Shadid Lewis on John 14:28

Early Context: The Norfolk Debates and Shadid Lewis’s Conversion Story

In March of 2008, a series of debates took place over Easter weekend in Norfolk, Virginia. I was involved in one of those debates, if it can be called a debate. And then David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi engaged in debates with Sami Zatari and Shadid Lewis.

I, at that time, reported on those debates. And you can see those reports here on my YouTube page. Since then, the video has become available. At least part of the video has become available of those debates.

And in a previous video, I reviewed some comments made by Shadid Lewis in regards to the words of the apostle Paul, where he says, to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. And he had made comments about a few verses as part of his religious reasons for converting.

It was interesting to me that at least 80%, 85 of his presentation as to why he converted came before giving the religious reasons and involved all sorts of basically asserting that Christianity had been mean to blacks.

And it was all racial. In fact, I believe there is even one quote from James Cone, the very racially charged, I would say, racist theologian behind, of course, the controversy about Jeremiah Wright and things like that.

But be that as it may, to only get to the religious reasons for your conversion at the end of your presentation tells you a lot. And that was one of the major contrasts between Nabeel Qureshi, whose reasons were all religious, and Shadid Lewis's, whose reasons were primarily racial.

Be that as it may, he did make some claims regarding the New Testament and regarding what the Bible actually teaches. And so I wanted to look at some of the verses that he used. They're very commonly misused and misunderstood.

And so I wanted to look at them in this video. So let's look at what he had to say and look at some of the verses that he misused.

Quranic Claims About Jesus and the Cradle Narrative

So now, let's get to the religious reasons in my last bit of time. The religious reasons that I decided to accept Islam after those social problems, I see that Islam is clear. Who is the Almighty Supreme One?

Is it Jesus? The claims that Islam has given against Christianity I found to be proven true. So Allah says in Surah 5, verse 72, 72. Certainly they disbelieve who say Allah. He is the Messiah, son of Mary.

And the Messiah said, O children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surah 19, verse 30. He said, I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the book and made me a prophet.

I just break in for a moment to make a reference to Surah 19, verse 30, especially for those who are not familiar with the Quran. These words allegedly of Jesus, the entire surah wasn't, the entire ayah wasn't read.

It actually says, whereupon the baby spoke out, I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the book and made me a prophet. This is the incident where according to the Quran, Jesus speaks from the cradle.

And it has been pointed out that this is parallel to a non-biblical second century apocryphal gospel, the infancy gospel found in Arabic, I believe, that likewise has a incident where Jesus speaks from the cradle.

Interestingly enough, in that particular context, he says, verily, I am Jesus, the son of God. The word which thou hast born, according as the angel Gabriel gave you the good news, and my father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

So obviously all of that would be directly contradictory to the Muslim concept. But again, it's very doubtful that Muhammad would have had firsthand exposure to that written text. But instead, as so much of the Quran, I think, demonstrates there is an orality.

There is a hearing of these stories. There is a repeating of these stories. And they take an interesting form when they enter into the Quran. But this is the one place in all of the Quran where Jesus speaks in an identifiable historical context, ironically, from the cradle, as a baby.

And this ends up in the text of the Quran.

John 14:28 and the Misuse of “The Father Is Greater Than I”

So I looked and said, okay, let's see, are these claims accurate? So when I went back, I read the Bible through. And all of a sudden, these verses began to jump out at me. I was, wow, why didn't I see these before?

I see that the Quran speaks the truth. In John 14, verse 28, it is said, according to John, that Jesus said, the Father is greater than I. Whereas Christian doctrine, the Trinity, says that all three are equal.

The Son is equal to the Father. The Father is equal to the Son. And they are equal to the Holy Spirit. They're co-eternal, they're co-equal. Well, if that's the case, then how is Jesus proclaiming these words that the Father is greater than I?

You may say, ah, that was when he was on Earth. But if you say that, I'll come to you and say, don't forget that Paul told you that in him dwells the fullness of God. So if the fullness of God was in him, he's still telling you that the Father is greater.

Therefore, the Christian, the Trinity doctrine.

Obviously is not true. Very plain is the fact that Shadid Lewis has never understood the doctrine of the Trinity. And since he's never understood the doctrine of the Trinity, I really have to ask the question, was he ever truly a Christian in the first place?

He may have gone to a Christian church. But would a person who does not know Tawheed or the prayers or Shahada be considered a true Muslim, even if they were going to mosque or raised in a Muslim country?

The same question would be asked here. Now, two things that come up in this objection, John 14, 28, of course, is by far one of the most common texts to be cited by those who deny the deity of Christ.

Honestly, in at least 98 of the time, I'll take that back, 99 of the time, that I've heard someone cite that text. They've never cited the whole verse. In fact, I would be willing to bet that 98 of them couldn't cite the whole text and couldn't tell me what the context of those words really is.

And I think that's the case here, too. John chapter 14, it's interesting that Shadid would use verse 28 and not raise any questions about whether it's been corrupted. Yet, and I don't know what Shadid's position on this is.

Maybe he doesn't say that Muhammad is prophesied in John 14 and 16. But if he does, and I have a gut feeling he probably does because he has given evidence of following the methodology of Ahmed Didat, then he would have to say that only two verses before this, you have a major word that's been corrupted, allegedly, no evidence of this, of course, but corrupted in the text of the New Testament, and yet this one isn't.

I've always found that cherry-picking of the text, well, we'll accept these because they fit our system, we'll reject these because they don't, to be incredibly disingenuous. And again, for the Muslim watching this, you need to realize that when you use those kinds of double standards, when you're not consistent, when you demonstrate that your commitment to Islam destroys any kind of rational approach to these issues, for someone like myself, you're really causing me to not want to have anything to do with Islam.

Your Islam becomes repulsive to me when you do that because it's clearly not based on truth. Going to the text, I note the context in verse 26, but the helper, the parakletos, that's the term they say has been changed, that that actually has to do with Muhammad.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that at all, but the parakletos, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you, not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. Then we have verse 28, but listen to what verse 20 actually says.

You heard that I said to you, I go away and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Now I have told you before it happens, so when it happens, you may believe.

Couple things. The context of Jesus' words has to do with the fact that he had told them he was going away, and if they had loved him, if they hadn't just been focused upon themselves, if they hadn't been focused upon their false ideas of what the Messiah was supposed to be, if they hadn't been focused upon gaining a kingdom in this world, that kind of thing, then they would have rejoiced.

Why would they have rejoiced that Jesus was going away? Because he's going to the Father. Why would that be a reason for rejoicing for the disciples? Because the Father is greater than I am. And the term greater that is used here, there are a couple terms that can be used in the original language.

This is not the one that we refer to ontologically superior to as in creator, creation, distinction, something like that, but it's normally the term that's used of position. And certainly, again, if we just allow the whole New Testament to speak for itself, we know that Jesus has voluntarily laid aside privileges that were his.

He's going to in John chapter 17 in this same evening of conversation with the disciples, he is going to pray and he's going to talk about the glory which he had with the Father before the world was. That glory is veiled at this time.

He now walks the dusty roads of Galilee. He has his enemies who are following him about seeking always to trap him. And so he has humbled himself as Philippians chapter two verses five through 11 explains to us.

And so what he's actually saying is you should have rejoiced because I am going to the Father. The Father is greater than I am. He's leaving this place of humility and going back to what? The position of exaltation that was eternally his before the incarnation itself.

Only once again, by tearing the text up, ignoring context, in this case, not even taking a subclause of a sentence, not even looking at the whole sentence, can Islamic apologists just torture the text of scripture?

And that's what they do here. Now, you'll notice that Shadid then says, now, if you say it was because he was on earth, no, it's not just because he was on earth. And again, I see no reason to believe that Shadid Lewis understands Christian theology or has ever understood Christian theology.

He certainly never rejected it because he never understood it. But he says that was because he was on earth. No, the proper response would be that this has to do with the distinction between the Father and the Son and that it's the Son who has become incarnate, not the Father.

That is, yes, Jesus is speaking as the incarnate one. So his being on earth is important and going back to the place where he was before, sharing the glory of the Father before creation itself, something can be said of no human prophet.

Yes, that's relevant. But then Shadid's response demonstrates further problems. And that is he tries to somewhat quote, in essence, Colossians chapter 2, which says, for it is in him the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.

And he says, see, right there it says that. Now, again, he rejects Paul, but we'll grab something if we think it will help us and use it and not even consider that it's been textually corrupted or something.

The inconsistencies, again, just make you shake your head. But he doesn't even cite it correctly. And he doesn't understand what it's saying. Because what Colossians 2, 9 says, all the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ's bodily form.

Dwells, katoikai, present tense, right now. This is talking about after the resurrection. And it's not saying all the fullness of the Father in the sense of the Father dwelling in him. In fact, I'm really not even sure what Shadid thinks his response means at this point or how it's relevant to this issue.

John 14, 28 does not deny the deity of Christ. Colossians 2, 9 teaches the deity of Christ. It says, all the fullness of deity dwells, that which makes God God, dwells in him in bodily form. This is after the resurrection.

How that's relevant to John 14, 20, he doesn't explain. And given that he's already demonstrated he really doesn't understand this doctrine in the first place, I don't know if there really would be an explanation forthcoming that would actually be relevant to the comments that he made.

And so this first objection that he presents to us simply does not stand up to, again, meaningful examination based upon the biblical text. John 14, 28 should be a text that believers are not afraid of, that they go to and say, this actually presents to us the deity of Christ.

For no creature could say the words that Jesus says there and all through John 14, and John 17, and John 10, and John 8, and John 6, and so on and so forth. These texts, when we allow the text to speak for itself, when we take it as a whole, are very clear in their testimony to the deity of Christ.

And since Shadid Lewis has never obviously understood these things, then once again, we should pray that the sovereign Lord would open Shadid Lewis's eyes to the glory of Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, who became incarnate to give himself as a sacrifice for sin, all to the glory of the triune God.

Thanks for listening.