By Living Waters

In the first part of our study, we surveyed the Muslim belief that Islam has superseded (fulfilled) Christianity, thus abrogating (bringing to an end) Christianity as a viable religion. Their view, in brief, is that as Christianity is to Old Testament religion, so Islam is to Christianity. We noted that central to the claim of fulfillment is continuity of essence, though not necessarily of form. Otherwise, what we would have is negation and replacement, not fulfillment. In this light, we observed that while the New Testament authors never criticized the Old Testament, Muslims deny the textual and doctrinal integrity of both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, with regards to revelation, Islam is not to Christianity as Christianity is to Old Testament religion. As we will see below, additional areas of essential discontinuity are those such as sin, atonement and salvation. After illustrating these discontinuities, we will discuss the relationship of Christianity to the Mosaic law.

Human Sinfulness

The Muslim claim that Islam confirms the teaching of previous prophets is weakened by how Islam contradicts biblical teaching regarding human sinfulness. For example, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are sinful by nature (Gen 8:1; cf. 6:5; Eph 2:3), even from birth (Psa 51:5). This sinfulness stems from Adam (Rom 5:12-13; Gen 3) and results in an inherent inability to live according to God’s revealed will, his law (Rom 8:6-8).

In contrast, Islam denies that we are born with a sinful nature. Writes Hammudah Abdalati,

The idea of Original Sin…has no room in the teachings of Islam. Man, according to the Qur’an (30:30) and to the Prophet [Muhammad], 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.[1]

Atonement for Sin

In association with Islam’s denial of original sin stands the belief that one’s good works tip the balance for salvation (Qur’an 7:8-9; 21:47). The Qur’an teaches that atonement for bad deeds is found in counterbalancing them with good deeds, such as almsgiving (2:271), prayers (11:114), pilgrimage (2:158), and listening to and memorizing the Qur’an (7:204). In addition, Muslims deny not only that Jesus is God incarnate, they also deny that he died upon the cross, thus rejecting the reality of his resurrection (Qur’an 4:157-158; cf. 3:54). Therefore, in Islam one’s righteous works atone for one’s evil deeds and result in one’s eternal state of happiness or misery.

In contrast to Islam, the Bible teaches that all humans have sinned (1 Kings 8:46; Rom 3:23) and thus face the wrath of God (Rom 1:18; 2:8). Our only hope is in the sinless Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5), who atoned for our sins in his death upon the cross (2 Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4; 3:13; Heb 4:15; 2:17; cf. Isa 53:5) and rose from the dead on the third day (1 Cor 15:1-8). These essential affirmations of the Christian faith are denied by Muslims.

The doctrinal discontinuities of human sinfulness, atonement for sin, and salvation devastate the Muslim claim that Islam fulfills Christianity. To deny the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is to denounce the Christian faith as a fraud from the beginning (1 Cor 15:14-17). Simply put, since Islam is an essentially different religion from both Christianity and Old Testament religion, Islam negates Christianity; it does not fulfill it.

Muslim Retorts, Christian Responses

In my experience, Muslims may retort in different ways. Some argue that our appeals to biblical teachings are invalid since the Bible is corrupted and unreliable. Again, this would only serve to illustrate an essential disanalogy between Islam and Christianity (as we witnessed in part 1). In addition, as we noted in the first installment, we have ample warrant to affirm the reliability of the biblical texts.[2]

Muslims also argue that since Christians do not observe circumcision, dietary restrictions, and the Sabbath, Christianity actually negates, rather than fulfills, Old Testament religion. If true, all this argument would establish is that neither Christianity nor Islam is a viable religious tradition stemming from Old Testament faith. Even so, this is one of the most powerful of the Muslim’s arguments against Christianity. Can we show that Christianity actually fulfills, rather than negates, Old Testament religion? Below we’ll focus our attention on questions of circumcision, Christian morality, greater and lesser commands, and the new covenant. I believe that in the end we will see that Islam retains its essential difference from both Christianity and Old Testament religion while the relationship between Christianity and Old Testament religion is one of organic relationship, prophecied development, and essential continuity.

Gentiles and Circumcision

In the book of Galatians, the apostle Paul argues against those who insist that Gentiles cannot be right with God (justified) apart from “the works of the law,” with circumcision being the ultimate “work” (Gal 2:14-15; 5:2-6; 6:12). Circumcision was the primary mark distinguishing Israelites from Gentiles,[3] such that Jews were simply “the circumcision” and Gentiles the “uncircumcision” (2:7-9, 12). In effect, the Judaizers were teaching that uncircumcised Gentiles could not be right with God unless they became Jews.

In response, Paul argues in defense of the gospel, which he identifies as God’s promise to Abraham: “All nations [Gentiles] will be blessed through you” (3:8). The good news is that people are justified by faith, just as Abraham was (3:6-9), not by “the works of the law” – that is, apart from being circumcised (2:14-16; 3:10-14). Since God promised to bless the Gentiles as Gentiles, any other “gospel” is no gospel at all (1:6-9).

But why would circumcision now be set aside?

Paul explains that the Mosaic covenant was temporary, instituted until Jesus, the seed promised to Abraham, had come (Gal 3:15-18, 24). It was added because of transgressions (3:19), like someone put in charge to keep youths out of trouble (3:23-25). Thus the Mosaic distinctives were instituted to keep Israel distinct and separate from the Gentile nations.

But now that the Messiah has come, God’s people transcend national boundaries; they are no longer defined by race but by grace: there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ (3:26-29). The religio-social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have ended. Therefore, Paul argued, for Gentiles to be circumcised would be to bring them under the old covenant (4:21-31), obligating them to observe all facets of the law (5:2-3), including separation from uncircumcised believers – the very hypocrisy Peter committed in Antioch (2:11ff). Thus, the teaching of the Judaizers amounts to a denial that through Jesus Christ God has made good on his promise to Abraham. Such a teaching denies the gospel (1:6-9). Such a teaching denies the work of Christ (2:21).

The Law of Christ

In light of our observations thus far, we can begin to understand Paul when he writes that “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Cor 7:19); and “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6).

When Paul said he was “not under the law,” though he was “not free from God’s law,” yet he was “under Christ’s law” (1 Cor 9:20-21; cf. Gal 6:2), we recognize he was being conscientious as he reached out both to Jews (those “under the law”) and to Gentiles (those “not under the law”). Old covenant laws that segregated Jews from Gentiles are no longer binding, yet other commands remain. Yet Paul was willing to walk in the paths of the past for the sake of reaching out to Jews. Yet he did not see all elements of the old covenant as binding upon Gentiles, or himself.

Thus, the law of God is refracted through Christ, becoming “the law of Christ.” So, when he writes regarding Christian ethics, he shows that Christians are not to be immoral and idolatrous (1 Cor 5-6; Eph 4:17-21), but are to “uphold the law” (Rom 3:31) and fulfill “the righteous requirements of the law” (8:1-14; cf. 13:8-10). So, Gentiles need not become Jews in order to walk in righteousness.

Greater and Lesser Commands

The very sorts of distinctions Paul makes were foreshadowed in the Old Testament distinctions between the greater commands (e.g. a contrite heart, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love of neighbor) and the lesser commands (e.g. sacrifices, burnt offerings, circumcision) of the law (1 Sam 15:22-23; Psa 40:6-8; Psa 51:16-17; Jer 7:21-23; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6-8). Even Jesus advocated these very distinctions (Matt 22:40; 23:23; Mark 12:32-34; Luke 10:25-28). Therefore we see that Paul’s approach was not without biblical precedent.

The New Covenant

In addition, we should also recall God’s promises regarding the coming Messiah and the new covenant (Jer 31:31; cf. Luke 22:20; Heb 8:7ff). The Messiah atones for our sins (Isa 53:5; Zech 12:10), bringing an end to bloody sacrifices (Heb 9:10-10:18). God grants us his Spirit (Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 36:26), giving us new lives (Rom 8:1-14; Gal 5:22-25). Our hearts are circumcised (Deut 30:6; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11), and God’s law is written upon our hearts (Jer 31:33; Isa 51:7) that we might love God and others as we should (Rom 2:14-15, 29).

Conclusion

Our brief discussions of circumcision, Christian morality, greater and lesser commands, and the new covenant have shown that the Muslim charge that “Christianity actually negates, rather than fulfills, Old Testament religion,” can be answered. In addition, the Muslim claim that as Christianity is to Old Testament religion, so Islam is to Christianity does not hold. Islam is essentially discontinuous with both biblical revelation and biblical doctrine, while Christianity affirms both Old Testament revelation and its teachings regarding human sinfulness, atonement and salvation. Moreover, in Jesus Christ, God’s promise to Abraham is now enjoyed by all facets of humanity, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender, class or age. And all of this is foreseen in the Old Testament, as Paul is at pains to show.

Now that’s good news!

Notes

1. Hammudah Abdalati, Islam in Focus (Indianapolis, IN: American Trust Publications, 1975), 32, 33.

2. See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, revised and expanded (Chicago: Moody, 1986).

3. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 210 n. 6.

4. Cf. Acts 11:2-3; Romans 15:8; Ephesians 2:11; Titus 1:10. The NIV sometimes translates “uncircumcision” simply as “Gentiles,” and “circumcision” simply as “Jews” (e.g. Gal 2:7-9).

5. Compare this with the issues surrounding Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10-11, and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

6. Cf. Galatians 3:14, 16; Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18.

7. Genesis 15:6.

8. Cf. Romans 4:9-12.

9. See Jeffrey R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8-10 (WUNT; Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).

10. See the discussion in Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Commentary to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 252-281.

11. Cf. Ephesians 2:11-22; Romans 11:17-24.

12. Cf. Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:26; Acts 7:51.

13. See further, Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York: Crossroad, 1999).

14. See further, Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995).