|
Islam as the
‘End’ of Christianity:
Assessing the Arguments for Abrogation
Kevin James Bywater
Introduction:
The Islamic (Mis)Perception of Christianity
Qur'anic Refraction
The Qur'an on the Trinity
The
Christian Correction
Part
1: Islam as the 'End' of the Christian Faith
The Primacy of Islam
Islam Is the Original Religion
All
Humans Are Born Muslims
God Has Sent Prophets and Their
Books
Moses and Jesus Taught Islam
Abraham
Taught Islam
Honor
Previous Prophets and Books
The Prophet Muhammad
He Was Spoken of in the Previous Books
He Was
the Universal Prophet
He Was
the Final Prophet
The Qur'an
The Qur'an Confirms Previous Books
The
Qur'an Is the Fullness of Revelation
The
Qur'an Is the Perfect Book
The
Qur'an Is Incorruptible
Summary and Conclusion
Islam Is the Only Valid Faith
Part
2: Assessing the Arguments for Abrogation
The
Essential of Continuity
Discontinuity: Human Nature
Old Testament: Depravity
New
Testament: Depravity
Islam: No
Depravity
Discontinuity: Salvation
Islam: Good and Bad Deeds
Christianity: Christ Jesus
Islam
Denies Jesus's Death and Resurrection
Discontinuity: Revelation
Affirming the Old Testament
Affirming
the Prophets
Affirming
the Word of God
The
Apostle Paul's Example
Christianity and Old Testament
Religion
Old Testament: Greater and Lesser Commands
New
Testament: Greater and Lesser Commands
The Case
of Circumcision
No Prophecies of Muhammad in the
Bible
Deuteronomy 18: 15, 18
John
14:16
Conclusion
Appendix:
Baha'i as the Ultimate Religion
Endnotes
Introduction:
The Islamic (Mis)Perception of Christianity
Following the stunning tragedies of 11 September
2001, the world has shifted attention not simply toward the
Middle East, but especially toward the religion of Islam.
Unfortunately, many Americans perceive Islam merely to be the
religion of terrorists. This is simplistic. And while Islam
historically has been characterized by warfare and its own
version of colonialism, it is understandable why many people in
Central America, South Africa and elsewhere have perceived
Christianity in similar terms. Since the retreat of the Ottoman
Empire and the advance of colonialism by Europeans, Muslims
voiced a similar perception of Christianity. Regardless of these
perceptions or misperceptions we need to gain a better
understanding of just how Muslims view Christianity (which they
often identify simply with the West).1
In doing so, I believe we will gain a greater understanding of
the Islamic faith itself. The trajectory of Islamic theology
that is the focus of this study is that of abrogation; not the
Qur’anic dynamic of legal abrogation,2
though that is touched upon, but the assertion that in the
religion of Islam, Judaism and Christianity meet their end.
Qur’anic Refraction
Essential to the Islamic perspective is the
primary lens through which Muslims view all of reality, the
Qur’an.3 In fact, the Muslim study
of other religions has historically focused upon the Qur’anic
presentation of their practices, beliefs and history, rather
than through a direct investigation of those religions. This has
lead to a projection of Mohammad’s perception of the practices
and beliefs of the Christian faith rather than a clear
understanding of the actual realities resident within it.4
This projectionism is evident, for example, in the confused
Muslim description of Christian doctrines such as the
incarnation of Christ and the Trinity.
The Qur'an on the
Trinity
As is well-known, Muslims reject the Trinity
because the Qur’an contains outright denunciations of it.5
O people of the Scripture! Do not exceed the
limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth.
The Messiah Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more
then) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" —
and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh)
created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say
not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (It is) better for
you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), glory be
to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs
all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And
Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. (Qur'an
4:171)
But it also is evident that Mohammad never
obtained a clear understanding of the doctrine, for the Qur’an
confuses Mary with the Holy Spirit and projects the Trinity as
polytheistic.
And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day
of Resurrection): "O Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)!
Did you say unto men: ‘Worship me and my mother as two gods
besides Alla?’" He will say: "Glory be to You! It
was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said
such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is
in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly,
You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and
unseen). (Qur’an 5:116)
Surely, disbelievers are those who said
"Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)."
But there is no Ilah (god) (none who has the right to
be worshipped6) but One Ilah
(God — Allah). And if they cease not from what they say,
verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers
among them. (Qur’an 5:73)
Such misunderstandings are extremely difficult
to work through with Muslims. Some seem to think that if
Christians disagree with how the Qur’an describes their
beliefs, they must either be lying or must have changed the
doctrine of the Trinity . The Qur’an cannot be mistaken.
Hence the refracting lens of the Qur’an.
The Christian Correction
Regardless of such misrepresentation, throughout
the history of Christian doctrine polytheism has been rejected.
The doctrine of the Trinity is understood as a strong
declaration of the essential unity of God. As the Athanasian
Creed reads, "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity; neither dividing the substance nor confusing the
persons." An undivided substance is a unity. And this
declaration is at the heart of Christian confession. All
orthodox Christians affirm a belief in only one true God. Such
an affirmation derives from biblical teaching and is affirmed in
both the Old and New Testaments. For example:
You were shown these things so that you might
know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other ...
Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in
heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.
(Deuteronomy 4:35, 39)
"You are my witnesses," declares the
LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may
know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no
god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am
the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior." (Isaiah
43:10-11; cf. 44:6-8)
For even if there are so-called gods, whether
in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many
"gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there
is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians
8:5-6; cf. Ephesians 4:4-6)
In spite of appeal to these and other biblical
passages, and in the face of numerous protests of Christians,
Muslims insist that Trinitarian theology is polytheistic. The
projection from the mind of Muhammad is recalcitrant in the
mentalities of Muslims. As never before Modern Americans must
grasp the reality that Muslims perceive our religion through the
lens of the Qur’an.
Transcending these simple misunderstandings of the Christian
faith, Muslims hold to a belief that Islam has superseded and
abrogated Christianity, much the same (to their thinking) as
Christianity did Judaism. It is to this facet of Islamic
teaching that we turn our attention in the following study.
Part
1: Islam as 'the End' of the Christian Faith
La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadu Rasool
Allah.
There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
— The essential Muslim profession of faith.
It is one thing to charge another religion with
falsehoods and its adherents as misguided, it is quite another
to make the sweeping claim that one religion has superseded all
others, abrogating all previous divine revelations and divinely
instituted obligations. This is precisely the claim of Islam
toward Christianity and Judaism. It is the most comprehensive
claim that can be made. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to
claim that all the elements of another religion are false
or destructive or misleading. But an aura of plausibility may
attend the assertion of replacing a previous religion.
The Islamic case for the abrogation of
Christianity has many elements, from claims for Islam being the
original religion, to assertions that all true prophets have
taught Islam, to charges that the biblical texts have been
corrupted and biblical doctrines distorted by Jews and
Christians. We will look at these and other factors in our
survey of the Qur’anic teaching regarding Christianity.
The Primacy of Islam
That Islam is the original religion is
understood in two ways, both in terms of its being the original
religion existing since the beginning of creation, as well as in
terms of its inherence in each human being at birth.
Islam Is the Original
Religion
When God created the first human, Adam, he
struck a covenant with him, a covenant of Islam. To this
covenant all of the sons of Adam bear witness. To this covenant
all people are held accountable.
And (remember) when your Lord brought forth
from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed (or
from Adam’s loin his offspring) and made them testify as to
themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord?" They
said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the
Day of Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of
this." (Qur’an 7:172)
Thus the excuse of ignorance of Islam is
removed. All humans are responsible to live up to the covenant
struck with their first father, Adam. On the day of judgment
there will be no excuse.
All Human Beings Are
Born Muslims
In addition to holding Islam as the primordial
religion, we find resident within Islamic tradition the belief
that each and every human being is born a Muslim, though such a
pristine faith at birth may be muted through the mis-instruction
of others.
Narrated Abu Huraira : Allah’s Apostle said,
"Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to
worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to
Judaism, Christianity or Magainism,7
as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it
mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses:
"The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam)
(i.e. worshipping none but Allah) with which He has created
human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah
(i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the
straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not."8
It follows from this that if every human is born
a Muslim, then so were the prophets of old, such as Adam,
Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But not only were these
prophets all Muslims, they taught a pure form of Islam as
prophets, even though their teaching was not coextensive with
that revealed through Mohammad.
God Has Sent Prophets
and Their Books
According to the Qur’an, God graciously has
sent messengers to every nation to teach them submission to God
and to warn them against false religious teachings and
practices.
And verily, We have sent among every Ummah
(community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship
Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut
(all false deities i.e. do not worship Taghut besides
Allah." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of
them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel
through the land and see what was the end of those who denied
(the truth). (Qur’an 16:36)
Verily We have sent you [Mohammad] with the
truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. And there never
was a nation but a warner had passed among them. (Qur’an
35:24)
Even the religions that predate Islam are
understood as Islamic, their prophets as prophets of God:
"We did send apostles before thee amongst the religious
sects of old" (Qur’an 15:10). So God has graciously
revealed his will throughout history and across all cultures. To
be specific, though, the Qur’an names a number of these
prophets, many of whom are familiar to Christians.
Moses and Jesus Taught
Islam
Moses and Jesus are understood to have been
prophets who taught Islam — the primordial faith, the religion
of God — and Mohammad is believed to have been granted the
very same prophetic mantle. One verse in the Qur’an that sums
up the continuity between Moses, Jesus and Mohammad reads as
follows:
And (remember) when Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam
(Mary), said: "O children of Israel! I am the Messenger
of Allah unto you, confirming the Taurat [(Torah) which came]
before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come
after me, who name shall be Ahmad. But when he (Ahmad i.e.
Mohammad) came to them with clear proofs, they said:
"This is plain magic." (Qur’an 61:6)
In this verse we see not only that Jesus is
understood to confirm the book of Moses, the Torah, but he
positions himself to pass the prophetic mantle to one who would
come after him, namely Mohammad (we will discuss alleged
prophecies of Muhammad below).
Abraham Taught Islam
Not only is there an asserted continuity between
Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, but the Qur’an also appeals to
Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian.9
Ibrahim (Abraham) was neither a Jew nor a
Christian, but he was a true Muslim Hanifa (Islamic
Monotheism — to worship none but Allah Alone) and he was not
of Al-Mushrikun [of those who worship other than
Allah]. (Qur’an 3:67)10
Muslims Should Honor
Previous Prophets and Their Books
So, Mohammad’s mission was in harmony with the
prophets of old, even an extension of it. It is in this light
that the Qur’anic teaching makes good sense that Muslims must
affirm the previous prophets and their books. Thus we find in
the Qur’an commands that Muslims are to affirm all the
previous messengers of God.
Say (O Muslims), "We believe in Allah and
that which has been sent down to us and that which has been
sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq
(Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), and to Al-Asbat [the offspring
of the twelve sons of Yaqub (Jacob)], and that which has been
given to Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus), and that which has been
given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction
between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in
Islam)." (Qur’an 2:136)
In addition, Muslims are commanded to affirm the
books that stem from these ancient prophets.
O you who believe! Believe in Allah, and His
Messenger (Muhammad), and the Book (the Qur’an) which He has
sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent
down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieve in Allah,
His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then
indeed he has strayed far away. (Qur’an 4:136)
The Prophet Mohammad
Even though the Qur’an teaches that Islam is
the primordial religion, that every human is born a Muslim, that
God has sent prophets to all the nations and codified their
message in books, and Muslims are to affirm both these prophets
and their books, the ministry of Mohammad is not to be
understood as merely affirming the status quo. No, with the
coming of Mohammad is the coming of a new era, and era of
universal prophethood, an era of the perfection of the true
religion.
Mohammad Was Spoken of
in the Previous Books
The Qur’an narrates that Jesus spoke of a
prophet that would follow him, namely "Ahmed," which
is another name for Mohammad.
And (remember) when Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam
(Mary), said: "O children of Israel! I am the Messenger
of Allah unto you, confirming the Taurat [(Torah) which came]
before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come
after me, who name shall be Ahmad. But when he (Ahmad i.e.
Mohammad) came to them with clear proofs, they said:
"This is plain magic." (Qur’an 61:6)
Mohammad also affirmed that there were
prophecies foretelling his arrival and ministry in the Torah and
the Gospel.
Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet
who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad (whom they find
written with them in the Taurat (Torah) (Deut, xviii 15) and
the Injeel (Gospel) (John xiv, 16) ... (Qur’an 7:157)
The footnote in the King Fhad edition of the
Qur’an reads as follows:
There exists in the Taurat (Torah) and the
Injeel (Gospel), even after the original text has been
distorted, clear prophecies indicating the coming of Prophet
Muhammad, e.g. Deut 18:18; 21:21; Psl. 118:22-23; Isa.
42:1-13; Hab. 3:3-4; Matt. 21:42-43; Jn. 14:12-17, 26-28,
16:7-14.
Muslims believe that only in Mohammad
certain prophecies in the Bible fulfilled. The primary prophetic
passages are, in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 18:15 and, in
the New Testament, John 14:16 (both of these passages will be
addressed at length below). Thus, if there are prophecies of
Mohammad found in the Bible — in both Old and New Testaments,
then these are very good reasons for Jews and Christians to drop
their distinctives and divisions and become Muslims.
Mohammad Was the
Universal Prophet
Though the message of the prophets was true to
God, their message was temporary and limited. None were prophets
for all people. Their messages were time-bound, even though in
harmony with the Qur’an. "The Message of Mohammed,"
comments Afif Tabbarah, "was sent to all mankind, unlike
those of the apostles before him who were sent, each to his own
people."11 Thus we read in the
Qur’an,
Say (O Muhammad): "O mankind! Verily, I
am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah — to Whom
belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. La ilaha
illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). It
is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and
His Messenger (Muhammad), the Prophet who can neither read nor
write (i.e. Muhammad), who believes in Allah and His Words
[(this Qur’an), the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)
...], and follow Him so you may be guided. (Qur’an 7:158)
And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except
as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but
most of men know not. (Qur’an 34:28)
Mohammad Was the Final
Prophet.
Not only is Mohammad uniquely viewed as the only
universal messenger of God, he is also understood to be
the final messenger, the seal of the prophets.
Mohammad’s mission was in complete harmony with the previous
prophets, but he was unique in that in him the prophetic
traditions reached their climax. Thus the Qur’an claims that
Mohammad is the seal of the prophets, the final messenger or
mouthpiece of God.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the
Prophets. And Allah is Every All-Aware of everything. (Qur’an
33:40)
Afif Tabbarah comments on this verse.
This verse concludes the epoch of prophethood,
and decides that there shall be no prophet after Mohammed,
though thousands of years had passed on God’s creation of
the universe before Mohammed, with prophets succeeding one
another. In the books of these prophets, there were tidings
that other prophets will come after them ... About fifteen
centuries have now passed on the revelation of the
above-quoted verse, a period long enough for the appearance of
many prophets after Mohammed, coming one after the other, or
living contemporaneously with one another. Why have they not
appeared?12
A well-known hadith provides an instructive
illustration of the teaching that Mohammad is the final prophet
of God.
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said,
"My similitude in comparison with the other prophets
before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and
beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The
people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would
that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick,
and I am the last of the Prophets."13
The Qur’an
The book associated with the one universal and
final prophet, Mohammad, is the Qur’an. It is not only
believed to be revelation from God — and as such it is a
confirmation of the previous revelations — but it is believed
to be God’s final revelation, kept and guarded by the divine
will and thus uncorrupted to this day.
The Qur’an Confirms
the Previous Books
The Qur’an is understood not to
conflict with the books that stem from these older prophets but
rather to confirm their message (an assertion we will address
below).
And this Qur’an is not such as could ever be
produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the
earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was
before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel)],
and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws, decreed for
mankind) — wherein there is no doubt — from the Lord of
the Alamin (mankind, jinn, and all that exists). (Qur’an
10:37)
And before this was the Scripture of Musa
(Moses) as a guide and a mercy. And this is a confirming Book
(the Qur’an) in the Arabic language, to warn those who do
wrong, and as glad tidings to the Muhsinun ... (Qur’an
46:12)
The Qur’an Is the
Perfect Book
If the earlier prophets had books, then so did
Mohammad. In fact, Muslims view the Qur’an as unsurpassable,
the only perfect book on earth.
Say: "If the mankind and the jinn were
together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not
produce the like thereof, even if they helped one
another." (Qur’an 17:88)
The Qur’an Is the
Fullness of Revelation
Indeed, not only is the Qur’an incomparable
among all the books, it is also the fullness of God’s
revelation.
And indeed, We have fully explained to
mankind, in this Qur’an, every kind of similitude, but most
of mankind refuse (the truth and accept nothing) but
disbelief. (Qur’an 17:89)
The Qur’an Is
Incorruptible
While it is common for Muslims to claim that the
biblical texts have been tampered with to such an extent that
the Bible cannot be regarded as reliable, it is also common for
them to assert that the same could never happen to the Qur’an.
Why could this never happen to the Qur’an? Because God has
vowed to guard it:
Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr
(i.e. the Qur’an) and surely, We will guard it (from
corruption). (Qur’an 15:9)
The footnote to this passage in the King Fahd
edition of the Qur’an reads,
This verse is a challenge to mankind and
everyone is obliged to believe in the miracles of this
Qur’an. It is a clear fact that more than 1400 years have
elapsed and not a single word of this Qur’an has been
changed, although the disbelievers tried their utmost to
change it in every way, but they failed miserably in their
efforts. As it is mentioned in this holy Verse: "We will
guard it." By Allah! He has guarded it. On the contrary,
all the other holy Books [the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel
(Gospel)] have been corrupted in the form of additions or
subtractions or alterations in the original text.14
Not only do Muslims believe that the Qur’an
will be kept from corruption, it is inscribed on an eternal
tablet:
Nay! This is a Glorious Qur’an, (Inscribed)
in the Al-Luah Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Qur’an
85:21-22)
So, even though God Almighty has provided
previous revelations, it is only the Qur’an that has been
preserved and will be kept from corruption.
Summary and Conclusion
In our brief survey of the Islamic view of
Christianity, we have seen the following. 1) Islam is the
original religion, it is the primordial religion, the religion
of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. In addition, all humans are
born Muslims. 2) God has sent prophets throughout time to all
the nations — prophets such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus. He
has not only spoken through those prophets but given them books
(e.g. the Torah and the Gospel). But their missions were
limited, and their books were incomplete and later corrupted. 3)
Mohammad is the final prophet foretold in the Bible, and his
book, the Qur’an, is perfect, complete and incorruptible.
Islam Is the Only Valid
Faith
Because of the finality of Mohammad’s
prophethood, combined with the completion of God’s revelation
in the Qur’an, orthodox Muslims reject any new claims to
divine revelation or religious succession beyond Islam. Thus
they are critical of such groups as the Baha’i,15
the Ahmadiyyah,16 and the Nation of
Islam.17 Even so, the Baha’i, in
particular, assert that in their religion all religions meet
their unification.18
That Muslims claim Islam as the only viable
faith is not objectionable, at least not in that it claim
exclusivity. In a philosophical context that increasingly
diminishes the significance of religious differences,
distinctions, and truth claims, Muslims should be commended for
retaining the categorical values of truth and falsehood with
regards to religious beliefs and belief systems. Even so, there
seems to have been a time when Islam was more inclusive than it
is now. The Qur’an teaches, and Muslims once broadly affirmed,
that non-Muslim monotheists who affirmed the doctrine of a last
day of judgment could retain an assured hope as they faced that
day.
Verily! Those who believe and those who are
Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah
and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have
their reward with the Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor
shall they grieve. (Qur’an 2:62)
Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of
Allah, in His Messenger Muhammad and in all that was revealed
to him from Allah), and those who are the Jews and the Sabians
and the Christians, — whosoever believed in Allah and the
Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear,
nor shall they grieve. (Qur’an 5:69)
But even though there was such a time of Islamic
religious embrace of other monotheistic faiths, such a time has
come to an end. Traditional Muslim commentators are in unanimous
agreement that the verses just listed have been abrogated by
another.
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam,
it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will
be one of the losers. (Qur’an 3:85)
Thus we have come full circle. Islam is the
original faith, the faith of Adam and his descendants; Islam is
the faith with which every human is born into this world; Islam
is the faith of all the prophets — though Muhammad is the
universal and final prophet; Islam in its revealed fullness is
contained within the pages of the Qur’an, the perfect,
ultimate, and incorruptible scripture; and as such, Islam is the
only valid faith in our day, the religion in which all
monotheistic faith reach their climactic end.
Part
2: Assessing the Arguments for Abrogation
As we interact with the Islamic perception of
Christianity as meeting its end in Islam, we will focus our
attention on such primary issues as continuity, the reliability
and authority of the Bible, the alleged prophecies regarding
Mohammad, and the relationship between Christianity and the
faith of the Old Testament.
The Essential of
Continuity
In order for one religion to claim to be an
organic development of a preceding religion, there must be a
high degree of continuity. In other words, there must be
substantial agreement in what is essential to that prior
religion. To a degree, Islam can claim such continuity with
Christianity and Judaism (understood as the religion of the Old
Testament).
Regarding God, Muslims believe he exists, that
he is one God, that he created the universe, is sovereign,
maximally powerful, active with his creation — especially with
humanity, and that he knows even the intimate details of human
lives and will one day bring all humanity to account for deeds
good and evil. Christians and Muslims also believe that God has
spoken to humanity through messengers (human and angelic). We
also agree that God’s revelation has been inscripturated in
holy books.
But even with such substantial agreement, far
too many discontinuities exist that undermine the plausibility
of the Islamic claim to be a harmonious extension of Judaism and
Christianity. Let’s begin with some representative doctrinal
discontinuities.
Discontinuity: Human
Nature
The claim that Mohammad and the Qur’an confirm
the message of the prophets fails to cohere with the actual
teachings as found in the Bible, whether Old or New Testament.
Consider the doctrine of human sinfulness as taught in the Old
and New Testaments. They teach that humans face entry into this
world with an inherited tendency toward sin. This is the
doctrine of "original sin."
The Old Testament on
Human Nature: Depravity
Here’s how the Old Testament describes the
inherent sinfulness of humanity.
The LORD saw how great humanity’s wickedness
on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the
thoughts of their hearts was only evil all the time. (Genesis
6:5)
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said
in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground
because of humanity, even though every inclination of their
hearts is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy
all living creatures, as I have done. (Genesis 8:1)
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the
time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)
The New Testament on
Human Nature: Depravity
The New Testament stands in full agreement with
the Old Testament. Consider just a few passages.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world
through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was
given, sin was in the world. (Romans 5:12-13a)
The mind of sinful man [unredeemed humans] is
death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and
peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit
to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful
nature cannot please God. (Romans 8:6-8)
Islam on Human Nature:
No Depravity
In contrast to the biblical description of the
predicament of humanity stand the teaching of Islam. Muslims
deny that human beings are born with a sinful nature. Comments
Abdullah Yusuf Ali,
As turned out from the creative hand of God,
man is innocent, pure, true, free, inclined to right and
virtue, and endued with true understanding about his own
position in the Universe and about God’s goodness, wisdom
and power. That is his true nature ... But man is caught in
the meshes of customs, superstitions, selfish desires, and
false teaching.19
Hammudah Abdalati agrees:
The idea of Original Sin or hereditary
criminality has no room in the teachings of Islam. Man,
according to the Qur’an (30:30) and to the Prophet, is born
in a natural state of purity or fitrah, that is, Islam
or submission to the will and law of God. Whatever becomes of
man after birth is the result of external influence and
intruding factors ... [S]in is acquired not inborn, emergent
not build-in, avoidable not inevitable.20
Discontinuity:
Salvation
The next doctrinal difference we’ll briefly
examine is the Christian doctrine of salvation, centered in the
atoning work of Jesus Christ. While this is a belief denied by
non-Christian Jews, the point here is not to argue for its
validity over against Jewish objections, but simply to show that
the religion of Islam is discontinuous with essential teachings
of Christianity. In addition, both Christianity and the Old
Testament faith share a common belief in the dependence upon
atonement, while Islam denies just this salvific dynamic.
Islam on Salvation: Good
and Bad Deeds
Logically related to this view of human nature
is the teaching of the Qur’an that the ultimate question for
human destiny is whether one’s good deeds are greater than
one’s evil deeds.
And the weighing on that day (Day of
Resurrection) will be the true (weighing). So as for those
whose scale (of good deeds) will be heavy, they will be the
successful (by entering Paradise). And as for those whose
scale will be light, they are those who will lose their own
selves (by entering Hell (because they denied and rejected Our
Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs,
revelations). (Qur’an 7:8-9)
And We shall set up balances of justice on the
Day of Resurrection, then none will be dealt with unjustly in
anything. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We
will bring it. And Sufficient are We to take account. (Qur’an
21:47)
It is ultimately one’s own righteous deeds
that determine one’s eternal state of happiness or harm. Thus
Muslims reject the idea of Jesus’s atoning work on the cross,
as well as the historical reality that Jesus even died upon a
cross.
Christianity on
Salvation: Christ Jesus
The New Testament affirms that all humans
(except the incarnate Christ) have sinned (compare Romans 3:23
with Hebrews 4:15). Intimately related to Jesus’s sinlessness
is his atonement for the sins of his people (Hebrews 2:17). In
harmony with this New Testament revelation Christians affirm
that their sins were laid upon Christ as he was crucified upon
the cross. Thus they affirm that
God made him [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin
for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of
God. (2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Galatians 3:13)
Not only do Christians affirm that Jesus died
upon a cross for the sins of his people, we also affirm his
resurrection from death on the third day. As the apostle Paul
wrote,
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters,
of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn
received, in which also you stand, through which also you are
being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I
proclaimed to you-- unless you have come to believe in vain.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn
had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with
the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised
on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that
he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to
more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most
of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he
appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as
to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians
15:1-8)
It is this message, the gospel, that is the
centerpiece of the Christian faith. Any religious tradition
claiming continuity with Christianity in any meaningful sense
must affirm these truths. Yet it is here that Islam falls short.
Islamic Denials:
Jesus’s Death, Atonement and Resurrection
In sharp contrast, Muslims deny that Jesus is
God come in human form (the incarnation), that he died upon a
cross an atoning sacrifice for sin, and that he was resurrected
on the third day. While the following passage contains some
ambiguities (e.g. whether it denies that the Jews were those who
killed Jesus or whether Jesus did not die upon the cross21),
many Muslims believe it denies that Jesus was crucified at all.
That they said (in boast), "We killed
Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" —
but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made
to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of
doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to
follow, for of a surety they killed him not — nay, Allah
raised him up unto Himself. (Qur’an 4:157-158; cf. 3:54)
The ramifications of this denial are devastating
to any claim to be a continuation of the Christian faith in any
meaningful sense. Not only does this deny the death of Christ
upon a cross, but it would be a denial of Jesus’s atoning work
as well. In addition, if Jesus never died, then there would be
no resurrection from the dead. And anyone familiar with the
Christian faith recognizes that if Jesus was not resurrected
from the dead, then there is no gospel, there is no hope, and
the Christian faith is nothing but a fraud. As the apostle Paul
declared,
And if Christ has not been raised, our
preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we
are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have
testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But
he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For
if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised
either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is
futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)
Clearly, to deny the death of Jesus upon the
cross is to denounce the gospel that is at the core of the
Christian faith. In that light, no meaningful claim to
confirming the Christian faith or the gospel of Jesus can be
offered.
Now Muslims may respond to our display of
doctrinal discontinuity in a couple ways. First, they may argue
that just as we argue that Islam cannot be a confirmation of
Christianity because of such doctrinal discontinuities, so
Christianity cannot be a fulfillment of Judaism because its
teachings are just as discontinuous. If this were so, all it
would show is that both Islam and Christianity are to be
rejected as false religions. Nevertheless, while Muslims fail to
shy away from such accusations, Christians would dispute this
analogy on several significant grounds.
A second possible response could be that in our
illustrating the discontinuities between Islam and Christianity
we have revealed just what is to be expected since the
biblical texts have been corrupted. In other words, the
force of the argument is turned back upon Christianity, charging
Christianity with having distorted the biblical texts such that
they are now doctrinally and historically corrupted. But Muslims
have yet to provide justification for this claim, apart from
circular appeals to the Qur’an and Islamic traditions.
In what follows, we will take each of these
objections in turn, beginning with the latter.
Discontinuity:
Revelation
Muslims attempt to mute the significance of
these doctrinal incoherencies by arguing that the text of the
Bible has been corrupted. Such a move only creates a greater
problem, however. Here we encounter one of the more significant
disanalogies in the relationship of Islam to Christianity and
Christianity to Old Testament religion. Simply put, the New
Testament authors never criticize the Old Testament.
Rather, the point of contention between Jews and Christians was
(and is) with regards to interpretation and the fulfillment of
prophecy. But New Testament speakers and authors never
criticized the Jews for corrupting the texts or adhering to
fraudulent texts. This is a significant element of continuity
that Christianity has with Old Testament religion, but Islam
does not have with Christianity. In fact, the earliest
Christians were largely Jews who upheld the authority of the Old
Testament revelation and the reliability of the contemporary
texts. Here are some sample affirmations.
Affirming the Old
Testament
First, we find statements in the New Testament
that affirm the entire Old Testament as inspired by God, even
providing wisdom for salvation.
But as for you, continue in what you have
learned and have become convinced of, because you know those
from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known
the holy Scriptures [i.e. the Old Testament], which are able
to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture [i.e. the whole Old Testament] is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly
equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)
Paul is here referring to the Old Testament
revelation, even though it is plausible to find a legitimate
extension of the principle to the later New Testament writings.
Affirming the Prophets
Second, we also find the New Testament authors
attributing the inspiration of the prophets to the work of the
Spirit of God.
For prophecy never had its origin in the will
of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
the Holy Spirit. (1 Peter 1:21; cf. 2 Samuel 23:2)
Affirming the Word of
God
Third, in both the Old and New Testaments we
find affirmations that God’s word will not pass away, but that
God will sustain it throughout the ages — not in the form of
some heavenly book or scroll or tablet, mind you, but among the
people of God on earth.
A voice says, "Cry out." And I said,
"What shall I cry?" "All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The
grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the
LORD blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass
withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands
forever." (Isaiah 40:6-8)
For, "All men are like grass, and all
their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass
withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands
forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.
(1 Peter 1:24-25)
Jesus also confirms the truthfulness of the Old
Testament text of the first century when he says, "Sanctify
them by the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17). This
is significant because we have found substantial portions of the
Old Testament text among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls
show that the text as we have it today is substantially the text
of the first century. Thus Muslims have no grounds upon which to
claim that the Old Testament text was somehow so corrupted as to
be cleansed of Islamic teachings.22
The Apostle Paul as an
Extended Example
In addition to these rather straightforward
statements regarding the word of God, specifically the Old
Testament, instructive is the reality that throughout every New
Testament corpus (e.g. Pauline, Johannine, etc.), indeed in every
New Testament author we find regular appeal to the Old Testament
as the source and confirmation of their teachings, and that
without every once criticizing the Old Testament texts. As just
one example, consider the affirmations and teachings of the
apostle Paul in the book of Romans.23
Paul both introduces and concludes Romans noting
how the gospel he proclaims stems from the Old Testament.
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be
an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised
beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures ...
(Romans 1:1-2)
Now to God who is able to strengthen you
according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept
secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the
prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles,
according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about
the obedience of faith — to the only wise God, through Jesus
Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)
In addition to these agenda-setting
declarations, Paul noted that the righteousness of God — which
supplies the substance of his gospel — was testified to by the
law and the prophets, "But now, apart from law, the
righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the
law and the prophets" (Romans 3:21). And even though some
would charge Paul with being unlawful, he explicitly declares
the contrary when he writes, "Do we, then, nullify the law
by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law"
(Romans 3:31).
Paul also taught that the ministry and message
of Christ actually confirms God’s promises to the Patriarchs,
For I tell you that Christ has become a
servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in
order that he might confirm the promises given to the
patriarchs. (Romans 15:8)
Paul even viewed himself and his congregations
as accountable to the Old Testament scriptures, noting that they
have a continuing validity for the Church as the people of God.
For whatever was written in former days was
written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by
the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.
(Romans 15:4; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1ff.)
Now the words, "it was reckoned to
him," were written not for his sake alone, but for ours
also. (Romans 4:23-24a)
Paul viewed his ministry — the proclamation of
the fulfillment of the prophesied gospel — as dependent upon
and derived from the Old Testament prophecies and promises. This
is amply verified through even a cursory reading of his epistle
to the Romans (and not only this one) with an eye toward
Paul’s explicit quotations culled from the law, the writings,
and the prophets.
Certainly, Paul not only did not view his gospel
as a novel innovation, he went so far as to see the validity of
his message as utterly dependent upon the Old Testament
scriptures. That Paul explicitly quoted the OT dozens of times
throughout this letter is commonly acknowledged. That Paul also
alluded to the OT in numerous instances is increasingly
acknowledged.24
Clearly, Paul’s posture here stands in sharp
contrast to that of Muslims who are critical of the Old
Testament. Again, it must be noted that Islam stands in sharp
disanalogy to Christianity when it seeks to legitimate its
teachings through demeaning the Bible.
Christianity and Old
Testament Religion
Some Muslims might object to what we have
presented, arguing that since Christianity has set aside the
practices of circumcision and sacrifice, clearly Christianity
abrogates the religion of the Old Testament. While this argument
may carry some intuitive force, I believe there are good reasons
to reject it. I believe that one way to accomplish this is to
show that within both the Old and New Testaments there is a
distinction made between various kinds of law, with some being
viewed as more significant for the quality of religious loyalty
that God expects of his people.
Greater and Lesser
Commands in the Old Testament
In the Old Testament itself we find a prophetic
anticipation of the New Testament distinction between greater
and lesser commands of the law. Examples may be found in the
following passages.
But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD
delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in
obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than
sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For
rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like
the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of
the LORD, he has rejected you as king." (1 Samuel
15:22-23)
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but
my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require. Then I said, "Here I am, I have come
— it is written about me in the scroll. I desire to do your
will, O my God; your law is within my heart." (Psalm
40:6-8; cf. Hebrews 10:5-8, below)
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would
bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite
heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm 51:16-17)
This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of
Israel, says: "Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your
other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! For when I
brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did
not just give them commands about burnt offerings and
sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will
be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I
command you, that it may go well with you." (Jeremiah
7:21-23)
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and
acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)
With what shall I come before the LORD and bow
down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with
burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be
pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of
oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the
fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O
man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To
act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
(Micah 6:6-8)
Greater and Lesser
Commands in the New Testament
Thus we can see resident in the Old Testament
itself a distinction of significance between the laws. It is
just this distinction that is picked up by Jesus and the New
Testament authors to argue for the non-necessity of certain laws
due to the coming of the Messiah as the redeemer of his people.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill
and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters
of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should
have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
(Matthew 23:23)
"Well said, teacher," the man
replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and
there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart,
with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to
love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all
burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he
had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far
from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared
ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:32-34)
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he
said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a
body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin
offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, ‘Here I am —
it is written about me in the scroll — I have come to do
your will, O God.’" First he said, "Sacrifices and
offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not
desire, nor were you pleased with them." (Hebrews 10:5-8)
It must be kept in mind here that such
sacrifices and offerings were commanded in the law. But as we
noted above, even in the Old Testament it is clear that there
are greater concerns (Psalm 40:6-8).
Not only do we find such distinctions as noted
above, but we also find passages which would otherwise be
incoherent without allowing for distinctions between what we
might classify as the moral and the ceremonial (or cultic) laws
(though here I refer not simply to all ceremony, but to those
ceremonies which are distinctly bound to the old covenant rather
than the new; e.g. circumcision).
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the
Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law
(though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those
under the law. To those not having the law I became like one
not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am
under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (1
Corinthians 9:20-21)
Notice, Paul says that he is "not under the
law" and also that he is "not free from God’s
law." Whatever could he mean? He notes that he is
"under Christ’s law," that is, the law understood in
light of the Messiah who has come; that is, the law as
perpetuated during the Messianic era.25
Of course, all this implies that certain laws have met their
intended goals or temporal conclusions. Such laws and the
reconciliatory sacrifices for sin have met their conclusion in
the Messiah (see the book of Hebrews). Such laws as circumcision
have met there goal in the circumcision of the heart by the
Spirit, coupled with the writing of God's law upon our hearts
(see Romans 2:17ff.26 in concert
with Romans 8:1ff.). Consider also Paul's statement contrasting
circumcision with the commands of God: "Circumcision is
nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is
what counts" (1 Corinthians 7:19).
The Case of Circumcision
Wasn’t circumcision a command of God? Yes. So
on what basis can Christians deny its continuing obligation?
That particular rite — which should be viewed more in terms of
a social or covenantal boundary marker27
— belongs to the old covenant. Nevertheless, it seems to be
the case that this particular rite could be practiced to no
effect, thus receiving the charge of having "uncircumcised
hearts" (Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 9:26; cf. Acts 7:51).
Indeed, the old covenant demand was not merely circumcision of
the flesh, but circumcision of the heart.
Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not
be stiff-necked any longer. (Deuteronomy 10:16)
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise
your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my
wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil
you have done — burn with no one to quench it. (Jeremiah
4:4)
The new covenant, promised in the Old Testament,
carries with it a promise of circumcision of the heart, rather
than of the flesh.
The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts
and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him
with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
(Deuteronomy 30:6)
Such a promise is related to a constellation of
additional promises relating to God granting his people new
hearts, putting a new spirit within them (Ezekiel 11:19; 18:31;
36:26), as well as the grace of God in writing his law upon
their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; cf. Isaiah 51:7).
Thus Paul writes in echo of the promises in
Deuteronomy and Jeremiah that God would circumcise our hearts.
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and
circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not
by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but
from God. (Romans 2:29)
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is
faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6)
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means
anything; what counts is a new creation. (Galatians 6:15; cf.
Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11)
This being so, it is vital to see that there are
other commands of God that do still apply (in contrast to
antinomian traditions). Significantly, Paul can even write the
following:
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. (1 Corinthians
7:19)
The law of God, as seen everywhere in Paul’s
epistles, clearly perpetuates the prohibitions against idolatry
and immorality of every sort (see, e.g., Romans 8; 1 Corinthians
5, 10; Galatians 5).
In summary, as we read through Paul's writings
we see him both advocating a very strong ethic, as well as
arguing that certain laws are now inoperative. Thus, when
he writes to the various churches regarding Christian ethics, he
is a great pains to show that Christians do have laws (standards
of righteousness and holiness) which are continuous with the
ethical demands of the Old Testament (see, e.g., Galatians 5:14,
23b; Romans 3:31; 6:11ff; 8:1-14; 13:8-10). Such
instructions typically arise when Paul is instructing Gentile
Christians how to live an authentic Christian lifestyle (see,
e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:1-6:20; Ephesians 4:17-5:21). But
when Paul opposes non-Christian Jews and their divisiveness with
regards to Gentile Christians, he is at great pains to establish
which laws no longer apply (e.g., circumcision, food
restrictions, Jewish calendar, bloody sacrifices, etc.).
He does so by appealing to Old Testament precedent, the ministry
of the Messiah, and the gift of the Spirit that accompanies the
new covenant (see, e.g., Galatians 5:16-25) .
While much more could be written on this topic,
I believe that what has been presented here is suggestive enough
to show the Islamic objection against Christianity to be
implausible. Christians have a high view of God’s law (or at
least they should), though some laws were temporary
illustrations of the heart of the matter — the human heart.
No Prophecies of
Mohammad in the Bible
A feature typical among quasi-Christian
restorationist movements is the appeal to biblical prophecy.
Such appeals are made either to establish their expected arrival
as a movement, or at least the expected arrival of their
founding leader. Among the majority of modern restorationist
movements appeals to Daniel, Revelation and the Olivet Discourse
(Matthew 24-25 and parallels) are most common. Not so with
Islam. Muslims appeal to Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Habakkuk,
and the Gospel of John.28 Most
prominent among the references are Deuteronomy 18:15-18 and John
14:16.
Deuteronomy 18:15, 18
As we consider the alleged biblical prophecies
fulfilled in Mohammad, there are two that are most prominent,
Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 and John 14:16. We’ll address
Deuteronomy 18:15-18 first.
The LORD your God will raise up for you a
prophet like me [Moses] from among your own brothers. You must
listen to him ... I [God] will raise up for them a prophet
like you [Moses] from among their brothers; I will put my
words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command
him. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18)
In these verses we read that God will raise up
1) a prophet, 2) like Moses, 3) from among the Israelites, and
that he will 4) put his words in his mouth, and 5) he will
proclaim to the Israelites everything God commands him.
Muslims object to the Christian affirmation that
Jesus fulfilled this prophecy because Christians believe Jesus
is the Son of God, or God incarnate. Yet this prophecy speaks
only of a prophet. But this is a false dichotomy. Jesus can be
both a prophet and the incarnation of God. In fact, several
passages record how Jesus described himself as a prophet.
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said
to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a
prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57; cf. Mark 6:4;
John 4:44)
In any case, I must keep going today and
tomorrow and the next day — for surely no prophet can die
outside Jerusalem! (Luke 13:33)
Not only did Jesus describe
himself as a prophet, but some of the people of Israel did as
well. After miraculously feeding five-thousand people, they
proclaimed, "After the people saw the miraculous sign that
Jesus did, they began to say, ‘Surely this is the Prophet who
is to come into the world’" (John 6:14). And at Jesus’s
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the crowds proclaimed,
"This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee"
(Matthew 21:11).
In addition, we read in the
Gospel of Luke part of a conversation between Jesus and some of
his very own followers. And while their eyes were temporarily
blinded to the fact that this was Jesus, their description of
him as a prophet remains.
One of them, named Cleopas, asked him [Jesus],
"Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the
things that have happened there in these days?"
"What things?" he [Jesus] asked. "About Jesus
of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet,
powerful in word and deed before God and all the people."
(Luke 24:18-19)
The disciples Peter and Stephen proclaimed the
same message, that Jesus was the promised prophet like Moses. As
Peter proclaimed,
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your
sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from
the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been
appointed for you — even Jesus. He must remain in heaven
until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he
promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said,
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like
me from among your own people; you must listen to everything
he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be
completely cut off from among his people." (Acts 3:19-23,
quoting the prophecy from Deuteronomy 18; cf. Stephen’s
speech in Acts 7:37-53)
All of these passages should be enough to show
that according to the New Testament authors, including Jesus
himself, the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus long before the
arrival of Mohammad.
Yet Muslims say that this prophecy cannot be
fulfilled by Jesus because he did not proclaim the law, like
Moses. But surely Jesus did proclaim the law; and like Moses he
sought to restore the people of God to the purity of the law.29
This is seem most clearly in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
5-7. Consider Jesus’s thesis statement in Matthew 5:17-20.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to
fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a
pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these
commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and
teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of
heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness
surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.30
In proclaiming the endurance of the law, as well
as the importance of obeying the law, Jesus surely sounds like
Moses near the end of Deuteronomy.
Now what I am commanding you today is not too
difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in
heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into
heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey
it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask,
"Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us
so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is
in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. See, I set
before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.
For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in
his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you
will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you
in the land you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy
30:11-16)
In addition, we should note that Jesus did give
laws to his people. For example, in John 14:34 we read, "A
new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you,
so you must love one another." And the later New Testament
authors can even speak of "the law of Christ"
(Galatians 6:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:21).
So, Jesus is a prophet and he was like Moses, a
proclaimer of the law, but Muslims object to reading "from
among their brothers" as a reference to an Israelite
prophet. They rather understand the passage to be referring to
non-Israelites brothers as it does in Deuteronomy 2:4 and 2:8
with reference to the descendants of Esau. But the usage of the
term in the context surrounding Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 shows that
"brethren" is to be understood with reference to
fellow Israelites. For example, in Deuteronomy 17 we read the
stipulation for the installment of a king over Israel. He is to
be "from among your own brothers," not "a
foreigner" (17:15). The king is to write a copy of the law
for himself, and to read it all the days of his life, so he will
not "consider himself better than his brothers"
(17:20). In Deuteronomy 18:2 we read that the Levites would not
be granted an allotment of the promised land, "no
inheritance among their brothers." And as the Israelites
gear up for the battles they will face as they enter the
promised land, they are told that if one of them is fearful,
"Let him go home so that his brothers will not become
disheartened too" (Deuteronomy 20:8). Based on this brief
survey, it is safe to say that the burden of proof is upon the
Muslim who would insist that "brothers" is to be
understood with reference to any non-Israelite. But while
Mohammad was not an Israelite, Jesus was, as is evidenced by his
genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, and other New Testament
passages.
In addition to the evidence that Jesus, his
disciples, and the New Testament authors understood Deuteronomy
18:15, 18 to be fulfilled in Jesus, and that Jesus is a prophet,
like Moses, from among the Israelites, we can also show that the
words Jesus spoke were from God and that he proclaimed them to
Israel. Regarding the fact that Jesus spoke the words God had
given him, we list the following verses.
Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my
own. It comes from him [i.e. God] who sent me ." (John
7:16)
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up
the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim
to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the
Father has taught me." (John 8:28)
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the
Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
(John 12:49)
That Jesus was one who proclaimed
the word of God to Israel is a truism evident in even a cursory
reading of any of the New Testament gospels.
The weight of the evidence is
strongly in support of the Christian view that the promise of
Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 was fulfilled in Jesus, not in Mohammad.
Thus Jesus challenge in John 5:46 rings loud, "If you
believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about
me."
John
14:16
The New Testament passage that
Muslims most often refer to is John 14:16, "And I will ask
the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with
you forever." Yusuf Ali makes the case in a footnote to
Qur’an 3:81.
That argument is: You (People of the Book) are
bound by your own oaths, sworn solemnly in the presence of
your own Prophets. In the Old Testament as it now exists,
Muhammad is foretold in Deut. xviii. 18; and the rise of the
Arab nation in Isaiah, xlii. 11, for Kedar was a son of Ismail
and the name is used for the Arab nation: in the New Testament
as it now exists, Muhammad is foretold in the Gospel of St.
John, xiv. 16, xv. 26, and xvi.7: the future Comforter
cannot be the Holy Spirit as understood by Christians, because
the Holy Spirit already was present helping and guiding Jesus.
The Greek word translated "Comforter" is "Paracletos",
which is an easy corruption from "Periclytos", which
is almost a literal translation of "Muhammad" or
"Ahmad" ...31
He further comments in a footnote to Qur’an
61:6.
"Ahmad," or "Muhammad,"
the Praised One, is almost a translation of the Greek word Periclytos.
In the present Gospel of John, xiv. 16, xv. 26, and xvi. 7,
the word "Comforter" in the English version is for
the Greek word "Paracletos," which means
"Advocate," "one called to the help of another,
a kind friend" rather than "Comforter." Our
doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for
Periclytos, and that in their original saying of Jesus there
was a prophecy of our holy Prophet Ahmad by name.32
Simply put, the argument is that in our Greek
manuscripts the word paracletos is a corruption of periclytos.
But there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to support this
claim. Of the over 5,000 manuscripts now available, not one
witnesses to periclytos. So, the charge of textual
corruption is self-serving and completely without textual
support.
Further, while Muslims assert that the
identification of the Counselor with the Holy Spirit is a
misinterpretation, in the very context of John 14:16 Jesus draws
just this identification: "But the Counselor, the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all
things and will remind you of everything I have said to
you" (John 14:26). Of course, the Muslim can claim that
this statement is a fictive retrojection of the later theology
of Christians, but such a claim would need at least some
evidence.
Numerous additional difficulties attend the
Muslim attribution of John 14:16 to Mohammad. The Counselor was
to be with Jesus’s disciples "forever" (14:16), but
Mohammad was never with them. Nor is the answer that the message
of Mohammad has continued to this day in the Qur’an a
sufficient response. Jesus also said the Counselor would be
"in you" (14:17), which accords perfectly with the
Counselor being the Holy Spirit. The Counselor would be sent in
Jesus’s name (14:26), but Mohammad was not. Several additional
elements could be referenced. In the end, I would hope that any
Muslim who would seek to attribute the prophecy of John 14:16 to
Mohammad would first read the entirety of John chapters 14-16 to
see the qualities of the Counselor and how these cannot
plausibly be attributed to Mohammad.
As we noted before, there are additional
passages used by Muslims in support of their claim that
prophecies of Mohammad are found in the Bible, but the very same
difficulties that attend their attempts to use Deuteronomy 18:
15, 18 and John 14:16 trouble the other (less significant)
passages. In this light, the conclusion of Blaise Pascal is
apropos: "Any man can do what Mahomet has done; for he
performed no miracles, he was not foretold. No man can do what
Christ has done."33
Conclusion
In a cultural context where religious beliefs
claims are viewed as merely preferences, Muslims are to be
commended for holding that such claims are either true or false.
And in a world where moral values are viewed as antiquarian,
Muslims have stood firmly, proclaiming that God is sovereign and
that ethical standards are absolute and necessary for a healthy
society. For such beliefs and postures as these, we should
commend Muslims. But our intent has been to address the Muslim
claim that Christianity has been abrogated by Islam.
In this study we have witnessed the fact that
the Muslim perception and approach to Christianity is determined
by the teachings of the Qur’an. The Qur’an teaches that
Islam was the original religion, the faith of Adam, Abraham,
Moses and even Jesus. We also noted that the Qur’an teaches
that God has sent prophets to all the nations of the earth. Each
of these prophets taught Islam. Abraham, Moses and Jesus were
among them. But their ministries were limited and temporary. In
contrast, the ministry of Mohammad is viewed as universal and
final. He is never to have a successor. In addition, Mohammad
was granted a book, just like the prophets who preceded him. But
their books were corrupted whereas the Qur’an is complete,
perfect and incorruptible.
In response to the Muslim perspective, we have
argued that the teaching of the Bible does not accord with
Islamic beliefs. Here we focused on the doctrines regarding the
sinfulness of humanity, as well as upon the atoning death and
resurrection of Jesus. We thus showed the implausibility of the
Muslim claim to confirm previous prophets or their books. But
Muslims could respond by simply arguing that the text of the
Bible has been corrupted. Here we noted that their posture
stands diametrically opposed to that of Jesus and the New
Testament authors. Never did Jesus or the apostles or
their disciples criticize the text of the Old Testament. In
addition, their charge of textual corruption lacks sufficient
justification. Finally we examined the primary passages
Muslims believe are prophecies of Mohammad. Here we showed that
they have simply misused the biblical text. In fact, I suspect
that if they experienced someone who had misused the Qur’an in
they way they have manipulated Deuteronomy 18 and John 14, they
would be deeply offended. Texts do mean something; and a text
out of context is a pretext for error.
In the end, if our arguments are sound, and we
have good reasons to believe they are, then the Muslim claim
that Islam abrogates Christianity is unwarranted and misleading.
Appendix:
Baha’i as the Ultimate Religion
There are several religions that originated
within the womb of Islam. Not only do we find numerous Islamic
sects (the Sunni and Shi’i being the most prominent), but we
also encounter some groups that have picked up the Islamic claim
of abrogating Christianity and have applied it to Islam itself.
Of course, orthodox Muslims protest. Mohammad was the seal of
the prophets. The Qur’an is not only the most perfect book, it
is the final revelation of God. Nothing more is to be revealed.
There are no more prophets to come.
Even so, large movements such as the Baha’i
and Ahmadiyyah, and smaller groups such as the Nation of Islam,
claim that new prophetic voices have arisen on the horizon.
Expectedly enough, the adherents of Baha’i and Ahmaddiyah have
been sorely persecuted, though they retain significant
minorities in Arabia and Mid-Asian nations.
The following excerpt is from the Baha’i book,
The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, under the heading
"The Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth."34
The first paragraph illustrates well how Baha’is view their
religion in relation to others. Notice also that here the
concept of abrogation is denied. The first paragraph seeks to
embrace not simply all religions but "all established
religions," implying that upstarts are marginalized. While
the first paragraph asserts that the Baha’i faith does not
"abrogate" other religions, the cumulative effect of
the following series of paragraphs does just the same. We begin
to witness the winnowing of doctrinal allowances: Any religious
traditions that proclaim a closed canon (e.g. Christianity) are
charged with blasphemy. A fuller discussion of Baha’i will
have to wait for another study.
1 Let no one, however, mistake my
purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá'u'lláh is the source
and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded
it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort
their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any
intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of
whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can,
in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their
claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man's
allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary purpose
is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to obtain a fuller
understanding of the religion with which he stands identified,
and to acquire a clearer apprehension of its purpose. It is
neither eclectic in the presentation of its truths, nor
arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings
revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth
is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is
progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the least
reservation it proclaims all established religions to be
divine in origin, identical in their aims, complementary in
their functions, continuous in their purpose, indispensable in
their value to mankind.
2 "All the Prophets of God,"
asserts Bahá'u'lláh in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, "abide in
the same tabernacle, soar in the same heaven, are seated upon
the same throne, utter the same speech, and proclaim the same
Faith." From the "beginning that hath no
beginning," these Exponents of the Unity of God and
Channels of His incessant utterance have shed the light of the
invisible Beauty upon mankind, and will continue, to the
"end that hath no end," to vouchsafe fresh
revelations of His might and additional experiences of His
inconceivable glory. To contend that any particular religion
is final, that "all Revelation is ended, that the portals
of Divine mercy are closed, that from the daysprings of
eternal holiness no sun shall rise again, that the ocean of
everlasting bounty is forever stilled, and that out of the
Tabernacle of ancient glory the Messengers of God have ceased
to be made manifest" would indeed be nothing less than
sheer blasphemy.
3 "They differ," explains Bahá'u'lláh
in that same epistle, "only in the intensity of their
revelation and the comparative potency of their light."
And this, not by reason of any inherent incapacity of any one
of them to reveal in a fuller measure the glory of the Message
with which He has been entrusted, but rather because of the
immaturity and unpreparedness of the age He lived in to
apprehend and absorb the full potentialities latent in that
Faith.
4 "Know of a
certainty," explains Bahá'u'lláh, "that in every
Dispensation the light of Divine Revelation has been
vouchsafed to men in direct proportion to their spiritual
capacity. Consider the sun. How feeble its rays the moment it
appears above the horizon. How gradually its warmth and
potency increase as it approaches its zenith, enabling
meanwhile all created things to adapt themselves to the
growing intensity of its light. How steadily it declines until
it reaches its setting point. Were it, all of a sudden, to
manifest the energies latent within it, it would, no doubt,
cause injury to all created things ... In like manner, if the
Sun of Truth were suddenly to reveal, at the earliest stages
of its manifestation, the full measure of the potencies which
the providence of the Almighty has bestowed upon it, the earth
of human understanding would waste away and be consumed; for
men's hearts would neither sustain the intensity of its
revelation, nor be able to mirror forth the radiance of its
light. Dismayed and overpowered, they would cease to
exist."
5 It is for this reason, and this
reason only, that those who have recognized the Light of God
in this age, claim no finality for the Revelation with which
they stand identified, nor arrogate to the Faith they have
embraced powers and attributes intrinsically superior to, or
essentially different from, those which have characterized any
of the religious systems that preceded it.
6 Does not Bahá'u'lláh Himself allude
to the progressiveness of Divine Revelation and to the
limitations which an inscrutable Wisdom has chosen to impose
upon Him? What else can this passage of the Hidden Words
imply, if not that He Who revealed it disclaimed finality for
the Revelation entrusted to Him by the Almighty? "O Son
of Justice! In the night-season the beauty of the immortal
Being hath repaired from the emerald height of fidelity unto
the Sadratu'l-Muntahá, and wept with such a weeping that the
concourse on high and the dwellers of the realms above wailed
at His lamenting. Whereupon there was asked, Why the wailing
and weeping? He made reply: As bidden I waited expectant upon
the hill of faithfulness, yet inhaled not from them that dwell
on earth the fragrance of fidelity. Then summoned to return I
beheld, and lo! certain doves of holiness were sore tried
within the claws of the dogs of earth. Thereupon the Maid of
Heaven hastened forth, unveiled, and resplendent, from Her
mystic mansion, and asked of their names, and all were told
but one. And when urged, the first Letter thereof was uttered,
whereupon the dwellers of the celestial chambers rushed forth
out of their habitation of glory. And whilst the second letter
was pronounced they fell down, one and all, upon the dust. At
that moment a Voice was heard from the inmost shrine: `Thus
far and no farther.' Verily we bear witness to that which they
have done and now are doing."
7 "The Revelation of which I am
the bearer," Bahá'u'lláh explicitly declares, "is
adapted to humanity's spiritual receptiveness and capacity;
otherwise, the Light that shines within me can neither wax nor
wane. Whatever I manifest is nothing more or less than the
measure of the Divine glory which God has bidden me
reveal."
8 If the Light that is now streaming
forth upon an increasingly responsive humanity with a radiance
that bids fair to eclipse the splendor of such triumphs as the
forces of religion have achieved in days past; if the signs
and tokens which proclaimed its advent have been, in many
respects, unique in the annals of past Revelations; if its
votaries have evinced traits and qualities unexampled in the
spiritual history of mankind; these should be attributed not
to a superior merit which the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh, as a
Revelation isolated and alien from any previous Dispensation,
might possess, but rather should be viewed and explained as
the inevitable outcome of the forces that have made of this
present age an age infinitely more advanced, more receptive,
and more insistent to receive an ampler measure of Divine
Guidance than has hitherto been vouchsafed to mankind.
Endnotes
1 See Kate Zebiri, "Muslim
Perceptions of Christianity and the West," in Islamic
Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon (New
York: St. Martin’s, 2001), 179-203.
2 This is the judicial doctrine
that through the process of progressive revelation, some earlier
laws and judgments are nullified and superseded. See the helpful
discussions in Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’anic Christians:
An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 24, 32, 118-120, 127-128,
186.
3 Unless otherwise noted, all
quotations of the Qur’an come from The Noble Qur’an:
English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, trans.
Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Madinah,
K.S.A.: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an,
n.d.). I also refer to this volume as "the King Fahd
edition."
4 This dynamic is
well-documented in Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions: A
Historical Survey, edited by Jacques Waardenburg (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1999), especially chapters 1-4.
5 As we make our way through the
Islamic arguments for the abrogation of Christianity, I will
provide many full texts from the Qur’an. Merely referencing
the relevant passages would not facilitate clear understanding
for readers unfamiliar with the narrative of the Qur’an. In
addition, I believe it is instructive for readers to taste
something of the flavor of Qur’anic narrative as they seek to
understand the worldview and reasoning style of Muslims.
Unfortunately, though, I have found the English used in
translating the Qur’an to be very tortured and tedious,
especially given the parenthetical remarks so often inserted.
It seems as though many Muslim translators have an
underdeveloped philosophy of translation.
6 The British
English spelling of the source is retained in the
quotations.
7 That is, Zoroastrianism.
8 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book
23, Number 441. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html)
This statement occurs elsewhere in Bukhari as
well (Ibid, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 467): "Narrated Abu
Huraira: The Prophet said, ‘Every child is born with a true
faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) and his
parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity or Magianism, as
an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it
mutilated?’" (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html)
Sahih Muslim also records a version of the same
hadith (Book 033, Number 6426): "Abu Huraira reported
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: No babe
is born but upon Fitra [having the true religion]. It is his
parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist. A
person said: Allah’s Messenger, what is your opinion if they
were to die before that (before reaching the age of adolescence
when they can distinguish between right and wrong)? He said: It
is Allah alone Who knows what they would be doing." (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html)
9 For an instructive discussion
of the religion of the patriarchs, see, R.W. L. Moberly, The
Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and
Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992),
79-104.
10 Such an appeal to Abraham is
a common feature among Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, as
well as among the various sects that stem from these major
Abrahamic traditions. We will discuss additional features common
among restorationist movements below.
11 Afif A. Tabbarah, The
Spirit of Islam: Doctrine and Teachings, Trans. Hasan T.
Shoucair (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar El-Ilm Lilmalayin, 1978), 97.
12 Ibid., 97, 98. Of course,
Tabbarah begs two questions in his comments: First, what are
those tidings spoken of by the prophets of old that he would
ascribe to Mohammad (a question we touched on above and will
address further below)? Second, his bafflement of there being no
prophets after Mohammad flies in the face of such claimants as
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1903) and the Ahmadiyyah movement, Elijah
Poole (a.k.a. Elijah Mohammad) and the Nation of Islam, and
Baha’u’allah and the Baha’i movement. These movement make
very similar supersessional and abrogational claims with
reference to traditional Islam.
13 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 56, Hadith 735, www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/056.sbt.html#004.056.735
14 339, n. 1.
15 For more information on the
Baha’i faith, see the web sites www.bahai.org and
www.us.bahai.org. For Christian interactions with Baha’i, see,
Francis J. Beckwith, Baha'i (Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers, 1985) and William M. Miller, The Baha'i Faith:
Its History and Teachings (South Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library Publications, 1984).
16 For a Christian discussion
of Ahmadiyyah beliefs and claims, see, John Gilchrist, "A
Study of the Ahmadiyyah Movement," (http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol1/9c.html).
17 For more information
regarding the Nation of Islam, see, C. Eric Lincoln, The
Black Muslims in America, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1994) and Steven Tsoulkas, The Nation of Islam:
Understanding the ‘Black Muslims’ (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001).
18 See the Appendix for
Baha’i statements to this effect.
19 A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy
Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, translated by
Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Washington, D.C.: The American International
Printing Company, 1946), 1059, n. 3541, commenting upon Surah
30:30.
20 Hammudah Abdalati, Islam
in Focus (Indianapolis, IN: American Trust Publications,
1975), 32, 33.
21 This is a belief of the
Ahmadiyyah movement. They assert a kind of swoon theory, where
Jesus did not actually die, though he was crucified. See note 16
above.
22 For further information,
see, Walter Kaiser, Are the Old Testament Documents Reliable
and Relevant? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001).
23 It is common for critical
scholars to assert that the teaching of the apostle Paul are
quite distinct, if not downright contrary to, the teachings of
Jesus. Muslims have picked up on this argument from time to
time. Regarding this subject, no better volume is currently
available than David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or
Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995).
24 See, Moises
Silva, "Old Testament in Paul," in Dictionary of
Paul and His Letters, Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P.
Martin, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993),
630-642; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters
of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989);
Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture:
Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary
Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
83-184; and E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament
(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957). Cf. the relevant study
of Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The
Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Nashville, TN:
Westminster/John Knox, 1994). For more discussions of the New
Testament use of the Old Testament, see, Right Doctrine from
the Wrong Texts?, Ed. Gregory Beale (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1994), esp. the essays by Roger Nicole (13-28) and Klyne
Snodgrass (29-51).
25 See the instructive work of
Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach
(Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994); as well as N. T.
Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in
Pauline Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991).
26 See Timothy W. Berkley, From
Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline
Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17-29 (SBL Dissertation
Series 175; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000)
27 As Professor James Dunn has
written, ". . . Paul's critique [of the Jews] does not
reduce [merely] to questions of circumcision, food laws and
sabbath . . . But Israel's history had reinforced the reality of
the law as a boundary dividing Israel from the (other) nations,
and the Maccabean crisis in particular had focused that boundary
function on two or three key 'make or break' issues --
especially circumcision and food laws. They remained
prominent at the time of Paul, for the same reason. In
sort, that is why it is precisely circumcision and food laws
which are so much to the fore when Paul speaks of 'works of the
law' in Galatians -- not because they are the only
'works' which the law requires, but because they had become the
crucial test cases for covenant loyalty and for maintaining
Jewish identity as the people chosen by God for himself
alone." (Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and
Galatians [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990], 210
n. 6.) Further discussions of covenantal boundary markers and
Paul's view of the law can be found in N. T. Wright, The
Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991); idem. What Saint
Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of
Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997).
28 A footnote to Qur’an 7:157
in the King Fahd edition reads, "There exists in the Taurat
(Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), even after the original text
has been distorted, clear prophecies indicating the coming of
Prophet Muhammad, e.g. Deut 18:18; 21:21; Psl. 118:22-23; Isa.
42:1-13; Hab. 3:3-4; Matt. 21:42-43; Jn. 14:12-17, 26-28,
16:7-14."
29 See the extensive discussion
in Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993). See also the
relevant discussions in the commentaries by D. A. Carson, R. T.
France, and Craig Keener.
30 "Heavens and
earth" here refer not to the literal physical heavens and
earth, but they are a literary metaphor referring to a
covenantal arrangement. Thus we find through the Bible a dynamic
of "decreation" (e.g., sun and moon darkened, stars
falling, heaven and earth shaken), attending the collapse of
governments/kingdoms, as well as during the adjudication of
covenant lawsuits. See the extended discussion of this and
other metaphors and symbolism in N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 320-368.
As an example of this "decreation"
motif, witness Matthew 24:29. This falls in the midst of
the discourse of Matthew 23-25, which teaches that attending the
widespread Israelite rejection of their Messiah Jesus, was the
adjudication of a covenant lawsuit, resulting in the destruction
of Jerusalem in the first century A.D. (see, "this
generation" at Matthew 23:36 and 24:34). This was
attended by the collapse of the temple, the derailing of the
priesthood, and the dispersing of the Jews. Thus we find
the covenantal end of the old covenant and its attendant
religious hierarchy and cultic practices. But attending the
judgment was the message of deliverance and salvation for God's
people of faith. Hence the establishment of the new
covenant by Messiah Jesus, in fulfillment of the Old Testament
hope of a people of God being comprised of both Jew and non-Jew
alike.
For helpful discussions of these dynamics of
biblical eschatology, see, for example, the work of N.T. Wright
noted above, as well as Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness:
Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta, GA: American
Vision, various editions; www.americanvision.org).
31 A.Yusuf Ali, The Holy
Qur’an, 144, n. 416.
32 Ibid., 1540, n. 5438.
33 Pensées, 10:600 (http://www.ccel.org/p/pascal/pensees).
34 http://ibiblio.org/Bahai/Texts/EN/WOB/WOB-30.html.
Copyright 2002, Kevin James Bywater.
All rights reserved.
|