PARADISE IN ISLAMIC THEOLOGY: ITS ORIGIN AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION
by
John Harrigan
RES 7962 – Research Methods
Dr. Ed Smither
October 3, 2015
In seeking to understand the Islamic faith, it is imperative that we appreciate the centrality of “Paradise” within the Islamic worldview. One prominent scholar describes Islam as “the religion of the Garden.” This description is based on the fact that nearly every chapter of the Qur’an makes some reference, whether directly or indirectly, to “the Gardens of Paradise” (Q. 18:107), and Islamic tradition is no less emphatic about it. Simply put, Islam is believed to be the ultimate carrier of “the good news of Paradise” (Q. 41:30).
This study will outline the Qur’anic descriptions of paradise, the origins of the paradisal concept in ancient Near Eastern and Jewish literature, and the overarching biblical testimony concerning paradise. This testimony will then be compared and contrasted with the Qur’anic view with an eye toward a faithful Christian witness.
Qur’anic Descriptions of Paradise
The Qur’an refers to “Paradise” and the eternal “Garden(s)” and over 100 times. Initially it is observed that paradise is the future reward of the righteous: “God has rewarded them with Gardens graced with flowing streams, and there they will stay: that is the reward of those who do good” (Q. 5:85; cf. 16:32; 39:74; 76:12; 98:8). Thus the typical Qur’anic injunction: “Hurry towards your Lord’s forgiveness and a Garden as wide as the heavens and earth prepared for the righteous (Q. 3:133; cf. 57:21). Since the righteous will inherit paradise, they are known by their destiny; they are “the people of Paradise” (Q. 35:55; 46:14, 16), or “the people of the Garden” (Q. 7:42, 44, 46).
The Qur’anic descriptions of paradise are primarily characterized by corporeal delights. Everything wished for in this life will be satisfied in the next life: “They will enter perpetual Gardens graced with flowing streams. There they will have everything they wish. This is the way God rewards the righteous” (Q. 16:31; cf. 25:16; 39:34). In paradise, the righteous will enjoy “flowering meadows” (Q. 42:22), “peaceful homes” (Q. 9:72), and “lasting bliss” (Q. 9:21; 38:50)—“No weariness will ever touch them there” (Q. 15:48). They will also receive “silken garments” (Q. 22:23), “Dishes and goblets of gold” (Q. 43:71), “couches upholstered with brocade” (Q. 55:54), “and palaces too” (Q. 25:10). Moreover, “There they will be adorned with bracelets of gold. There they will wear green garments of fine silk and brocade. There they will be comfortably seated on soft chairs. What a blessed reward! What a pleasant resting place!” (Q. 18:31; cf. 56:15–24; 88:10–16). Paradise is thus also referred to as “Gardens of Delight” (Q. 5:65; 22:57).
For a desert people, however, nothing could be more enticing than never ending water, which is almost universally attached to the paradisal hope: “Gardens graced with flowing streams” (Q. 2:25; 3:15, 136, 195f.; 4:13, 57, 122; 5:12, 85, 119; 9:72, 89, 100; 14:23; 16:31; 22:14, 23; 25:10; 47:12; 48:5, 17; 57:12; 58:22; 61:12; 64:9; 65:11; 66:8; 85:11; 98:8). Note also the summary “picture” painted in Sura 13: “Here is a picture of the Garden that those mindful of God have been promised: flowing streams and perpetual food and shade. This is the reward that awaits those who are mindful of God” (v. 53). Or elsewhere, “Here is a picture of the Garden promised to the pious: rivers of water forever pure, rivers of milk forever fresh, rivers of wine, a delight for those who drink, rivers of honey clarified and pure, all flow in it; there they will find fruit of every kind; and they will find forgiveness from their Lord” (Q. 47:15). Sura 76 goes into even greater detail:
So God will save them from the woes of that Day, give them radiance and gladness, and reward them, for their steadfastness, with a Garden and silken robes. They will sit on couches, feeling neither scorching heat nor biting cold, with shady branches spread above them and clusters of fruit hanging close at hand. They will be served with silver plates and gleaming silver goblets according to their fancy, and they will be given a drink infused with ginger from a spring called Salsabil. Everlasting youths will attend them—if you could see them, you would think they were scattered pearls—and if you were to look around, you would see bliss and great wealth: they will wear garments of green silk and brocade; they will be adorned with silver bracelets; their Lord will give them a pure drink. It will be said, “This is your reward. Your endeavours are appreciated.” (vv. 11–22)
More controversial is the consistent inclusion in paradise of “beautiful companions” (Q. 56:22; cf. 78:33), “beautiful-eyed maidens” (Q. 52:20; cf. 44:54; 55:56, 70), and “pure spouses” (Q. 2:25; 3:15; 4:57; cf. 13:23; 35:56; 37:48; 40:8; 43:70). Note the following passages:
They will dwell amid thornless lote trees and clustered acacia with spreading shade, constantly flowing water, abundant fruits, unfailing, unforbidden, with incomparable companions. We have specially created—virginal, loving, of matching age—for those on the Right. (Q. 56:28–38)
They will have familiar provisions—fruits—and will be honoured in gardens of delight; seated on couches, facing one another. A drink will be passed round among them from a flowing spring: white, delicious to those who taste it, causing no headiness or intoxication. With them will be spouses—modest of gaze and beautiful of eye—like protected eggs. (Q. 37:41–49)
These corporeal delights comprise the “supreme fulfillment” (Q. 78:31), that is, “private gardens, vineyards, nubile, well-matched companions, and an overflowing cup” (vv. 32–34). Similarly, the desire to overcome the failures, difficulties, and oppositions of this life will be fulfilled in paradise, and thus it will be “the supreme triumph” (Q. 4:13; 5:119; 9:72, 89, 100, 111; 10:64; 37:60; 40:9; 44:57; 57:12; 61:12). Sura 44:51–57 weaves all of these elements together:
But those mindful of God will be in a safe place amid Gardens and springs, clothed in silk and fine brocade, facing one another: so it will be. We shall wed them to maidens with large, dark eyes. Secure and contented, they will call for every kind of fruit. After the one death they will taste death no more. God will guard them from the torment of Hell, a bounty from your Lord. That is the supreme triumph.
This survey of the primary Qur’anic passages concerning paradise gives us insight into the Qur’an’s primal motivation for eternal life—“the good news of Paradise, which you have been promised” (Q. 41:30). When we look at this “good news” in context, we see that it is part of a much larger eschatological narrative, which is itself the grand consummation of a creational story. As in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Qur’an views history in a linear fashion, based on a definitive creation event. History is moving toward its eschatological conclusion, which is simply a recapitulation of its beginning.
This restoration is described in the Qur’an as the “second creation” (Q. 50:15; 53:47), or a “new act of creation” (Q. 17:49, 98). Eschatological paradise is understood as God’s new creation, the restoration of primordial glory. In technical terms, this could be summarized as eschatologically restored protology. The end renews the beginning, as the Qur’an states unambiguously, “We shall reproduce creation just as We produced it the first time” (Q. 21:104). Or elsewhere, “God brings creation into being; in the end He will reproduce it” (Q. 30:11). The Qur’an even prescribes this logic as the basis of Muhammad’s argument against his dissenters: “Ask them, ‘Can any of your partner-gods originate creation, then bring it back to life again in the end?’ Say, ‘It is God that originates creation, and then brings it back to life, so how can you be misled?’” (Q. 7:34).
This cosmic renewal also defines human existence, which is intimately related to the idyllic paradisal environment. As God created humanity in the beginning, so he will recreate and resurrect humanity in the end: “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). Or elsewhere, “Just as He first created you, so you will come back to life again” (Q. 7:29). This relationship between “creating and resurrecting” (Q. 31:28) is repeated a number of times (cf. Q. 10:4; 30:40; 41:39). As Adam was created and set in paradise in the beginning, so will the righteous be resurrected and restored in “Gardens of Eternity” (Q. 61:12).
The main event related to this eschatological renewal of paradise is “the Last Day.” Commonly referenced as “the Day,” “that Day,” or “a Day,” this eschatological day ushers in “the Resurrection” (Q. 22:5; 35:9) and “the Judgment” (Q. 6:62; 28:70, 88; 51:6; 95:7; 107:1). Thus the last day is also known as “the Day of Judgement” and “the Day of Resurrection.” To the uninitiated, this futuristic emphasis can quickly feel bewildering. The Qur’an seems almost supersaturated with the eschatological day. Yet the last day is simply understood within the larger framework of the renewal of creation. The last day recapitulates the first day; God’s second creation rejuvenates his first creation; the resurrection restores its life; the judgment reestablishes its righteousness; etc. Hence, Arab scholar Morris Seale concluded, “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.”
Muhammad’s “obsession” seems better associated with eternal life, to which the last day is simply the door (though a monumental door of course!). And at the heart of eternal life lies the Garden—lost by Adam, foretold by all of God’s prophets, and sought by the righteous above all else. The all-encompassing paradisal narrative, from its protological creation to its eschatological recreation, gives the Qur’an a simple cohesion, which helped galvanize the early Islamic movement: “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).
Origin of the Paradisal Concept
The above quote from Sura 9 brings us to the question of origins. Where did Muhammad come across this idea of “the Garden”? And is paradise indeed the “true promise” given by the Torah and the Gospel of the Jews and the Christians? Controversy concerning the origins of Qur’anic ideas is nothing new. Jews and Christians have long maintained that Muhammad borrowed his ideas from the Bible, or at least oral traditions of it. Muslim scholars flatly reject this assertion, claiming that the Qur’an was an independent Arabian revelation (though of course continuing the uncorrupted line of Judeo-Christianity).
Moderate Muslim scholars, such as Nerina Rustomji, will only hint at such a relationship: “The vision of Paradise in Islam shares common features with eschatology from Iran (the bridge Sirat, for example, likens to the Zoroastrian Chinvat Bridge) and the Hebrew Bible (Islamic texts discuss, for example, the four rivers of Paradise); however, Muslims articulated their visions of Paradise without regard to religious comparison.” More liberal Muslim scholars will acknowledge a common derivation of paradise on mythological grounds:
“Mankind thus appears to have been put into a kind of circular path which originates with God in Paradise and ends with God in Paradise—or in Hell. ‘We belong to God and we will return to Him.’ Mutatis mutandis, the whole thing is a combination and revision of the Jewish myth of creation and the Christian myth of the hereafter.”
More conservative Muslim scholars will not even entertain a relationship, completely ignoring previous conceptions of paradise.
The earliest Jewish and Christian testimonies generally viewed Islam as co-opting their theological narratives. Most Jews denounced Muhammad as a “false prophet,” while Christians generally condemned Islam as a heresy (often in antichristic terms due to its rejection of Christ’s divinity). In other words, the Judeo-Christian tradition generally viewed Islam as an Arab innovation, which distorted the biblical testimony. So John of Damascus summarized, “From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy.”
Not all Christians and Jews, however, viewed Islam negatively, and based on the variegated nature of early non-Muslim testimonies, some scholars (now termed “revisionists”) have come to question the entire Muslim tradition of origins. These scholars argue that Muhammad originally saw himself as a semi-Judeo-Christian apocalyptic prophet (and was seen as such by some Jews and Christians) and that Islam developed slowly into its own religious tradition. Regardless of how Islam originated or how the Qur’an came to be or how the biographies of Muhammad (sira) and early commentaries (tafsir) relate to the Qur’an, one thing is clear: the Qur’an assumes a biblical subtext. References in the Qur’an, such as the garden of Eden, Adam, Noah, the flood, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc., clearly assume some knowledge of the Judeo-Christian biblical texts.
Assuming the Islamic sources (Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira) are for the most part historically accurate, it seems that Muhammad was quite familiar with the Judeo-Christian faith (or at least its historical narrative) before he started receiving his revelations. The Qur’an is replete with references to Jews and Christians (i.e., “people of the book”), and the various biographies of Muhammad consistently reference encounters with Jews and Christians. Moreover, Christianity surrounded Arabia on all sides (Abyssinian, Byzantine, and Persian), and there were Jewish tribes throughout the area. To think Muhammad was some kind of tabula rasa before his revelations began—ignorant of such fundamentally Judeo-Christian concepts as monotheism, creation ex nihilo, protological paradise, eschatological judgment, resurrection of the dead, and eternal reward/punishment—simply defies historical reason.
More realistically, Muhammad heard about the resurrection of the dead and the basic apocalyptic framework of redemptive history from the Christians and the Jews that he encountered (primarily from the Jews, since Christianity by that time had lost much of its apocalyptic focus). He then began to meditate increasingly on these Judeo-Christian ideas after his marriage to Khadijah, since he had more financial liberty, and after 15 years of meditation he began to have charismatic revelations according to the faith he had developed. Though I think Samuel Zwemer would reject Mohammad’s charismatic gifting, this approach accords with his classic conclusion:
From the condition of Arabia at the time of Mohammed, and the whole religious environment of his day, it is natural that if there was to be a new religion for Arabia it must take account of the existing faiths. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the result of a century of critical study by European and American scholars of every school of thought has established the fact that Islam is a composite religion. It is not an invention, but a concoction; there is nothing novel about it, except the genius of Mohammed in mixing old ingredients into a new panacea for human ills, and forcing it down by means of the sword. These heterogeneous elements of Islam were gathered in Arabia at a time when many religions had penetrated the Peninsula, and the Kaaba was a Pantheon. Unless one has a knowledge of these elements of the “Time of Ignorance,” Islam is a problem. Knowing, however, these heathen, Christian, and Jewish factors, Islam is seen to be a perfectly natural and comprehensible development. Its heathen, Christian and Jewish elements remain, to this day, perfectly recognizable, in spite of thirteen centuries of explanation by the Moslem authorities.
If such a sketch of Muhammad’s spiritual progression is generally true, then it begs the question of where and how the paradisal concept originated within the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially since the Qur’anic text itself relies so heavily upon it.
Approaching the Judeo-Christian tradition, the origin of the paradisal concept generally falls into two camps: liberal and conservative. On the conservative side, the idea of paradise derives from a literal rendering of the garden called Eden (Gen. 2:8). This paradise was lost because of the sin of two real historical persons, Adam and Eve, which led to their expulsion from paradise. As time went on, the memory of Eden was committed to oral tradition, or possibly kept in written form. This memory was then passed down through the generations, and the hope of eternal life and a restored Eden moved in ebb and flow. During the intertestamental period, however, the hope of a renewed paradise rose to fever pitch within Jewish apocalypticism.
Within this conservative framework, the various ancient Near Eastern myths are simply understood as corruptions of the true biblical account of primordial paradise. This relationship is akin to the many flood legends found throughout the world, which are believed to be corruptions of the true Noahic flood. Adam and Eve, and their original paradisal environment, were real, and their memory was emphasized to various degrees within Judaism and distorted to various degrees by the Gentiles.
Within the liberal tradition, the origin of the paradisal concept is straightforward: it is a mythological invention derived from the human longing for an idyllic existence (particularly in an arid Middle Eastern climate). Thus various ancient Near Eastern peoples invented creation myths that included a paradisal existence, which they then projected eschatologically to help cope with their harsh environment. Most liberals believe the Jews borrowed the paradisal idea from the Babylonians and Persians, while they were in exile. Some believe the Jews derived it from even older Mesopotamian, Akkadian, and Canaanite sources. Either way, the assumptions are quite naturalistic—protological paradise is mythological. It never actually existed on this earth, and it will never actually be restored to this earth. The apocalyptic emphasis on paradise during the Second Temple period was delusional, and its centrality in the New Testament simply canonizes that delusion.
Such conclusions can only lead in a few directions: (1) leave the paradisal delusion in history as a relic to be studied along with other primitive mythology (the path of most true liberals), (2) demythologize the paradisal delusion so as to extract idyllic social principles for modern society (the path of Rudolf Bultmann, et al., which has now become somewhat passé), or (3) reinterpret the paradisal delusion as a literary device which was utilized by the ancient Israelites in hopes of inheriting an “Edenic” promised land (the moderate path now most commonly travelled in the academy). Of course, the latter option merely evades the issue and inevitably leads us back to the first two options. If protological paradise did not actually exist, then I believe Butlmann’s path of demythologization continues to be the only honest and viable option for modern scholarship.
Those who believe in the reality of Eden find all of this line of reasoning to be irrelevant. If the earth’s modern features are better accounted for by catastrophism (i.e., the Noahic flood), then the paradisal account simply follows. This literalist approach also accords with the biblical writers, who assumed the historicity of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, and the Noahic flood. As such, let us then examine the biblical account itself concerning the origin, purpose, function, and future of paradise.
The Biblical Testimony of Paradise
Concerning paradise, the biblical testimony culminating in the New Testament is fairly straightforward. In the beginning, the garden of Eden was paradisal (the Greek paradeisos translates “garden” in the Septuagint—i.e., the “paradise of Eden”). Paradise was lost after the expulsion of Adam and Eve, and it will be regained by the righteous at the end of the age when God makes all things new. Thus, Revelation 22:1–5 recapitulates Genesis 2:8–15 with a renewed “tree of life” (Rev. 22:2) straddling “the river of the water of life” (v. 1), in which “there will no longer be any curse” (v. 3, hcsb).
The Apocalyptic Framework of Paradise
The Bible’s eschatological vision of paradise is part of its larger apocalyptic framework, summarized in the New Testament as “the renewal of all things” (Matt. 19:28, nrsv) or “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21, hcsb). “All things” refers to creation, specifically the totality of the heavens and the earth (cf. Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:16). As God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning (Gen. 1:1), so he will renew all things, creating a new heavens and new earth in the end (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1).
This new creation hope revolves around the eschatological day, which is variously termed “the day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:6; Joel 2:1; Zeph. 1: 14; Zech. 14:1; Mal. 4:5; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10), “the day of judgment” (Matt. 10:15; 2 Pet. 3:7; 1 John 4:17), “the day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5; cf. Ps. 110:5; Zeph. 1:15), “the last day” (John 6:39ff.; 11:24; 12:48), “the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:10; 2:16; cf. 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14), etc.—or shorthand “the day” (Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 3:13; Heb. 10:25), “that day” (Matt. 7:22; Luke 10:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:12), “the judgment” (Matt. 12:41; Luke 10:14; 2 Pet. 2:3), “the wrath” (Matt. 3:7; Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10), etc. The eschatological day is the hinge of history, so to speak, toward all things are moving in climactic and cataclysmic progression.
As the defining event in history, the day of the Lord demands a division of time into “this age” (Matt. 12:32; Luke 20:34; 1 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:21) before the day versus “the age to come” (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Heb. 6:5) after the day. Other apocalyptic concepts such as the “resurrection of the dead” (Matt. 22:31; Acts 17:32; 1 Cor. 15:12), “the kingdom of God” (Luke 10:11; 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Thess. 1:5), and “eternal life” (Matt. 19:29; Rom. 2:7; Tit. 3:7) all hinge on the eschatological day. What was ruined by Adam will be restored by God through his Messiah—death will be overcome; sin will be overturned; righteousness will be restored. As the apostle Peter summarized, “By the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. . . . But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:7–13). This is the Bible’s apocalyptic framework within which a renewed paradise is understood.
The Corporeal Nature of Paradise
When we examine the characteristics of paradise in the Bible, it is first and foremost corporeal. Like protological paradise, eschatological paradise is designed for bodily habitation and enjoyment. God created the human body; God created its senses; and God created experiential delight. Though the body has been marred by sin and corruption, God will restore humanity to its original state of perfection. Far from the Greek tradition of sōma sēma (i.e., “the body is a tomb”), the Bible presents the human body as the climax of creation. It is indeed “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Edenic paradise was thus created to maximize the carnal potential of mankind: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Gen. 2:8).
Furthermore, the human body was originally designed for divine communion, as inferred by both the divine image (Gen. 1:26) and the divine presence: “the Lord God walking in the garden” (Gen. 3:8). Similarly, redemptive history concludes, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev. 21:3). This restoration of carnal communion, where “death shall be no more” (v. 4), lies at the heart of the divine declaration, “Behold, I am making all things new” (v. 5). In eschatological paradise, “They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev. 22:4).
For this reason the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was fiercely defended in the early church. As the apex of creation, the resurrection of the body represented the greater narrative of God resurrecting creation as a whole. As the apostle Paul articulates:
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom. 8:20–23)
In line with the apocalyptic Pharisaism of his day, Paul understood the liberation of creation as part and parcel with the redemption of the body and the revealing (i.e., resurrection) of the sons of God. Paradise is a new earth with a resurrected body—a body of life, so to speak, without warring in its members (cf. Rom. 7:24). This new body constitutes the salvation of our soul (1 Pet. 1:9), when mortality is swallowed up by immortality in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53; 2 Cor. 5:4).
The gnostic idea that “the resurrection has already happened” (2 Tim. 2:18) destroys the corporeal hope of the resurrection. Indeed, it spreads like “gangrene” (v. 17), and it leads to a futility of faith (1 Cor. 15:14). Paul commanded Timothy, “Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’ [Gk. gnosis]” (1 Tim. 6:20). The resurrection has not spiritually happened. The day of the Lord has not spiritually come (2 Thess. 2:2). The kingdom has not been spiritually inaugurated (1 Cor. 4:8).
All such gnostic thought is simply “irreverent babble” (2 Tim. 2:16), which is fundamentally contrary to the Jewish faith found in the Law and Prophets. The hope of the resurrection is holy (cf. 1 Tim. 1:20). “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Cor. 6:19). The incorporeal paradise of the Gnostics (which was later adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and then spread throughout Christendom) contradicts the corporeal character of both the Scriptures and God himself.
The Royal and Priestly Function of Paradise
The corporeality of paradise is self-evident, but unto what end? Was paradise just a divine carnal experiment, designed to test the intrinsic value of sensibility? God indeed holds such a prerogative, but I believe Genesis gives us insight into the greater purpose of corporeal creation. Immediately following the creation and blessing of Adam and Eve, God gave them “dominion over . . . every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28). God created paradise as the throne room (i.e., governmental center) of creation, whereby the divine blessing would be administrated throughout the earth. From the beginning, God sat enthroned in the height of the heavens (Isa. 40:21–22), delegating authority over the earth to humanity—“The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man [Hb. adam]” (Ps. 115:16, niv).
Such royal language is reiterated in the eschatological vision of paradise: “No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. . . . They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 22:3–5; emphasis added). Adam and Eve were to reign in righteousness forever and ever, administrating the glory of God for the perpetual generation of well-being and happiness—life giving birth to life giving birth to life ad infinitum.
Not only was paradise royal in function, but it was also priestly in function. Adam and Eve were put in the garden “to work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15). The Hebrew phraseology is identical to the Levitical priesthood, which was commanded to work (Hb. abad) and keep (Hb. shamar) the tabernacle (Num. 3:7; 8:25–26; 18:5–6) and the temple (1 Chron. 23:32; 26:20). Scholars have outlined many other similarities between Eden and the temple. For example:
Old Testament scholar John Walton thus summarizes the priestly understanding of Edenic paradise:
We must first recognize that the garden of Eden was not, strictly speaking, a garden for man, but was the garden of God (Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 28:13). “The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypical sanctuary, that is, a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary.”
Both priesthood and kingship carry administrative connotations—the former concerning ontological holiness and the latter concerning governmental recompense. Paradise was created for Adam and Eve to administrate the both divine holiness and divine blessing to all of creation. Though marred by sin, humanity continues to bear royal and cultic responsibilities, which will be judged eschatologically and restored to their protological glory: “you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). Moreover, “they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him” (Rev. 20:6).
The Israelocentric Orientation of Paradise
In scholarly discussions concerning paradise and eternal life, one aspect is consistently lacking: the place and role of Israel. The above description of paradise (in accord with most modern scholarship) accounts for less than ten percent of the biblical material. Israel, and the corresponding concept of Jewish election, is arguably the single most prominent theme of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the issue of Israel is commonly avoided in evangelical scholarship. The heart of the contention lies in the fact that God has chosen to administrate redemptive history on the basis of ethnicity (an idea that most post-Enlightenment Gentiles view as bald racism).
Looking at the biblical narrative following the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11), we see that God choses to create a nation from the seed of Abraham who will dwell in the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:2; 13:17; 17:6). This nation is designed and destined to administrate the divine blessing which began in Eden: “Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him” (Gen. 18:18; cf. Gen. 12:3; 22:18). In this way, redemptive history is fundamentally “Israelocentric.”
The administration of divine blessing is further particularized in the Old Testament to the family of David and the city of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Chron. 17:11). Through the Davidic seed, ruling from Jerusalem, God will restore all of creation. So Isaiah summarizes:
In that day the Lord will punish the powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below. They will be herded together like prisoners bound in a dungeon; they will be shut up in prison and be punished after many days. The moon will be abashed, the sun ashamed; for the Lord Almighty will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before its elders, gloriously. . . .
On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. (24:21–23; 25:7–8, niv; emphasis added)
From Mount Zion in Jerusalem, God will rule gloriously through his Davidic Messiah, cleansing the heavens and the earth of wickedness and destroying the shroud of death forever. In this way, the new heavens and new earth are essentially Israelocentric:
For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. 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; emphasis added)
In the age to come, paradise will be in context to the New Jerusalem which God Himself will build (see especially Isa. 54, 60, and 62). The nations will come and go from Jerusalem, and the God of Israel will cover the earth in righteousness (Isa. 2:2–4; Mic. 4:2–3). So Jeremiah states, “At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it” (3:17). And Zechariah concludes, “On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem . . . And the Lord will be king over all the earth” (14:8–9).
Historical (i.e., unbelieving) scholars encapsulate such a worldview as “Jewish restoration eschatology.” Indeed, the New Testament fits comfortably within this worldview. Jesus and the apostles assumed a simple congruence between the last day, the renewal of all things, eternal life, and the kingdom of God—all of which involved sitting on twelve thrones “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30). Jerusalem was “the city of the great King” (Matt. 5:35; cf. Ps. 48:2). The redemption of Jerusalem (Lk. 2:38; 24:21) and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6; cf. Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:8) were never in question. Their question concerned righteousness and who would attain to the resurrection (cf. Matt. 5:20; Rom. 9:30f.). Jesus will indeed sit enthroned as “the king of Israel” (Mt. 27:42; Jn. 1:49), because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).
To a Jewish believer in the early church, John’s vision of the New Jerusalem and paradise (Rev. 21–22) would have aligned perfectly with the picture painted by the aggregate of prophetic oracles. First century Jews interpreted oracles, like Isaiah 51:3–6, quite literally:
The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing. . . . My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations. . . . My salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail. (niv; emphasis added; cf. Isa. 58:11; Eze. 36:35)
The paradise of Eden will be restored through the Messiah ruling in the New Jerusalem. Glory, honor, and immortality will thus be administrated “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Rom. 2:10, niv). This is the paradisal messianic kingdom, upon which Jew and Gentile alike are called to set their hope (1 Pet. 1:13; Tit. 2:13).
Comparisons between Qur’anic and Biblical Paradise
How much Muhammad borrowed from the Judeo-Christian tradition concerning paradise (both protological and eschatological) is debatable. There is, however, no question that Muhammad believed his vision of paradise to be the continuation of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Paradise was understood to be the “true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an” (Q. 9:111). The Qur’an thus commanded, “Believers, argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one and the same; we are devoted to Him’” (29:46).
Muhammad’s belief in God, creation, and the Last Day was understood to be substantially equivalent to that of the Jews and Christians. Hence, Muhammad was told, “So if you [Prophet] are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who have been reading the scriptures before you” (Q. 10:94). Of course, those previously reading the scriptures were “the Children of Israel” (vv. 90, 93). Yet when Jews and Christians rejected the Qur’an, Muhammad was told, “Those who reject the Qur’an when it comes to them—though it is an unassailable Scripture which falsehood cannot touch from any angle, a Revelation sent down from the Wise One, Worthy of All Praise—should remember that you [Prophet] are not told anything that the previous messengers were not told” (Q. 41:41–43). Again, the previous messengers assumed the Judeo-Christian tradition: “We gave the Scripture to Moses…” (v. 45).
Similarly, during the later Medinan phase of Muhammad’s career, we read, “Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people and He has sent down the distinction between right and wrong” (Q. 3:3–4). The Qur’an continues, “Say [Muhammad], ‘We [Muslims] believe in God and in what has been sent down to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes. We believe in what has been given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We do not make a distinction between any of the prophets. It is to Him that we devote ourselves’” (vv. 84–85). Clearly Muhammad believed his revelations to be fundamentally in line with the Jewish and Christian revelations that preceded him. He was therefore confused and angered when they rejected his revelations:
We gave Moses the Scripture and We sent messengers after him in succession. We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. So how is it that, whenever a messenger brings you something you do not like, you become arrogant, calling some impostors and killing others? . . . The disbelievers have ended up with wrath upon wrath, and a humiliating torment awaits them. When it is said to them, ‘Believe in God’s revelations,’ they reply, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us,’ but they do not believe in what came afterwards, though it is the truth confirming what they already have. (Q. 2:87–91)
In this way, the Qur’an consistently claims that its message and its promises are the same as that of the Jews and Christians (though the Jews and Christians supposedly adulterated their scriptures). Thus the Qur’anic the conclusion, “The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their rewards with their Lord” (Q. 2:62). These rewards, of course, are those of paradise (as outlined above). This homogenization of the Qur’anic and Judeo-Christian Scriptures begs the question: Do the two promise the same paradisal reward?
In a number of ways, the Qur’anic visions of paradise correspond to those of the Bible. Both foresee a restoration of the Edenic glory. Both emphasize the corporeal nature of paradisal life. Both are set within an apocalyptic framework, following the eschatological Day, the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgment—starkly dividing time into two ages. Moreover, both visions of paradise are contrasted with visions of the suffering of the wicked in hell.
Though these visions seems initially compatible, there are a number of distinct differences. First, the Qur’anic vision seems to be influenced by the Hellenistic dichotomy of material versus immaterial, wherein materiality is ultimately dissolved and immateriality consists of only heaven and hell. Of course, the Qur’an insists on the corporeal nature of paradise, but instead of the biblical vision of a new heavens and new earth, the Qur’an envisions a semi-heavenly destiny: “a Garden as wide as the heavens and earth prepared for the righteous” (Q. 3:133; cf. 57:21). Instead of the biblical view of a paradisal new earth with hell (Gehenna) outside of the New Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 30:33; 66:24; Rev. 22:15), the Qur’anic new creation replaces the present heavens and earth with a universalized Garden versus a universalized Fire. Sura 7:40–42 illustrates:
The gates of Heaven will not be open to those who rejected Our revelations and arrogantly spurned them; even if a thick rope were to pass through the eye of a needle they would not enter the Garden. 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. (emphasis added)
This eschatological opening of the “gates of Heaven” constitutes the Qur’anic hopes of “lofty dwellings of Paradise” (Q. 34:37; cf. 29:58; 69:22). 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 Jewish apocalyptic vision, which holds existential continuity with the present heavens and earth.
The Qur’anic vision of paradise also lacks the biblical emphasis on the royal and priestly functions of paradise. The Qur’an simply elaborates the carnal glories that await the righteous. The Hadith expound in the same direction, accentuating “the sensual and the sexual delights in paradise,” which are “commonly referred to among Muslim men.” Morris Seale thus concludes his survey of Islamic paradise:
The Qur’an refers to ‘charming abodes in the Gardens of Eden’ (61:12). These abodes, Tradition affirms, are pearly palaces: each palace contains seventy courts, each court seventy houses, and each house seventy couches, with a houri on each couch. There is a tree in the Garden through whose shade one may ride for a hundred years without crossing it. The smallest house in the Garden has a thousand servants, each going about his appointed task. Finally, everyone in the Garden will marry five hundred houris, four thousand virgins and eight thousand non-virgins.
In this way, we are left with something of an animalistic view of corporeality. The Bible provides a higher priestly vision and a greater kingly purpose for the human body.
The greatest disparity, however, between the biblical and Qur’anic visions of paradise concerns Israel and Jewish election. The Bible presents a paradisal new earth in which the Jewish Messiah sits enthroned in Jerusalem, establishing a global vassalage (cf. Isa. 60:3; Dan. 7:14; Zech. 14:9). The Islamic view 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 practically 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 (the eschatological day, resurrection, judgment, etc.) the “kingdom of God” is completely absent. In fact, the Qur’an makes no reference to a “kingdom” in the life to come at all, and the eternal “Gardens” are ethnically homogenous throughout.
Concerning this disparity, what then are the implications for a faithful Christian witness? I believe Christians must embrace the Bible’s multifaceted vision of paradise (chiefly because Jesus and the apostles did!). Though the apocalyptic, corporeal, royal, priestly, and Israelocentric nature of paradise may seem foreign to the modern mind, we want to be found faithful in the end to what God has spoken through his prophets. How will Muslims respond to such a witness? For most, probably not too positively. Anything that creates sympathy toward the Jews, past or present, would likely be a stumbling block in light of the modern Middle Eastern conflict. However, if human history really does end apocalyptically, resulting in an Israelocentric restoration of all things (Isa. 2; Zech. 14; Rev. 21), then Arab Gentiles should begin to accustom themselves to Jerusalem as “the city of the great King” (Matt. 5:35) and to Jesus as the “king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2; 27:11).
Bibliography
Abrahamov, Binyamin. “The Creation and Duration of Paradise and Hell in Islamic Theology.” Der Islam 79/1 (2002): 87–102.
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009.
Austin, S. A., et al. “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, pp. 609–21. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994.
Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
–––. “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48/1 (2005): 5–31.
Bell, Richard. The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment. London: Macmillan, 1926.
Blaising, Craig A. “Premillennialism.” In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, edited by Darrell L. Bock, pp. 157–227. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Brown, Walt. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 8th ed. Phoenix: Center for Scientific Creation, 2008.
Caird, G. B. Jesus and the Jewish Nation. London: Athlone Press, 1965.
Crone, Patricia, and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Cross, Frank M. Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, translated by Floyd V. Filson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950.
–––. Immortality of the Soul or the Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament. London: Epworth Press, 1958.
Dillow, Joseph C. The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.
Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic, 2004.
Frazer, James B. Folk-lore in the Old Testament. Vol. 1. London: Macmillan, 1918.
Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. 2nd ed. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1994.
Gage, Warren Austin. The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984.
Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. 2nd ed. London: T & T Clark, 2000.
Grabbe, Lester L., and Robert D. Haak, eds. Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships. New York: T & T Clark, 2003.
Hanson, P. D., et al. “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism.” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman. Vol. 1, pp. 279–88. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Hellholm, David, ed. Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983.
Horner, Barry E. Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2007.
Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1997.
Jeremias, J. “παράδεισος.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich. Vol. 5, pp. 765–73. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
John of Damascus, Saint. Writings, translated by Frederic H. Chase, Jr. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1958.
Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000.
Ladd, G. E. The Pattern of New Testament Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Margoliouth, D. S. The Relations between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam. London: Oxford University Press, 1924.
Meier, Fritz. “The Ultimate Origin and the Hereafter in Islam.” In Islam and Its Cultural Divergence: Studies in Honor of Gustave E. Von Grunebaum, pp. 96–112. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1971.
Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, translated by M. Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1967.
–––. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, translated by M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Morris, John D. The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth’s Geologic History. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2012.
Parshall, Phil. Understanding Muslim Teachings and Traditions: A Guide for Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Rustomji, Nerina. The Garden and the Fire: Heaven and Hell in Islamic Culture. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2009.
–––. “Early Views of Paradise in Islam.” Religion Compass 4/3 (Mar 2010): 166–175.
Sailhamer, John H. Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1996.
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Seale, Morris S. “Islamic Society.” In Life after Death, ed. Arnold Toynbee, pp. 123–31. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976.
–––. 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.
Thiselton, A. C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” New Testament Studies 24/4 (1978): 510–26.
Vlach, Michael J. The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009.
Vos, H. F. “Flood.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Rev. ed. Vol. 2, pp. 316–21. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
–––. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Wansbrough, John E. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Warraq, Ibn, ed. The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000.
Wenham, Gordon J. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” In Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, pp. 19–25. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986.
Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed , 1961.
Wiseman, P. J. New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. London: Marsh, Morgan and Scott, 1936.
–––. Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis: A Case for Literary Unity, edited by D. J. Wiseman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: SPCK, 2003.
Wyschogrod, Michael. The Body of Faith: God and the People Israel. 2nd ed. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996.
Zwemer, Samuel R. Islam: A Challenge to Faith. 2nd ed. New York: Student Volunteer Movement, 1909.