimed. Surely this spirit cannot mean to
be the Christian ideal of the Holy Ghost, viz. another third of the three.
We Muslims always wish and intend to regulate our lives and conduct ourselves
in accordance with the spirit of Prophet Muhammad, meaning thereby that we
are resolved to be faithful to the religion of Allah in much the same way
as the Last Prophet was. For the holy Spirit in Prophet Muhammad, in Prophet
Jesus, and in every other prophet was no other than the Spirit of Allah -
praised be His Holy Name! This spirit is called "holy" to distinguish it from
the impure and wicked spirit of the devil and his companions. This spirit
is not a divine person, but a divine ray that enlightens and sanctifies the
people of God.
(e) The Gospel formula, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit," even if authentic and truly prescribed by Christ, may be
legitimately accepted as a formula of faith before the formal establishment
of Islam, which is the real Kingdom of God upon earth. God Almighty in His
quality of Creator is the Father of all beings, things, and intelligences,
but not the Father of one particular son. The Orientalists know that the Semitic
word "abb" or "abba," which is translated as "father," means "one who brings
forth, or bears fruit" ("ibba" = fruit). This sense of the word is quite intelligible
and its use legitimate enough. The Bible frequently makes use of the appellation
"Father." God, somewhere in the Bible, says: "Israel is my first-born son";
and elsewhere in the book of Job He is called "the father of the rain." It
is because of the abuse of this Divine Appellation of the Creator by Christendom
that the Qur'an refrains from using it. From a purely Muslim point of belief
the Christian dogma concerning the eternal birth or generation of the Son
is a blasphemy.
Whether the Christian baptismal formula is authentic or spurious I believe
there is a hidden truth in it. For it must be admitted that the Evangelists
never authorize the use of it in any other ritual, prayer, or creed other
than that of Baptism. This point is extremely important. St. John had foretold
the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire by the Prophet Muhammad, as we saw
in the preceding articles. The immediate Baptizer being God Himself, and the
mediate the Son of Man or the Barnasha of the vision of Daniel, it was perfectly
just and legitimate to mention those two names as the first and second efficient
causes; and the name of the Holy Spirit, too, as the causa materialis of the
Sibghatullah! Now the Divine Appellation "Father," before its abuse by the
Church, was rightly invoked. In fact, the Sibghatullah is a new birth, a nativity
into the Kingdom of God which is Islam. The Baptizer who causes this regeneration
is directly Allah. To be born in the religion if Islam, to be endowed with
the faith in the true God, is the greatest favor and gift of the "Heavenly
Father" - to use the evangelistic expression. In this respect God is infinitely
more beneficent than an earthly father.
As regards the second name in the formula, "the Son," one is at a loss to
know who or what this "son" is? Whose son? If God is rightly addressed "Father,"
then one is curious, inquisitive, and anxious to know which of His innumerable
"sons" is intended in the baptismal formula. Jesus taught us to pray "Our
Father who art in heaven." If we are all His sons in the sense of His creatures,
then the mention of the word "son" in the formula becomes somehow senseless
and even ridiculous. We know that the name "the Son of Man" - or "Barnasha"
- is mentioned eighty-three times in the discourses of Jesus. The Qur'an never
calls Jesus "the son of man" but always "the son of Mary." He could not call
himself "the son of man" because he was only "the son of woman." There is
no getting away from the fact. You may make him "the son of God" as you do,
but you can't make him "the son of man" unless you believe him to be the offspring
of Joseph or someone else, and consequently fasten on to him the taint of
illegitimacy.
I don't know exactly how, whether through intuition, inspiration, or dream,
I am taught and convinced that the second name in the formula is an ill-fated
corruption of "the Son of Man," viz. the Barnasha of Daniel (vii.), and therefore
Ahmad "the Periqlytos" (Paraclete) of St. John's Gospel.
As to the Holy Spirit in the formula, it is not a person or an individual
spirit, but an agency, force, energy of God with which a man is born or converted
into the religion and knowledge of the One God.
2. - WHAT THE EARLY FATHERS OF THE NASARA (CHRISTIANITY) SAY ABOUT THE HOLY
SPIRIT.
(a) Hermas (Similitude v. 5, 6) understands, by the "Holy Spirit," the divine
element in Christ, namely the Son created before all things. Without entering
into the useless or rather meaningless discussion whether Hermas confounds
the Holy Spirit with the Word, or if it is a distinct element belonging to
Christ, it is admitted that the latter was created before all things - that
is to say, in the beginning - and that the Spirit in Hermas' belief is not
a person.
(b) Justin - called the "Martyr" (100?-167? A.C.) - and Theophilus (120?-180?
A.C.) understand by the Holy Spirit sometimes a peculiar form of the manifestation
of the Word and sometimes a divine attribute, but never a divine person. It
must be remembered that these two Greek fathers and writers of the second
century A.C. had no definite knowledge and belief about the Holy Ghost of
the Trinitarians of the fourth and the succeeding centuries.
(c) Athenagoras (110-180 A.C.) says the Holy Spirit is an emanation of God
proceeding from and returning to Him like the rays of the sun (Deprecatio
pro Christiarus, ix, x). Irenaeus (130?-202? A.C.) says that the Holy Spirit
and the Son are two worshipers of God and that the angels submit to them.
The wide difference between the belief and the conceptions of these two early
fathers about the Holy Spirit is too obvious to need any further comment.
It is surprising that the two worshipers of God, according to the declaration
of such an authority as Irenaeus, should, two centuries afterwards, be raised
to the dignity of God and proclaimed two divine persons in company with the
one true God by whom they were created.
(d) The most illustrious and learned of all the ante-Nicene fathers and the
Christian apologists was Origen (185-254 A C.). The author of the Hexepla
ascribes personality to the Holy Spirit, but makes it a creature of the Son.
The creation of the Holy Spirit by the Son cannot be even in the beginning
when the Word - or the Son - was created by God.
The doctrine concerning this Holy Spirit was not sufficiently developed in
325 A.C., and therefore was not defined by the Council of Nicea. It was only
in 386 A.C. at the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople that it was
declared to be the Third Person of the Trinity, consubstantial and coeval
with the Father and the Son.
3. - The "Paraclete" does not signify either "consoler" or "advocate";
in truth, it is not a classical word at all. The Greek orthography of the word
is Paraklytos which in ecclesiastical literature is made to mean "one called
to aid, advocate, intercessor" (Dict. Grec.-Francais, by Alexandre). One need
not profess to be a Greek scholar to know that the Greek word for "comforter
or consoler" is not "Paraclytos" but "Paracalon". I have no Greek version of
the Septuagint with me, but I remember perfectly well that the Hebrew word for
"comforter" ("mnahem") in the Lamentations of Jeremiah (i. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21,
etc.) is translated into Parakaloon, from the verb Parakaloo, which means to
call to, invite, exhort, console, pray, invoke. It should be noticed that there
is a long alpha vowel after the consonant kappa in the "Paracalon" which does
not exist in the "Paraclytos." In the phrase (He who consoles us in all our
afflictions") "paracalon" and not "paraclytos" is used. ("I exhort, or invite,
thee to work"). Many other examples can be cited here.
There is another Greek word for comforter and consoler, i.e. "Parygorytys" from "I console."
As to the other meaning of "intercessor or advocate"
which is given in the ecclesiastical word "Paraclete," I again
insist that "Paracalon" and not "Paraclytos" can convey in
itself a similar sense. The proper Greek term for "advocate"
is Sunegorus and for "intercessor" or "mediator" Meditea.
In my next article I shall give the true Greek form of
which Paraklytos is a corruption. En passant, I wish to
correct an error into which the French savant Ernest Renan
has also fallen. If I recollect well, Monsieur Renan, in
his famous The Life of Christ, interprets the "Paraclete" of
St John (xiv. 16, 26; xv. 7; 1 John ii. 1) as an "advocate."
He cites the Syro-Chaldean form "Peraklit" as opposed to
"Ktighra" "the accuser" from Kategorus. The Syrian name
for mediator or intercessor is "mis'aaya," but in law courts
the "Snighra" (from the Greek Sunegorus) is used for an
advocate. Many Syrians unfamiliar with the Greek language
consider the "Paraqlita" to be really the Aramaic or the
Syriac form of the "Paraclete" in the Pshittha Version and
to be composed of "Paraq," "to save from, to deliver from,"
and "lita" "the accursed." The idea that Christ is the
"Savior from the curse of the law," and therefore he is
himself too "Paraqlita" (1 John ii. 1), may have led some
to think that the Greek word is originally an Aramaic word,
just as the Greek sentence "Maran atha" in Aramaic is
"Maran Athi," i.e. "our Lord is coming" (1 John xvi. 22),
which seems to be an expression among the believers regarding the coming of the Last Great Prophet. This 'Maran
Athi," as well as, especially, the baptismal formula, contains
points too important to be neglected. They both deserve
a special study and a valuable exposition. They both
embody in themselves marks and indications otherwise than
favorable to Christianity.
I think I have sufficiently proved that the "Paraclytos,"
from a linguistic and etymological point of view, does not
mean "advocate, consoler, or comforter." For centuries
the ignorant Latins and Europeans have been writing the
name of Prophet Muhammad "Mahomet," that of Mushi "Moses." Is it,
therefore, small wonder that some sturdy Christian monk
or scribe should have written the true name in the corrupted
form of Paraklytos? The former means the "most Illustrious,
Praiseworthy," but the corrupted form means nothing at all
except a standing shame to those who have for eighteen
centuries understood it to signify an advocate or a consoler.
No Copyright:
Any
organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents of
this website
may do so as long as the information is kept in its original form,
names of
all authors and sources are kept intact and is used for non-malicious
purposes.
An acknowledgement would be HIGHLY appreciated.
