Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 6

I mean I've been daunted by it. Canoed very kindly showed me that it was possible. He took one of my lectures and just used the digital software to be able to turn it into script. Then he went through, edited it and put in some headings. I thought, wow, that's amazing. I read through it and I thought, goodness, I had no idea it was possible. After that, I thought Hazel's project sounded feasible and worth doing, to be honest. Thank you both very much for that.

Okay, so I'll share my screen and then we can carry on a little bit of unfinished business here from yesterday. There was a bit of a discussion afterwards about the state. So what do we mean by the state? Every language has its own words and words always have a variety of meanings. In English, the word 'state' can be used in several different ways. Sometimes you talk about the state, you know, how many states are members of the United Nations. There, the state is, in English, the equivalent word is the country. We usually use the word 'country' to refer to that state. There's also a nation-state, which is like a country, a nation that has its own country. A nation-state is a nation which is a people with a common identity, a shared history, shared language, and shared sense of humour and literature. If they live in a country and have their own piece of land, that's what we call a nation-state.

There's another way in which the word 'state' is used in English, and that is to refer to the instruments, the organs of government. There's government, which is the king and the parliament, but it's also the state, which is something a little bit different. So what was going on in Rome? You had the Roman state. We're not talking about the Roman Empire; we're talking about the Roman state, which includes the institutions of the military, the government, the police, the law, welfare, and all these different things. Then we talk about a welfare state, which is where the instruments of government, administered by the government, are directed by the bureaucrats and all of those sorts of things. In Britain, it's mostly about hospitals and education and these kinds of things.

The Roman state was invested with unlimited authority over the individual and the power to exact from him sacrifices, personal interests, and even his life. This is the idea here that the state could demand that a person should join the army and serve for a certain number of years. It wouldn't be the emperor directly doing that; it would be the state which would say, 'You are a citizen of the state; your loyalty is to the state, and therefore we have the right and the authority to force you to do what we want you to do.' We can sacrifice your interests for our purposes; we can sacrifice the individual for what we perceive to be the purpose of the whole. This absolute authority of the state is noticeable in the late Roman Empire as well as under the kings, even before the Roman Republic. This alone can saddle a man for life with the duties of curia, even against his own wishes.

Whether you want to do it or not, the state has the authority to make you do it because, in that sense, you're the property of the state. You belong to the state, and your identity comes from the state. This makes possible the kind of state socialism we meet with after Diocletian. Diocletian was an emperor who was not long before Constantine. State socialism, another word for it, is communism, where the state controls every aspect of society, and you can't do anything without having permission from the state to do it. That's the way it was in the late Roman Empire; it was like communism. Obviously, they weren't Marxist-Leninists because Marx didn't come along for a lot longer, but the basic structure and system were similar. The state organized the economy, welfare, and food.

One of the reasons why the Roman Empire was always expanding was that they expanded into and conquered Egypt, which was the breadbasket of the Mediterranean due to the River Nile. To keep the mob and the crowds happy in Rome, the emperor and the state had to feed people. People living in Rome were dependent upon the state to feed them, employ them, and provide for them. That's one of the reasons why the empire expanded; they could extract resources from the rest of the empire and send those resources back to Rome through taxation. That's what we're talking about here. Also, during the lecture, I mentioned the idea of vox populi, vox Dei, which is the idea that the voice of the people is the voice of God. This came up in the discussion after the lecture about how we can know what God's will is for a nation.

This is a very ancient idea in English political philosophy. The voice of the people is the voice of God. This was articulated in a sermon by Walter Reynolds, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to King Edward III of England. Edward III wanted to do various things because he thought, 'I'm the king; therefore, I can do whatever I want.' He was annoying people and doing things that people didn't want him to do. Later on, you got the idea of the divine right of kings, where the king thought he represented God and could do whatever he wanted, which is what the Roman emperors thought. They thought they represented God and were God. The Archbishop of Canterbury articulated a much more biblical perspective: the voice of the people is the voice of God. That's why you have to listen to the people, and you have to have the consent of the people. This resonates with the whole of liberal democratic philosophy as it develops in Britain, like John Locke and everything.

This is the actual quote from Robert Ferguson, a Scottish figure who used to go around antagonizing governments. He said there'd be no natural divine law for any form of government or that only one person rather than another should have the sovereign administration of affairs or have power over many thousands of different families who are all, by nature, equal, being of the same rank and born to the same advantages of nature. Therefore, mankind is at liberty to choose what form of government they like best. This is a very Scottish perspective on government that resonates through Scotland until today. But here's the idea: again, going back to the Bible, there's no divine form of government. You look at the biblical forms of government; sometimes it's monarchy, sometimes democracy, sometimes judges. There is no set ideal form of government; they should be governed by consent. God is the king, and there should be a separation of powers. That's why Isaiah said, 'God is our king, God is our lawgiver, and God is our judge.'

God is our king, God is our lawgiver, God is our judge. Only God can be king, lawgiver, and judge in the world of humanity. It's all divided; it has to be divided between king, which is the executive; lawgiver, which is the legislature; and judge, which is the judiciary. So there's a separation of powers, which you have in a modern liberal democratic society. The roots of the idea go all the way back to Isaiah. But again, it can take all kinds of different forms. This basic idea is that everybody's equal at the end of the day. Just because you're the king doesn't mean you're any more valuable or important than anybody else. God can speak through anybody just as much as he can speak through the king. Of course, that's quite different from the way it was in the ancient world with a pharaoh who was king and god, with emperors who thought they were god and god's voice, and they had the authority to direct not only society but the church as well and to determine what people ought to believe.

This is a very different kind of tradition developing. Another thing I want to pick up again from something from last night, I think it was, or was it during the lecture? Bertolt Brecht, an East German playwright, said, 'How does the voice of the people become the voice of God?' Of course, the people in control, the people in power, don't like that. They want to be the voice of God. But of course, if you're living in a communist society, you can't talk about the voice of God because that's not the way it works. In East Germany, there was an uprising in 1953. After the uprising of the 17th of June, the secretary of the writers' union had leaflets distributed stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government because they voted the wrong way and could only win it back by increased work quotas. Like Pharaoh, they had to work harder. Would it not, in that case, be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?

That's always a temptation. You think the people got it wrong; why don't you just get a different people? This is the temptation Moses himself faced when the people built the golden calf. God said to Moses, 'Look, Moses, the people that you led out of Egypt have gone and done all this bad stuff. They built a golden calf, an idol, just six weeks after I told them not to do that. They're such a rebellious people; they're not doing as they're told. I will get rid of them and find a better people for you.' Moses said, 'No, the people who you've brought out of Egypt, I'm going to lead them into Canaan.' It happened twice. God said to Moses, 'The people are rubbish; they're so disobedient; they're not doing what they're supposed to do. I'll get rid of them; I'll annihilate them and find a better people for you to lead.' Each time Moses said, 'No, that's not the right solution here.'

But that's the temptation of people in power to think, 'Oh, they voted wrong; we need to get them to vote again and again until they come up with the right answer.' That's what goes on sometimes in the European Union with referenda. That was a temptation in East Germany; the people voted the wrong way; they elected the wrong people. That happened in 1917 in Russia. There was an election for the Duma in February 1917, and the people got it wrong; they voted in the Constitutional Democrats, who formed the majority. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, said the people got it wrong; they voted in the wrong people. 'We're the vanguard of the proletariat; we know what's best for everybody.' On that basis, Lenin and the Bolsheviks staged a coup d'état and seized control in November 1917. That's the attitude of the archangel: instead of serving, wanting to dominate, looking at things from their own point of view, leaving the position a reversal of dominion.

The state is necessary, as Christians and the church always recognize, but it's there to serve. It's not God; it's not the master; it's supposed to be the servant. But for people, fallen nature being what it is, sometimes people are in this kind of position. They like to think, 'Oh, we can see what is best for the whole country; individuals can only see what's best for themselves, and they're too selfish to vote the right way.' Because we're in government, we can see what's going on in the whole country, then we know what's best for everybody, and we're the ones who should be making the decisions, not these uneducated ordinary people who vote selfishly. The whole thing is based upon that kind of attitude; it's like the attitude of the fallen archangel. That's basically the way it was; that's what Rome was. It was the satanic world. When we looked there, we saw Diocletian; that's the way it was. I know Father described the Roman Empire as being in the position of America, but to be perfectly honest, I think he got it wrong. I think the Roman Empire was in the position of the Soviet Union, not in the position of America.

The Roman Empire is like the Soviet Union, which occupied North Korea. A very similar kind of situation. The empire that was in the position of America was called the Parthian Empire. It's further to the east. I talked about it in the lecture from Joshua to Jesus. The Parthian Empire is much more like America; it's much more pluralistic, much more allowing different nations within its empire to be self-governing and to follow their own practices, rules, and religions.

Nobody's heard of the Parthian Empire; only people have heard of the Roman Empire. However, I think the Parthian Empire was basically communist, like the Soviet Union, and equally domineering, exploitative, harsh, and totalitarian. This period is just after Diocletian, by which time the Roman Empire was essentially totalitarian with a theocratic state. The state was sacred, controlling every aspect of people's lives, knowing what is right. Constantine embraced Christianity because he realised that, unlike communism, which had an ideology in Marxism-Leninism that justified and legitimised its power, the Roman state had no ideology to provide legitimate authority or spiritual guidance. Constantine saw Christianity as a means to provide that kind of legitimate ideology for the whole empire.

When he decided to adopt Christianity, he found that Christians were not united; they were fighting amongst themselves like a bunch of cats in a bag. One of these conflicts became particularly intense in Alexandria, a Hellenistic city in northern Egypt built by Alexander the Great. A significant Christian church developed there, where a conflict arose between two church leaders: Arius and Athanasius. Their disagreements were not limited to writing books against each other; they also engaged in street fights over who was right. This sort of conflict has been a recurring theme throughout Christian history.

Constantine called a council at Nicaea, near modern-day Istanbul, to resolve disagreements over the nature of the Son and his relationship to the Father. The central question was about who Jesus is and the nature of his relationship with God the Father, particularly whether the Son had been begotten by the Father from his own being, thus having no beginning, or created out of nothing, thereby having a beginning. Arius argued that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son had a beginning, meaning there was a time when the Son was not. In contrast, Athanasius asserted that Jesus had existed from eternity.

The debate revolved around the idea that if Christ is not God, how can he overcome the infinite gap between God and man? This led to various Gnostic arguments and discussions. The argument about begetting God and the Son of God was significant, as it tied into the Gnostic worldview. Ultimately, Constantine made them agree to a rule of faith, evolving from Tertullian's earlier formulation that stated if one is a Christian, one must believe certain things; otherwise, one is a heretic. This led to the Nicene Creed, which many memorised as children.

The first sentence of the Nicene Creed is straightforward: 'We believe in one God,' which reflects typical Judaism. The phrase 'the Father Almighty' again echoes Judaism, as does 'maker of heaven and earth,' referencing Genesis. However, explaining who Jesus is becomes more complex. They understood Jesus as Lord, the only one to whom one would bow, which is why they refused to bow before the emperor. The term 'only begotten Son of God' has become contentious in our spiritual community. It signifies that Jesus was begotten of the Father before all worlds, indicating that before creation, Jesus was begotten by God.

The reason Jesus is considered God is that gods beget gods. This concept is similar to the Greek mythology of gods on Mount Olympus giving birth to other gods. In this context, when it says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, it means that God literally gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is unique in that he is the only being literally born from God; all other human beings, including Adam and Eve, were created by God. The distinction between Jesus as the Son of God and other human beings is crucial, as Adam is referred to as the Son of God but was created, not begotten.

The Nicene Creed further clarifies that Jesus is 'light of light,' indicating that he is very God of very God, begotten, not made. This distinction is essential, as it asserts that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. The Gospel of John states that everything was made through the Word, which is Jesus. The Creed also affirms that Jesus, for our salvation, came down from heaven, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. This raises questions about why Jesus is the Son of God; he is God's son because God is his father, and he did not have a natural father.

The narrative continues with Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, and rising again on the third day. This resurrection is pivotal, as it demonstrates that Jesus is not an ordinary human being. His resurrection was unprecedented, and it led to many encounters with the resurrected Jesus, which transformed lives. Christians found that by believing in Jesus and being born again, they could enter into a profound relationship with God, experiencing forgiveness of sins. This raises theological questions about how Jesus, as a human being, could offer such redemption.

No other religion claims that their founder can forgive sins. For instance, no Muslim would say they were born again through believing in Muhammad, nor would a Buddhist claim the same about Buddha. There is something fundamentally different about Jesus that enables him to touch people's hearts and lives. Christians wrestled with the question of how to explain this. They concluded that only God has the authority to forgive sins, and since Jesus could do this, he must be both human and divine. This led to further debates about the nature of Jesus and when he became God, whether at his baptism or at another point.

The theological discussions at Nicaea were not merely academic; they were deeply intertwined with politics and personal rivalries. The Arians, who argued for a similar substance rather than the same substance as God, were declared heretics and expelled from the empire. The council's decisions were not just about theology but also about which ideas would dominate the early Christian church. The struggle to define the nature of Jesus and the authority of the church was a complex interplay of faith, politics, and personal conflicts.

Freedom of belief, freedom of religion, and freedom of ideas within Christianity allow for a lot of space. However, this freedom can lead to various strange ideas, such as narcissism, which complicates matters. The issue arises when individuals are allowed to think anything they want, leading to the introduction of ideas that are not rooted in any tradition or text. This results in a plethora of strange theologies. For instance, the Gnostics, like Marcion, rejected the Old Testament, seeking a Christianity disconnected from its Hebrew Bible foundations. Without this connection, other ideas infiltrate, shaping the faith in unexpected ways. If the early Church had remained more rooted in the Hebrew Bible, the Nicene Creed, which is absent from biblical texts, might not have emerged at all. Much of the vocabulary used to define the Christian faith does not originate from biblical terminology, which presents a significant problem.

Another issue arose when the Church began to enforce uniformity of belief. This trend can be traced back to Tertullian from Carthage. Once the definitions were established at Nicaea, freedom of religion, thought, and speech diminished. Prior to Nicaea, there were already creeds, such as Tertullian's rule of faith and the earlier Apostles' Creed, which Christians accepted among themselves. However, Nicaea was different; it was convened by Emperor Constantine, giving the Nicene Creed the force of law backed by the Roman state. Consequently, dissenters faced expulsion from the empire. Before Nicaea, Christians could worship in different churches despite state persecution, but after Nicaea, everything changed dramatically, leading to fatal consequences.

The Council of Nicaea also marked the beginning of a more pronounced anti-Jewish sentiment within the Christian Church. As discussed previously, early Christianity was essentially a Jewish sect, with Jews debating whether Jesus was the Messiah. Those who accepted him as the Messiah identified as Christians, while those who did not formed what is now known as modern Judaism. At that time, Jews constituted a much larger spiritual community than Christians, who were a small sect. As Christianity grew, it attracted many Gentiles, some of whom held anti-Semitic views. The God-fearers were sympathetic to Judaism, but as more Gentiles entered the Church, they brought their Greek anti-Semitism with them, leading to increasing antagonism between Christianity and Judaism.

This tension was exacerbated by debates over the celebration of Easter. Initially, Easter coincided with Passover, as Jesus was crucified during that time. However, as identities began to separate, the Church grappled with whether to follow the Jewish calendar or establish an alternative. Constantine deemed it unworthy for Christians to celebrate Easter alongside Jews, whom he viewed as having stained their hands with the crucifixion of Jesus. This anti-Jewish sentiment influenced the Church's decisions, resulting in the occasional overlap of Easter and Passover but generally leading to a divergence in their observance. Furthermore, the Sabbath was shifted from Saturday to Sunday, aligning with Roman customs and distancing Christians from Jewish practices. Paul’s teachings reinforced this separation, suggesting that Christians need not observe the Sabbath, but rather honour the Lord's Day on Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection.

As the Christian Church gained power within the Roman Empire, anti-Jewish legislation increased. Laws emerged that penalised Christians who converted to Judaism, with severe consequences for both the convert and the Jew facilitating the conversion. This led to a significant decline in Jewish proselytism, as the risks associated with converting someone to Judaism were dire. Jews do not believe that one must be Jewish to attain salvation, which contrasts sharply with Christian beliefs. For Jews, the focus is on how one lives their life rather than on the afterlife. Non-Jews can attain a place in the world to come by observing the Noahide laws, which include prohibitions against murder and idolatry. However, Jews must adhere to a more extensive set of laws, and the penalties for conversion became increasingly severe during this period.

Constantine's involvement in these matters had profound implications for European history, particularly regarding the church-state conflict that has persisted to this day. The Roman state easily accepted the ecclesiastical doctrines of God and Christ, leading to Christianity becoming the official religion of Rome. This transition compelled people to attend church, whether they wished to or not, and facilitated the spread of Christianity. The state used its power to enforce Christian beliefs and gradually humanised Roman law, aligning it more closely with Mosaic law. However, the Roman Empire struggled to recognise the Church as a distinct community, failing to grasp its ontological independence from the world. This misunderstanding stemmed from the emperor's belief that he was God's representative on earth, which ultimately perpetuated the same ideological structures, merely replacing the pantheon of Roman gods with Christ.

The conflict between Athanasius and Arius exemplifies the ongoing theological disputes within Christianity. After the Council of Nicaea, various branches of Christianity emerged, influenced by geographical and cultural differences. The major centres of Christianity were Antioch, associated with a more Semitic perspective, and Alexandria, which was more Hellenistic and idealistic. Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, held views that diverged significantly from those of Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius taught that Christ's human and divine natures were separate, a position that led to his conviction of heresy at the First Council of Ephesus in 431. This controversy illustrates that the Council of Nicaea did not resolve theological disputes but rather intensified them, raising further questions about the relationship between Jesus' divine and human natures. The Nestorian Church, which emerged from these debates, reflects the complexities of early Christian thought and the ongoing evolution of doctrine.

Emperors and their successors never retreated from Chelsea. He was, I think, in the sixth or fifth century, and the empire joined its fate with Orthodoxy forever. But is it not tragic, as Alexander Schmidt again points out, that one of the main reasons for the rejection of Orthodoxy by almost the whole non-Greek East was its hatred for the empire? A hundred years later, Syrians and Copts would greet Muslim conquerors as saviours. The reality was that many of these different peoples outside the empire decided to adopt what the Orthodox had rejected. Orthodox Christianity became intimately associated with Roman rule and the Roman state. Therefore, if you were Orthodox outside the Roman Empire, you were still controlled by it because Orthodox Christianity was controlled by the Roman Empire. There was no separation of church and state, and many people both inside and outside the empire hated the Roman state and wanted independence. In their search for political independence, they also sought religious independence, which meant establishing their own church and doctrine.

This is what happened with the Persian Church in modern-day Iran. The Nestorian Church went off in that direction, becoming officially Nestorian, which allowed them to be outside the control of the Orthodox Church associated with the Roman Empire. This independence enabled them to define their own identity. While they had a different doctrine, part of the reason for choosing it was not solely the doctrine itself but the desire for self-governance without interference from the Orthodox Church. The Armenian Church also became Monophysite, as did the Coptic Church in Egypt, both of which sought independence from the empire. The Armenian Church was the first national church, establishing its own doctrine and creed, which allowed it to be independent from any patriarchates within the Roman Empire. The Georgian Church, located next to Armenia, adopted Chalcedon to gain imperial aid against Armenia, as the Armenians had dominated the Georgians. The Roman Empire offered help on the condition that they adopt Orthodox Christianity, which they did.

Understanding European history requires an understanding of the waves of tribes coming from the east, particularly from the Mongolian steppes. As these tribes expanded westward, they pushed others along with them. The Mongols moved west, causing other groups to be displaced. Eventually, the Huns came along, pushing the Germanic tribes, who then decided to invade the Roman Empire due to a lack of space. This led to the sack of Rome in 410. When I read that God raised up the Germanic tribes as a new chosen people, I found it intriguing. God raises a new chosen people only when the old chosen people fail. I argue that the Roman Empire failed when Christianity became its official religion, as there was no longer a foundation to receive the Messiah. If the Messiah had been born into the late Roman Empire, He would not have subscribed to the Nicene Creed any more than Jesus would have. Jesus did not see Himself as one substance with the Father or as the second person in the Trinity. If Christ had returned and been born in the Roman Empire, He would have been expelled or put to death as a heretic.

This lack of a foundation to receive the Messiah in the Roman Empire is why God raised up the Germanic tribes as His new chosen people. They had a different cultural foundation and a deeper sense of the importance of freedom and democracy. Some of these Germanic tribes were pushed westward, leading to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes packing their bags and sailing to Britain, where they settled in a fertile land. They are called the Angles and Saxons, which is why it is called England—the land of the Angles. Later, they sent missionaries back to Christianise the Germanic tribes. However, I am more interested in tracing how God's providence moved east. There was another patriarchate in Baghdad, the Nestorian Church, which was not Orthodox. Orthodox Christians typically only acknowledge the five patriarchates within the Roman Empire, but the patriarchate based in Baghdad was geographically the largest church in the world at that time, stretching across Asia.

Christianity travelled down the Silk Road, with missionaries like Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, going to various regions. Some went into Tibet, others into Mongolia, and eventually to China. Evidence of this can be seen in the Mongolian Christians, many of whom became Nestorian. For instance, there is a Nestorian church from a monastery outside Beijing and a Nestorian pagoda in China. After Christianity was exterminated, these church buildings were repurposed. One significant artifact is a Nestorian stele discovered in China, which dates back to 781 and discusses the early church's history in China. It mentions a Persian cleric named Aleppen, who was a missionary in China, and lists many early Christians there, referring to Christianity as the 'luminous religion.' The Nestorian Church also spread to Korea, brought by ethnic Mongolians who converted and took Christianity to the Korean peninsula.

The Neiman tribe, a Mongolian group, established a dynasty in Korea and spread Nestorian Christianity among the people. At that time, Korea became a centre of philosophy and theology in East Asia, attracting Christians from China to study in Korean monasteries. The Neiman also sent missionaries to Japan, where Nestorian Christianity flourished. In Japan, the Mojo dynasty established Nestorian authority, leading to a philosophical exchange between Japan and Korea. However, the Tang dynasty eventually overthrew this Chinese dynasty, rejecting Christianity as a state ideology. This situation mirrors Rome, where the state sought an ideology to legitimise its power. The Tang dynasty advanced rulership based on Neo-Confucianism, which was largely secular and legalistic, emphasising obedience to the emperor as the highest virtue.

The tolerance of Christians in China came to a violent end after a revolt that led to the collapse of the Tang dynasty and the rise of the Ming dynasty, which offered Christians the choice of conversion to Manichaeism or death. The Ming dynasty implemented anti-Christian legislation, targeting Christian communities for extermination. This led to widespread immigration from China, with Muslims choosing to go to Korea when possible. The first major centre of Christian theology in East Asia was Korea, particularly the city of Pyongyang, which became a hub for the Neiman to spread Christianity. The doctrine established in Korea became definitive for all forms of East Asian Nestorianism, with the Korean doctrine articulated by Sung Mark, who established the basic tenets regarding the two persons in Jesus Christ. This development reflects the evolution of Nestorius's ideas, which were condemned at the council of the Orthodox Church, particularly the notion that salvation is accessible only through faith in Him rather than through individual good works.

So, you can see that I haven't really found out what happens in the story of Christianity. Orthodox Christians don't talk about it; they discuss Catholicism being brought to Korea much later, which I will address in due course. This was through Catholic Koreans who came across Jesuit texts from China, thinking about the 17th century. However, there's this huge gap of almost 800 years. Generally, from what I understand, the story of Christianity continued within Korea, but it remained quite small, not particularly well organised. Interestingly, Pyongyang had a significant role even back then, so I can imagine that many of the people who became Christians when Christianity came through Catholicism or Protestantism may have had families with some kind of ancestral lineage connected to historical Christianity. This is entirely speculation on my part, but it’s a possibility.

Another question arises: what is the role of Islam in God's providence? When I look at the patriarchs, I will primarily focus on how it developed within Europe, but I also want to examine Islam and how God's providence developed there. To understand this, we need to go back a long way to Abraham. As we know, Abraham had a wife, Sarah, who was unable to have a child. Sarah suggested to Abraham that he sleep with her maid, Hagar, so that through her, she could have a son, acting as a surrogate mother. Hagar then became a surrogate mother for Sarah, and they had a son named Ishmael. The relationship between Hagar and Sarah became very intense, especially after Ishmael was born. Later, 13 years after Ishmael's birth, Sarah became pregnant and had Isaac, which intensified the relationships further.

Sarah then told Abraham to cast out the slave woman and her son, declaring that the son of the slave woman shall not be the heir with her son Isaac. Abraham was reluctant to do this, but God instructed him to listen to his wife. This is a piece of advice that all women should perhaps hang as a poster in their kitchens or living rooms: 'God said to Abraham, listen to your wife.' God also assured Abraham that He would bless Ishmael and make him fruitful, declaring that he would be the father of twelve princes and a great nation. However, God's covenant would be established with Isaac. Abraham then sent Hagar and Ishmael away, and much later, after Sarah's death, he sought out Ishmael in the desert to see what had happened to his son. They reunited, and according to the Quran, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the first house for the worship of God, which is located in the centre of Mecca, around which Muslims walk during Hajj.

In the Quran, it is stated that as Abraham raised the foundations of the shrine together with Ishmael, they prayed, 'Our Lord, accept this from us; You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.' You might wonder how this is depicted; this is from the Shia tradition, as Sunnis do not have pictures of Muhammad, while Shia do. From Abraham, we have Ishmael and the Arab nation, which much later gave rise to Muhammad and Islam. From Abraham, we also have Isaac, the Jewish people, and Judaism, which later influenced Christianity. As we know, things did not turn out as expected; Jesus was crucified. One might speculate that had things worked out differently, Jesus would have moved east rather than west. The west was dominated by the Roman Empire, akin to the Soviet Union, and it is likely that he would have found the Arabs, descendants of Ishmael, more receptive to his teachings aimed at modernising Judaism. However, that opportunity did not arise, and Christianity, as we observed, deviated from Judaism, influenced by Gnosticism and Roman culture, becoming very hierarchical.

Christianity is not called the Roman Catholic Church for no reason; it is incredibly hierarchical and authoritarian. It inherited much from Greek philosophy and Hellenism, leading to discussions about Christology and Trinitarianism. In this context, Islam emerged as a reforming movement. We saw how Christianity spread; it did not only go west but also east. Historical Christianity spread eastward, and many Christian communities existed throughout the Arab Peninsula, the Middle East, and North Africa, both within and outside the Roman Empire. When Islam emerged, it was perceived as a reforming movement within Christianity. Muhammad, born in 570, is referred to as the 'Seal of the Prophets,' meaning he is the last prophet and the culmination of all the prophets who came before him. Muslims acknowledge the prophethood of Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ishmael, Moses, and Jesus, all of whom are considered prophets of Islam.

Muslims assert that Islam did not begin with Muhammad; he was simply the last of the prophets, and the tradition goes back to Adam. Therefore, Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet of Islam, which can be uncomfortable for Christians, just as it is for Jews to hear Christians using the Hebrew Bible. Islam sees itself as the heir to the promises given to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Islam began to spread rapidly; Muhammad united all the Arab tribes into a single political order, and with the Arab armies came Muslim missionaries. Interestingly, most of those who converted to Islam were Christians. They did not perceive Islam as a separate religion but rather as a reforming movement within Christianity. Muslims believe Jesus was the Messiah and accept the virgin birth. In fact, there is more written about Mary in the Quran than in the New Testament, and Muslims also believe that Christ will return on the Day of Judgment. There is a significant overlap between the beliefs of Christians and Muslims, and at that time, Christians living in the Middle East viewed Islam as a reform movement that clarified many Christological issues.

Muslims assert that Jesus is the Messiah, a human being, and not God, which contrasts with the complex formulations of Christian theology regarding Jesus being fully human and fully divine. Islam presents a simpler and clearer Christology, which contributed to its rapid spread. Within Islam, Muhammad stated that people of the Book, namely Jews and Christians, could convert to Islam if they wished, but if they chose not to, that was acceptable. However, those who were not people of the Book, or pagans, had the choice to either accept Islam or face the sword. This philosophy mirrors what occurred when the Hebrews entered Canaan; people either had to accept the code of Noah or fight. Similarly, Muslims offered a choice during the spread of Islam, which occurred extraordinarily rapidly. Within Muhammad's lifetime, Islam expanded significantly, and within another 30 years, the areas that were once Christian became Muslim. A century later, Islam had spread throughout North Africa and into Spain.

During this time, the Vandals, who were Aryan Christians, embraced Islam, although not all of them did. The Muslim armies crossed into France but were defeated at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel. Imagine sitting in Rome, watching the news and seeing this rapid expansion. Within 120 years, Islam spread from the Middle East to North Africa and into Spain, creating a sort of pincer movement that would have caused concern in Rome. Islam was perceived as a reform movement within Christianity, and it expanded and developed very rapidly. One of the positive actions of the Church was to take the New Testament, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul, and attach them to the back of the Hebrew Bible, creating an intertextual conversation between the Old and New Testaments. The Bible is an incredibly complex document, and I believe it would have been beneficial if Muslims had taken the Quran and attached it to the back of the Bible, creating a third testament. Although the Quran references major prophets like Noah, it lacks the stories found in the Hebrew Bible. I think it would have been much better for the world if Islam had done what the Church did and included the Quran as part of the biblical canon, but they chose not to, which I believe was a significant mistake.

The question then arises: will the Messiah be born in a Muslim country? Who must establish the foundation to receive the Messiah? It is not predestined for the Messiah to be born a Muslim or a Christian, in Europe, Korea, North Africa, or anywhere else. The place where the Messiah will be born is determined by those who make the foundation to receive him. Muslims also believe in Jesus and expect his return, and if you speak to a Muslim, they will say they expect this to happen in a Muslim country. The foundation to receive the Messiah consists of two aspects: the foundation of faith and the foundation of substance. The foundation of faith involves separation from Satan, which we know occurs at a certain time. If we examine Islam, do Muslims have a spiritual life that separates them from Satan? Yes, they do. They have the Five Pillars of Islam, a clear belief in the Shahada, and they pray five times a day, demonstrating a strong spiritual life. They also fast for one month each year, which fosters a mind-body unity, and they give to charity through zakah, a certain proportion of their wealth. They are also expected to go on pilgrimage if they can afford it. Thus, there is a very strong foundation of faith in the Muslim world.

The second aspect is the foundation of substance. This involves the relationship between Cain and Abel, where Cain, the elder, is supposed to listen to Abel, the younger, and unite with him. The expectation is that Cain should not kill Abel. This is crucial, as it reflects the different ways we can look at faith, reason, science, and religion, as well as Hellenism and Hebraism. Within Judaism 2000 years ago, there was a foundation of substance, as there are many opinions among Jews. Jesus was able to argue his position, which raises the question of whether there is freedom of religion. We must consider whether Islam can unite the Hebraic and Hellenistic traditions. I will not delve into that today, as it is time to stop. I will continue on Thursday to explore how God's providence developed in the Islamic world and whether the Muslim world was able to establish a foundation to receive the Messiah. This will serve as a nice little cliffhanger.