JEWISH APOCALYPTICISM AND ISLAMIC SUPERSESSIONISM: A COMPARISON OF MAJOR THEMES AND AN APPLICATION TO CHRISTIAN WITNESS
by
John Harrigan
ICS 6037 – Understanding the Quran
Dr. Peter Riddell
September 14, 2015
Toward the end of the Second Temple period (515 BC – AD 70), a theological zeitgeist had developed among many Jewish thinkers which sought to summarize redemptive history and take the message of the Law and the Prophets to its ultimate end. Known as “Jewish apocalypticism,” such thought attempted to bring direction and coherence to the Scriptures through major themes, such as the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the glorified Davidic messiah, and the kingdom of God. The New Testament reflects this world of thought, and thus German theologian, Ernst Käsemann, is known for stating: “Apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology.”
Much debate in modern New Testament scholarship has raged over the question of whether or not Jesus and the apostles sought to change or reinterpret their Jewish apocalyptic worldview. What is clear is that most Christian theologians from the third century forward did indeed reinterpret and reject the Jewish categories, claiming that the New Testament taught something fundamentally different than the Judaism from which it was born. Such an approach resulted in what has been termed “supersessionism,” the idea that the church and its message (the New Testament) supersedes and replaces Israel and its message (the Old Testament).
In much the same manner Muhammad often claimed that his revelations fulfilled and superseded those of the previous Jewish and Christian prophets. This is indeed implied by the qur’anic declaration that Muhammad is the final prophet, “the seal of the prophets” (Q. 33:40). Moreover, Islamic theology appropriated many of the eschatological themes developed within Judaism and Christianity in the centuries prior. With an eye toward a faithful Christian witness, this paper will compare the major themes of Jewish apocalypticism with Islamic eschatology and examine the ways in which Islamic supersessionism is employed.
Jewish Apocalypticism
Jewish apocalypticism often functioned as an elaboration and/or extrapolation of the Old Testament prophets. God’s creation, humanity’s sin, divine judgment, and Jewish election would all come to their final conclusion, which centered on the eschatological event known as “the day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14; Amos 5:18; Zeph. 1: 14; Zech. 14:1; Mal. 4:5). Because divine judgment is so often associated with this event, intertestamental writers developed the phrase “day of judgment,” which is employed throughout the New Testament (Matt. 10:15; 11:22; 12:36; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 John 4:17). So common was this theme that it was simply referred to as “the judgment” (Matt. 12:41; Luke 10:14; 2 Peter 2:3).
The dead in the Old Testament, good and bad alike, were after death bound to dwell in the underworld of Sheol/Hades (Heb. sheol, translated by the Gk. hadēs in the Septuagint). Thus the ultimate hope of the righteous centered on being delivered from Sheol/Hades (cf. Ps. 16:10; 30:3; 86:12f.; 89:48; 103:4), so as to live forever (Gen. 3:22; Ps. 49:9) in “the land of the living” (Job 28:13; Ps. 27:13; Isa. 53:8). Thus the concept of the resurrection of the dead was formed out of the hope of being raised up from Sheol/Hades (cf. Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20:13). Intertestamental literature is saturated with the concept of “resurrection,” and indeed the day of the Lord was understood to be “the day of the resurrection” (Apocalypse of Moses 10:2; 43:2). This hope of resurrection and “eternal life” is similarly found throughout the New Testament.
Conversely, the wicked would be raised up from Sheol/Hades and condemned to “Gehenna,” which was simply a valley outside of Jerusalem, “currently known as the Wadi er-Rababeh, running S-SW of Jerusalem and also a designation for fiery hell, the opposite of the dominion of God and eternal life.” This valley was known in the Old Testament as the “Valley of Hinnom” (Heb. gê hinnōm; cf. Josh. 15:8; 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 33:6; Neh. 11:30), which would be filled with fire (Isa. 30:33) and become “the Valley of Slaughter” (Jer. 7:32; 19:6). Since these prophecies did not find fulfillment during the exile, the Jews projected them eschatologically during intertestamental times. The New Testament seems to assume this literalist understanding of Gehenna (Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5) and its accompanying “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7).
Integral to Jewish apocalypticism is also the restoration and glorification of the Davidic messiah and his kingdom. Derived from the Old Testament, a descendant of David would be anointed by God to act as the agent of divine judgment and resurrection (cf. 2 Sam. 7; Isa. 9:7; 55:3ff.; Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 37:24). This Davidic messiah would rule from Jerusalem (Ps. 89; 132:13–17), and his kingdom would extend from Israel to the ends of the earth (Ps. 72:8; Zech. 9:10). During intertestamental times, this vision of a future glorified Davidic kingdom was summarized by the phrase “kingdom of God,” which is seen throughout the New Testament. A reasonable approach to the vast majority of uses of this phrase reveals an unaltered Jewish apocalyptic meaning in the New Testament. Thus, it was commonly understood what Jesus meant when he declared, “I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:29–30; cf. Matt. 19:28). For Jesus and his Jewish disciples, the kingdom of God (vv. 16, 18) was thoroughly “Israelocentric”. Or put simply, it was the commonly expected Jewish messianic kingdom.
Held in tandem, all of these eschatological elements—divine judgment, resurrection, Messiah, and the kingdom of God—create the Jewish apocalyptic worldview, which fundamentally revolves around the eschatological Day of the Lord. This eschatological day (i.e., “the last day”) restores creation to its primordial glory. Thus the heart of apocalyptic thought is summarized in “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), or “the renewal of all things” (Matt. 19:28). As it was in the beginning, so it will be in the end. In this way, the Jews of Jesus’ day looked forward to a new heavens and a new earth, in which the Messiah would rule from a new Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 65:17–19; Rev. 21–22). And as Klaus Koch noted, the “catchword” for this new creation, Jerusalem-centered view is glory. The use of “glory” throughout the New Testament without explanation further reinforces an unaltered Jewish apocalyptic understanding. Having sketched Jewish apocalypticism, let us turn our attention to Islamic eschatology.
Islamic Eschatology
Many elements of Jewish apocalypticism are repeated in the narrative of Islamic eschatology, which Peter Riddell aptly summarizes: “there are three key stages in the way Muslims understand eschatology: death, the experience of the grave, the Day of Judgement and thereafter.” Also in accord with Jewish apocalypticism, the “thereafter” in Islamic eschatology strongly emphasizes the eternal punishment of the wicked and the eternal reward of the righteous (though as we will see these play out along different lines).
As in Jewish apocalypticism, Islamic theology is radically eschatological in its orientation. Indeed the predominant theme of the Qur’an is “the Last Day” (Q. 2:8, 62, 126, 177, 228, 232, 264; 4:38f., 59, 136, 162; 5:69; 9:18f., 29, 44f., 99; 24:2; 58:22; 60:6; 65:2). Commonly referenced as “the Day,” “that Day,” or “a Day,” this eschatological Day is all-encompassing. It determines the meaning of life, the understanding of history, and even the nature of God. The many names of God (99 according to tradition) are consistently couched in context to redemptive history which drives relentlessly toward the Last Day. As Morris Seale summarizes, “the last day, or the day of resurrection and judgement, was always in Muhammad’s mind and on his tongue, so much so that he coupled the belief in the last day with the belief in Allah, and it was the ‘obsession’ which he communicated to his followers and companions.”
Also akin to Jewish apocalypticism is the imminence of the Last Day. Redemptive history is like a giant clock counting down. Thus, the Last Day is also known as “the Last Hour” (Q. 12:107; 18:21, 36; 22:1, 7; 34:3; 42:17), or simply “the Hour” (Q. 6:31, 40; 7:187; 15:85; 20:15; 25:11; 30:12, 14, 55; 33:63; 40:46; 41:47, 50; 42:18; 45:27, 32; 47:18; 54:1, 46). It is the final time to which all time gives an account. Temporal history marches toward this “appointed time” (Q. 11:3; 30:8)—its one goal is “the appointed hour” (Q. 14:10).
The Last Day (and by extension God himself) is above all penal. The “Last Hour” will be “the Hour of Judgement” (Q. 16:77; 19:75). Thus, the Last Day will be “the Day of Judgement” (Q. 1:4; 11:60; 15:35; 26:82; 34:23; 37:20; 38:78; 56:55; 74:46; 82:15; 83:11), or simply “the Judgement” (Q. 6:62; 28:70, 88; 51:6; 95:7; 107:1). As in Jewish apocalypticism, divine judgment on the eschatological Day is the defining feature of redemptive history, towering above all other events, both before and after.
This divine judgment also ends in the condemnation and sentencing of the wicked to hell. The kinship between Islamic eschatology and Jewish apocalypticism is initially seen in its etymology. The Arabic word for “hell,” jahannam, is related to the Hebrew word, gehennom, from which we also get the New Testament Greek, gehenna. However, the Qur’an places much more of an emphasis on the coming “punishment” of the wicked (over 300 references!). Though Jewish apocalypticism does explicitly describe their eternal conscious torment, qur’anic theology amplifies the agony (nearly 150 references to hell’s “torment”).
The righteous, on the other hand, will inherit eternal life. As in Jewish apocalypticism, eternal life is pictured as a restoration of the primordial garden of Eden. The righteous will enter into “Paradise,” which is commonly referred to as “the Garden,” or simply, “Gardens.” This eschatological restoration of the protological ideal is the basis of the qur’anic belief in “the Resurrection” (Q. 22:5; 35:9). For, “from the earth We created you, into it We shall return you, and from it We shall raise you a second time” (Q. 20:55).
Considering the centrality of these apocalyptic elements in the Qur’an, I find it difficult to agree with David Cook’s determination that “the Qur’an is an eschatological book and not an apocalyptic book.” Of course, debate has raged in New Testament studies for the last hundred years concerning definitions of “eschatological” and “apocalyptic”. Eschatology is that which deals with the end of things. Apocalypticism is that which deals with cataclysm. Most apocalypticism is eschatological, while some eschatologies are apocalyptic. The heart of theological apocalypticism (as opposed to naturalistic apocalypticism, for example) is the final cataclysmic confrontation between God and humanity.
In this way, both the Bible and the Qur’an are thoroughly apocalyptic. Both frame existence as a progressive conflict between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of humankind, which cumulates on the eschatological Day. The substance of apocalypticism is not found in the minutia of detail concerning the end of this age (wars, famines, immorality, Antichrist, etc.), but rather in the cataclysmic approach to redemptive history as a whole. Hence, the classic litmus test of apocalypticism is the division of time into two ages. The theology of the Qur’an is starkly divided between “this life” and “the life to come,” between “this world” and “the Hereafter”. Thus it seems that in broad terms the Qur’an lays the apocalyptic framework, while the Hadith cleans up the details concerning the end of this age.
Differences in Eschatologies
Though the Bible and the Qur’an hold a similar apocalyptic approach to redemptive history, there are many distinct differences concerning how the age to come plays out. Jewish apocalypticism is strongly rooted in a new creation theology, which anticipates a new heavens and new earth that substantially correspond to the present heavens and earth, only without the presence of evil (cf. Isa. 24:21; 2 Peter 3:13). Though Islamic eschatology believes in a “second creation” (Q. 50:15; 53:47), this new creation is substantially different from the present one. The second creation is much more of a universalized “Garden,” which seemingly replaces the present heavens and earth: “a Garden as wide as the heavens and earth prepared for the righteous” (Q. 3:133; cf. Q. 57:21).
Moreover, it seems the qur’anic view of the afterlife is substantially influenced by the Platonic dichotomization of material versus immaterial, wherein materiality is ultimately dissolved and immateriality consists of only heaven and hell. Note Sura 7:40–42:
The gates of Heaven will not be open to those who rejected Our revelations and arrogantly spurned them . . . This is how We punish the guilty—Hell will be their resting place and their covering, layer upon layer—this is how We punish those who do evil. But those who believe and do good deeds . . . are the people of the Garden and there they will remain. (italics added)
Though not radically Platonic (as is often envisioned throughout much of Christian history with clouds, harps, and an eternal sing-along), this vision of the future is far from the vision of Jewish apocalypticism which holds existential continuity with the present heavens and earth.
This metaphysical difference brings us to the real heart of the conflict between Jewish apocalypticism and Islamic eschatology: Jewish election. The Bible views the age to come as fundamentally “Israelocentric.” The Jewish Messiah will sit enthroned in Jerusalem, establishing a global vassalage (Isa. 60:3; Dan. 7:14; Zech. 14:9). While condemning Pharisaical duplicity, Jesus summarized the Jewish view of the universe: “Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King” (Matt. 5:34–35; italics added). Isaiah similarly described a new heavens and new earth administrated from Jerusalem: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. . . . I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress” (Isa. 65:17–19; italics added). This kind of Jerusalem-centered vision is ubiquitous to the prophets of the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 2:1ff.; Jer. 3:17; Joel 3:16; Zech. 14:8; etc.). As such, John’s apocalyptic vision (Rev. 21–22) would have been commonly understood by the Jewish community, for all were anticipating the New Jerusalem.
Islamic eschatology is devoid of any such Jewish messianic kingdom. The life to come is stripped of any ethnic distinction, and the Jewish concept of “messiah” is nonexistent. So Morris Seale observes, “in a number of places in the Qur’an, Jesus is referred to as Masih, the Arabic equivalent of ‘Messiah’, although meaning nothing comparable.” In this regard it is interesting that of all the Jewish apocalyptic concepts carried over into Islamic eschatology (eschatological day, resurrection, judgment, etc.) the “kingdom of God” is completely absent. The Qur’an makes no reference to a “kingdom” in the life to come, and the eternal “Gardens” are ethnically homogenous throughout.
Islamic Supersessionism
This difference of vision concerning the future age creates the building blocks for Islamic supersessionism. One prophetic vision of the future is superseded by a different vision. The Qur’an states this explicitly in Sura 2:105–106:
Neither those People of the Book who disbelieve nor the idolaters would like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord, but God chooses for His grace whoever He will: His bounty has no limits. Any revelation We cause to be superseded or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar. Do you [Prophet] not know that God has power over everything?
That which was sent down to the Jews and Christians has been superseded by “something better” given to Muhammad. The Qur’an consistently claims that its message is the same as the (unadulterated) message of the Jews and Christians: “God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers in return for the Garden—they fight in God’s way: they kill and are killed—this is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an” (Q. 9:111). The Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an are believed to all speak the same message, that is, the message that the Qur’an communicates. There is never an acknowledgment that the Bible might say something different. This arrogating of a previous identity and message lies at the heart of supersessionism.
Christian theology also has a long history of supersessionist claims. The early Judeo-Christian tradition was originally “a territory without border lines,” as Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin describes. Christianity was simply a Jewish “sect” (Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22). However, as time passed, Christianity began to drift from its Jewish moorings, increasingly adopting Hellenistic ideas of salvation. By the fourth century, the Jewish salvific narrative was commonly mocked as carnal and asinine, in contrast to the superior spiritual destiny of Christians in heaven. Princeton scholar J. Christiaan Beker calls this change “a fall from the apocalyptic world of early Christianity to Platonic categories of thought.” Beker elsewhere summarizes the rejection of Jewish apocalypticism throughout Christian history:
The history of futurist eschatology in the church has been one long process of spiritualization and/or ecclesiologizing or institutionalizing, especially under the influence of Origen and Augustine. From the condemnation of Montanism in the second century and the exclusion of chiliastic apocalypticisrn at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) through its condemnation by the reformers (in the Augsburg Confession) and until today, future eschatology was pushed out of the mainstream of church life and thus pushed into heretical aberrations.
By the seventh century, Christian theology had widely abandoned its Jewish apocalyptic roots. Christianity was also the dominant religion of the Middle East at the time (though Arabia was somewhat linguistically isolated), and Muhammad’s interaction with Christians is well attested. Could it be that Muhammad was reacting, especially later in his life, against the nonapocalyptic theology of the Nestorian and Monophysite churches that surrounded Arabia? If this apocalyptic renewal is the case, then it only went so far. As described above, the Qur’an’s futuristic eschatology falls short of a new heavens and new earth, and it completely lacks an Israelocentric outlook on the age to come. Maybe Muhammad adopted Christianity’s supersessionist assumptions, while attempting to correct its nonapocalyptic theology?
Implications for Christian Witness
Whatever the case may be, I believe it behooves Christians today to return to the Bible’s Jewish apocalyptic message. The days of “embarrassment” concerning the parousia of Christ are over. Countering Rudolf Bultmann’s skepticism concerning Christ’s return, Jürgen Moltmann charges,
Today the notion that world history will continue to run its course is nothing more than wishful thinking. “Every sane person” is aware of the nuclear, ecological and economic catastrophes that threaten the modern world. The apocalyptic eschatology which Bultmann considered “mythical” is more realistic than his faith in the inexorable onward course of world history. The belief that things will “always go on” and that no end is in sight—at least not for us—is one of the fairytales of “the modern world,” the fairytale of its endlessness and its lack of an alternative.
If the church seeks to repristinate its faith (something Bultmann saw as completely futile), it must return to its original commissioning as a “witness” to the coming of Christ and the day of judgment (cf. Acts 1:6–11; 2:21; 3:21; 10:42; 17:31; etc.), which most naturally fits within a Jewish apocalyptic worldview. In addition, I believe the church must integrate into this worldview a theology of the cross on sacrificial terms (cf. John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2). The apostolic preaching of the “forgiveness of sins” (cf. Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) assumes a sacrificial interpretation, for “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22; italics added).
In this way the emphasis of the apostolic witness was twofold: the cross and the day of Lord—as summarized in Hebrews 9:28, “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (niv; italics added). Thus communion encapsulates the Christian faith and its witness: “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). The coming of Christ and our salvation need not be stripped of their Jewish apocalyptic background. The Messiah simply had to suffer for sins before entering his eschatological glory (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 17:3; 1 Peter 1:11).
How then would Muslims respond to this kind of witness? For most, probably not too positively. Polemics against substitutional atonement have a long history in Islamic theology, and anything that creates sympathy toward Jews, past or present, would likely be a stumbling block in light of the modern Middle Eastern conflict. However, I truly believe Muhammad sought the “straight path” (at least early in his life). And I believe many Muslims today follow that same example. If human history really does end apocalyptically, resulting in an Israelocentric restoration of all things (cf. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30)—and if the inheritance of that restoration is based upon faith in a sacrificial righteousness—then I believe many honest Muslim seekers will repent of their self-righteousness and supersessionism, putting their faith in Christ crucified, the “king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2; 27:11). “What is impossible with man is possible with God” (Luke 18:27).
Works Cited
Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
–––. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Bell, Richard. The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment. London: Macmillan, 1926.
Bock, D. L., ed. Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Charles, R. H., ed. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Cook, David. Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic. Princeton: Darwin Press, 2002.
Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic, 2004.
Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Second edition. London: T & T Clark, 2000.
Ladd, G. E. “The Kingdom of God in the Jewish Apocryphal Literature: Parts 1–3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 109 (January 1952): 55–62, (April 1952): 164–74, (October 1952): 318–31.
–––. The Pattern of New Testament Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Käsemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Koch, Klaus. The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic. Translated by M. Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1972.
Knitter, Paul F. “Islam and Christianity Sibling Rivalries and Sibling Possibilities.” Cross Currents 59/4 (December 2009): 554–70.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.
–––. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. Translated by M. Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1967.
Neely, Brent J., and Peter G. Riddell, eds. Islam and the Last Day: Christian Perspectives on Islamic Eschatology. Melbourne: MST Press, 2014.
Rowley, H. H. The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation. Revised edition. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.
Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC – AD 100. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.
Seale, Morris S. Qur’an and Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue. London: Croom Helm, 1978.
Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Sullivan, Clayton. Rethinking Realized Eschatology. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988.
Viviano, Benedict T. The Kingdom of God in History. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988.
Vlach, Michael J. The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009.
Watson, D. F. “Gehenna (Place).” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. Volume 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Pp. 926–28.