1. Testimony of the Qur'an to the Bible
Pfander, The Mizanu'l Haqq, rev. Tisdall (1910), Part I, ch. I, pp. 48–53
Pfander argues from the Qur'an's own words that the Torah, Psalms and Gospel were in people's hands in Muhammad's day and were honoured as God's Word. This lays the groundwork for Unit 8 on the charge that the Bible was corrupted. Caution: the book dates from 1910, uses some Victorian wording, and argues in the style of its day; read it for the evidence, and speak more gently than a century-old tract.
In Surah iii. (Al 'Imran), ver. 22, it is thus written: "Hast thou not looked at those who were brought a portion of the Book? They are invited to the Book of God, that it may judge between them. Then a section of them turn back, and they prevent." Baizawi explains "a portion of the Book" as "The Torah, or the Heavenly Books in general", and says "The inviter was Muhammad, and the Book of God the Qur'an or the Torah. For it is related that he entered their school: then said to him Na'im ibn 'Amr and Al Harith ibn Zaid, 'To what religion dost thou belong?' Then he said, 'To the Religion of Abraham.' Accordingly they both said to him, 'Verily Abraham was a Jew.' Then said he, 'Come ye to the Torah: verily it is between us and you.' Then they both declined. Accordingly the verse was sent down." Here again we perceive that the Jews in Muhammad's time possessed the Torah, and that Muhammad appealed to it with confidence to decide whatever matter was that day in dispute between himself and them, regarding which subject of dispute there is a difference of opinion among commentators.
In Surah iii. (Al 'Imran), ver. 87, it is said: "All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel forbade unto himself, before that the Torah was sent down. Say thou: 'Then bring ye the Torah: then read it aloud, if ye are truthful.'" Baizawi's comment on the final clause is: "A command for them to defend their cause with their Book, and a reproach to them from what was in it, through the fact that what had not been [originally] forbidden had been forbidden to them because of their wrong-doing. It is related that when Muhammad said this to them, they were astonished, and did not venture to bring forth the Torah." This remark of the commentator is an admission that they then possessed it, as indeed is clear from the whole verse.
In Surah v. (Al Ma'idah), ver. 47, we read: "And how shall they make thee their judge, since with them is the Torah? in it is God's judgement." Baizawi's note on this is: "An expression of surprise at their making one in whom they do not believe their judge, since the judgement is announced in the Book which is with them."
We content ourselves with quoting these few passages from the Qur'an to prove what men of learning know for a certainty to be true; that is to say, that the Bible was in existence in Muhammad's time in the hands of the "People of the Book". This proof would of itself suffice; but we have others, one of which we now proceed to adduce.
The Qur'an itself contains certain passages which it actually quotes from the Old and the New Testament. That is to say, certain verses are taken from the Bible into the Qur'an, and the Qur'an states that these verses are to be found in the Bible.
For instance, in Surah v. (Al Ma'idah), ver. 49, it is said: "And We wrote concerning them in it" (that is, in the Torah, as verses 47 and 48 state), that "Life for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth." This is a quotation from Exod. xxi. 23-25.
Again in Surah xxi. (Al Anbiya), ver. 105 we read: "And We have written in the Psalms after the Reminder that 'As for the earth, My servants the righteous shall inherit it'." This is a quotation from Ps. xxxvii. 29. Baizawi explains "the Psalms" as "the book of David".
In Surah vii. (Al A'raf), ver. 38, it is written: "Verily those that have declared Our signs to be lies, and have been too proud for them, unto them the gates of heaven shall not be opened, nor shall they enter Paradise, until the camel shall pass in at the eye of the needle." Here there is a quotation from the Gospel, for the mention of the difficulty of a camel passing through the eye of a needle is found in Matt. xix. 24; Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25.
These three passages, one from the Torah, the second from the Zabur, and the third from the Injil, clearly show that the Sacred Scriptures then in the hands of the Jews and Christians were those which we now possess and call by the very same names. All men of understanding will clearly perceive this. For, just as every learned man who in years to come recognizes the pieces of poetry which we have quoted in the Introduction to this Treatise as taken from such books as the Mathnavi of Jalalu'ddin Rumi, the Diwan of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, the poems of Sa'di, or some other well-known writer, will at once conclude that these works as a whole were in existence in the present century, so every attentive reader of the Qur'an would recognize that the passages above quoted from the Bible proved the existence of the Bible in Muhammad's time. The proof is still further strengthened by the fact that the Qur'an in two of the cases actually mentions the name of the book from which it is quoting.
[…]
Besides all this, in the Traditions there are a few passages in which Muhammad is said to have used language which is really a quotation from the Bible. Of this we give only one specimen, but it is the most remarkable of all. In the Mishkat, p. 487, of the edition of A.H. 1297, in the first chapter of the Book on "The Description of Paradise and Its People", we find the following Tradition from Abu Hurairah: "The Apostle of God said: 'God Most High hath said, I have prepared for My servants the righteous what eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it occurred to the heart of humanity.'" There can be no doubt that this is a distinct quotation from 1 Cor. ii. 9. It is important to notice this, because Muhammad here states that this verse is a direct utterance of God Most High Himself, whereas many Muslim writers, learned men (and not only ignorant people), deny that Paul was an apostle and that his Epistles are inspired.
The Bible is generally divided into two volumes: the Old Testament, which contains the sacred books of the Jewish Canon, composed in Hebrew, with the exception of a few chapters which are in Aramaic; and the New Testament, composed in Greek. The Jews refuse to accept the New Testament, but we Christians accept both. Hence Baizawi in his commentary on Surah xxix. (Al 'Anqabut), ver. 46, speaks of us as "the people of the two books". But in the Qur'an the Bible is generally referred to as "The Book", though three of its principal parts are also mentioned by name. These are the Torah, the Zabur, and the Injil. The Jews divide the Old Testament itself into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, as we see in Luke xxiv. 44. The Qur'an often refers also to the Prophets of the Old Testament, as, for example, in Surah ii. (Al Baqarah), ver. 130: "Say ye, 'We have believed in God, and in what hath been sent down unto us, and what hath been sent down unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and what Moses was given and Jesus, and what the Prophets were given from their Lord.'" The same words are repeated in Surah iii. (Al 'Imran), ver. 78. Hence it is clear that the Qur'an agrees with the New Testament in naming as inspired each and all of the three great divisions of the Old Testament.
Christians often apply the title of "the Gospel" to the whole of the New Testament, as apparently the Qur'an does. One reason for this is that the New Testament begins with the Four Gospels. But a still better reason is that the word "Gospel" or "good news" expresses the main purport of the whole book. This is clear from Mark xiii. 10, and very many other passages.
As it is admitted that the whole of the New Testament was in Muhammad's time circulated very widely among Christians, and since not only does the Qur'an quote a passage found in three Gospels (Surah vii. 38: compare Matt. xix. 24; Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25), but Muhammad himself, as we have seen, quotes a verse from another part of the New Testament, therefore it is evident to all who are men of understanding and free from prejudice that the Qur'an refers to the Bible as it then existed among the Jews and Christians as containing a Divine Revelation. But besides this the Qur'an always speaks of the Bible with great reverence, and gives it the very highest titles, styling it "the Word of God" (Surah ii. 70), the Furqan (Surah's ii. 50: xxi. 49), "a light and a Reminder", "the Book of God" (Surah ii. 95: thus Baizawi and the two Jalals explain the verse: compare Surah iii. 22, and Surah v. 48), and other high titles.
Moreover, the Qur'an states that the inspiration bestowed on Muhammad was the same as that given to the former prophets, as we learn from such passages as the following:—(1) Surah iii. (Al 'Imran), ver. 66: "Say thou: 'Verily the guidance is God's guidance, that anyone should be given like to what ye have been given.'" (2) Surah iv. (An Nisa'), ver. 161: "Verily We have inspired thee as We inspired Noah and the Prophets after him, &c. (3) Surah xlii (Ash Shura'), ver. 1: "Thus doth God the Glorious, the Wise, inspire thee and those who were before thee." The word which is used to describe the "descent" of the Qur'an is also used of the earlier books. Hence, since things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other, it follows that the Qur'an teaches us that the Old and New Testament are as truly "sent down" by God and as truly "inspired" as the Qur'an itself claims to be. Therefore it is that the Qur'an commands Muslims to profess as firm belief in all the previous Scriptures as in the Qur'an (Surahs ii. 130: iii. 78). They are also informed that the Qur'an was sent down for the purpose of confirming the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, as, for instance, we read in Surah iii. (Al 'Imran), ver. 2: "He hath sent down upon thee the Book, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Injil before as a guidance unto men: and He hath sent down the Distinction." It is said, moreover, that those who reject the Book will be punished by God for doing so, for in Surah xl. (Al Mu'min), vers. 72, 73, it is written: "Those who hold the Book and that wherewith We have sent Our apostles to be a lie, they therefore shall know, when the collars and the chains are on their necks: they shall be dragged into the hot water, then into the fire shall they be dragged." Baizawi in commenting upon these verses gives several different explanations of what is meant by "the Book". He says, "the Qur'an, or the Heavenly Books in general," and explains "that wherewith We have sent Our apostles" as meaning "the rest of the Books, or Inspiration and the Religious Laws". Even if, therefore, we deny that in these verses "the Book" is that from which "the People of the Book" derive this title, yet the other words quite clearly denote the Old and the New Testament.
The Qur'an also states that the Old Testament and the New agree with one another in their general teaching, for in several passages we find statements similar to the following from Surah v. (Al Ma'idah), ver. 50: "And We caused Jesus, Son of Mary, to follow in their" [the Prophets'] "footsteps, confirming what was before Him of the Torah, and We brought Him the Injil, in it is guidance and light, confirming what was before it of the Torah, and a guidance and a warning to the pious."
2. The Scriptures have not been corrupted, before or after Muhammad's time
Pfander, The Mizanu'l Haqq, rev. Tisdall (1910), Part I, ch. IV, pp. 101–106
Muslims often say the Bible was corrupted, and pastors meet this charge constantly. Pfander answers from inside Islam: he reads the Qur'an and its classical commentators, Baizawi and Ar Razi, who understood tahrif mainly as misreading or misquoting, not rewriting the text. Notice the method of starting from the other side's own authorities. Caution: this is 1910 apologetics. Its confident tone and some scholarly claims are dated, so compare them with the later units on the New Testament text.
WE have already seen that the Qur'an calls the Bible "the Word of God" (Surah ii. 70), and that the Qur'an states more than once that God's words cannot be changed or altered. If both these statements are correct—and of that Christians have no more doubt than have Muslims—then it follows that the Bible has not been changed and corrupted either before or since Muhammad's time.
But this brings us to consider what the Qur'an actually does say, and what is the opinion of the leading commentators. These are not unanimous on the subject, yet it will be seen that they by no means heartily support the opinion of the uneducated.
In Surah xviii. (Al Kahf), ver. 26, it is written: "And recite what has been inspired into thee from the book of thy Lord: there is no changer of His words." Of course the Qur'an itself is referred to primarily, but the final statement concerns God's words in general. As the Bible is admitted to be God's Word, and the general includes the particular, it is evident that the Bible cannot be changed. Baizawi's comment is: "There is no one who can change or alter them, except Himself." In Surah x. (Yunus), ver. 65, we read: "There is no changing the words of God." Baizawi says: "There is no altering His sayings, and there is no breach of His promises." In Surah vi. (Al In'am), ver. 34: "There is no changer of God's words," and ver. 115, "There is no changer of His words," the same statement is made. It is true that in his note on the latter passage Baizawi speaks of the Torah as having become corrupted (muharraf), but we shall soon see in what sense that expression is used.
Having studied the whole question, most learned Muslim theologians in India at the present day are convinced that the Books of the Old Testament and the New have not been changed (mubaddala), altered or corrupted (muharrafa) in the sense in which the ignorant employ the latter word. In this view they are supported by Imam Fakhru'ddin Ar Razi. For instance, in his commentary on Surah iii. (Al 'Imran), ver. 72, in answer to the question, "How was it possible to insert corruption (at-tahrif) into the Torah, when its celebrity among men was so great?" he gives an answer which should be carefully considered. He first says, "Perhaps this deed proceeded from a small company, for whom it was possible to agree upon corruption: they then presented what they had corrupted to some of the common people, and on this hypothesis the tahrif becomes possible." But this is only an hypothesis, not this commentator's own real opinion, for he next proceeds to state the latter. "And in my opinion," he says, "in explanation of the verse another method is more correct,—that the verses which proved Muhammad's prophetic office needed fixed attention and earnest thought, and the people used to produce concerning them confusing questions and observe objections: therefore those proofs were becoming doubtful to the hearers, and the Jews used to say, 'God's meaning in these verses is what we have mentioned, not what ye have mentioned.' This therefore is what was meant by 'tahrif' and 'twisting tongues'" (Ar Razi, vol. ii, pp. 720, 721); see also his commentary on Surah iv. 48: vol. iii, pp. 337 and 338, where he mentions the same two views. But he also mentions a third, viz. that, according to some, "They used to enter in unto the Prophet and ask him about a matter, and he would inform them so that they might grasp it: then, when they came out from with him, they corrupted (harrafa) his words."
According to this opinion, it was not Holy Scripture that the Jews corrupted, but Muhammad's answers to their questions which they falsely reported when they game out from his presence. If, however, we accept Ar Razi's own view, it was not the Scriptures which the Jews corrupted, but their own explanations of what the Scriptures said. Even this was done orally, and not in writing.
In his note on Surah v. (Al Ma'idah), ver. 16, Ar Razi relates a tale which shows that here also the Jews in reading aloud verses of the Torah (Deut. xxii. 23, 24) "twisted their tongues" and substituted scourging for stoning, orally, not making any change in the sacred text. In his comment on Surah v, ver. 45, Baizawi also relates the same story, thus referring this verse also to the same incident. He explains the passage, "They corrupt the words from after their places," by saying: "Deflect them from their places in which God placed them, either (1) verbally, by omitting them or altering their places, or (2) in meaning, by referring them to what is not their sense and applying them to what is not their application" (vol. i, p. 258). Now, if we wish to see which of these two explanations is the right one, all we have to do is to turn to Deut. xxii. 23, 24, in the Hebrew original or in any version, ancient or modern. There we find that the "Verse of Stoning" (ayatu'r-rajm) is still preserved there, just as the Qur'an and Traditions show that it was in Muhammad's day. Hence we see that the Jews did not in this instance omit the verse or alter the words in their places. Of course the latter is the proper meaning of tahrif, only the "transposition" of the words took place orally, not in the written text of the Torah.
Strangely enough the Verse of Stoning was once in the Qur'an itself, as far as we can learn from Tradition. 'Umar, we are told in the Mishkatu'l Masabih, said: "Verily God sent Muhammad in truth, and He sent down upon him the Book, and of what God Most High sent down was the Verse of Stoning. The Apostle of God stoned, and we stoned after him, and stoning in the Book of God is justice upon him that hath committed adultery." When the Qur'an was "collected" by Zaid ibn Thabit, this verse was omitted, lest it should have been said that 'Umar had inserted anything extra. If we may believe 'Umar the Khalifah, any removal of words from their places (Surah v, ver. 45) that took place with reference to the Verse of Stoning occurred in the Qur'an, not in the Torah, and was done by Muslims, and not by Jews.
In the Qur'an the Jews are sometimes accused of "concealing the truth" knowingly, and of "twisting their tongues", in giving an answer to the question what the teaching of the Old Testament on this subject was. They are also accused of "casting the Word of God behind their backs". Against them, too, the charge of tahrif, is brought in only four places: viz. in Surahs ii. 70; iv. 48; v. 16, 45. It must be noticed here that, whatever the meaning of this accusation is, it is brought against the Jews only, never against the Christians. This single fact at once leaves the New Testament free from all suspicion of having become corrupted (muharraf) before Muhammad's time or during his life. We must now consider finally in what sense the Qur'an accuses the Jews of tahrif, We have already seen what Baizawi and Ar Razi say in reference to all these four verses except the first (Surah ii, ver. 70).
With regard to this verse both of these commentators agree that the tahrif mentioned in it consisted of a wrong explanation of the Torah and a concealment of what the Jews knew to be taught in it (compare Surah vi. 91, where it is said that they had the Torah in writing, but that they showed only part of it and concealed part, or most of it). This was very wrong conduct, but it is a different thing from altering the text of the Torah. If we ask at what time the Jews were guilty of tahrif, Baizawi says it was in the time of the ancestors of those who were Muhammad's contemporaries; but Ar Razi holds that it was those who lived in Muhammad's time against whom the charge is brought. Both commentators mention the opinion of those who fancied that the Jews had purposely altered the Sacred Text; but neither of them accepts this idea as correct. Ar Razi puts the question, "How is this possible in the Book? The exact number of its letters and its words had been summed up and handed down by continuous Tradition, and was well known in the East and in the West." He remarks that perhaps it will be said that the people were few, and those who were well acquainted with the Book were very few, and therefore it was possible for this tahrif, to take place. But, rejecting this idea, he adds, "The meaning of tahrif is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations, and the changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do at this time of ours with the verses which contravene their own religion." This is the view that he himself approves and supports with his authority. He therefore altogether exculpates the Jews from all suspicion of having changed the text of the Old Testament. When it is asserted therefore that the Qur'an states that the Torah is corrupted (muharraf), it should be remembered that this is not true in the sense in which the statement is made by the ignorant of our own time.
Hence any Muslim who affirms that the Old Testament and the New are corrupt (muharraf) in text, and no longer exist as they did in Muhammad's day, is contradicting the Qur'an, and thereby denying the truth of the book which all true Muslims believe to have been sent down by God Most High to Muhammad with the object of confirming the Torah and the Injil. It is impossible to say that the Qur'an teaches both that the Torah and the Injil are true and inspired, and also that they have been so altered as to be no longer reliable; for to say this would be to accuse the Qur'an of self-contradiction. No believer in God who is the Truth (al-Haqq) can believe that He sent down the Qur'an in order to confirm a corrupted book, and one which, in consequence of such corruption, taught false doctrine. The commentators whom we have quoted support our contention that the Bible had not become corrupted before or during Muhammad's time.
The only question which remains is, "Has it been corrupted since his time?" It is not difficult to answer this. The MSS. to which we have already referred, written in most cases long before Muhammad's birth, are those from which the copies of the Bible now in circulation are printed. Hence the impossibility of supporting the suggestion that since Muhammad's death either Jews or Christians have corrupted the Bible in any way.
3. The Way in which the Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out Salvation for all men
Pfander, The Mizanu'l Haqq, rev. Tisdall (1910), Part II, ch. IV, pp. 170–175
This passage explains the cross in plain steps: what the Atonement is, why Christ's obedience and death were willing and sufficient, why His deity matters, and what believers receive. It helps a pastor answer the Muslim question, "Could God not simply forgive?" Caution: it was written in 1910 for readers of that day, and its wording is older and more formal; speak to your neighbours today with gentleness.
As there is much misunderstanding about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement, we must here endeavour to explain it clearly and briefly. By Atonement we mean Reconciliation between God and man. Man has fallen from the condition in which God created him, and has, first through Adam's sin and then through each man's choice of evil instead of good, lost the true and eternal life (Gen. iii. 3) which consists in the knowledge of God through Christ (John xvii. 2). The only way in which man can therefore recover from this spiritual death is by receiving new spiritual life from God, the Giver of Life. This life is in Christ Jesus (John i. 4; v. 26; Col. iii. 4; I John v. 12), and is given to men through Him alone (Acts iv. 12). Christ Jesus unites believers to Himself through faith, thus making them branches of Himself, the true Vine (John xv. 1-6). In this way He imparts to them something of His own holy Nature and character, making them, so to speak, partakers of His own flesh and blood (John vi. 40, 47, 48, 51-58, 63). He took human nature upon Him and became man, becoming the Second Adam, the spiritual head and representative of the human race (John i. 14; I Cor. xv. 22, 45). By union with Him through faith (Gal. ii. 20) those who believe in Him receive authority to become sons of God (John i. 12; I John iii. 1-3; iv. 9) in virtue of the new and heavenly birth which they receive from the Holy Spirit of God (John iii. 3, 5). Dying in Christ to sin, they in Him live again unto righteousness (Rom. vi. 1-11).
In order that man should be delivered from that eternal death which is the result and the punishment of sin (Gen. iii. 3; Ezek. xviii. 20; Rom. vi. 23), it was necessary that, as man had willingly broken God's law of righteousness (Gen iii), he should willingly obey that holy law to the utmost. The Word of God, having become perfect man, did this. He was "obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil. ii. 7, 8: compare Rom. v. 19). By His precious death for us He who was free from all sin gave His life a ransom for many (Isa. liii. 5, 6; Matt. xx. 28; Rom. iii. 25; iv. 25; v. 8-11; I Pet. ii. 24). It is not correct to say that He bore the punishment of our sins, for punishment implies guilt, and in Him was no sin (I John iii. 5): but all His sufferings were because of our sins, and by means of those sufferings all who truly believe in Him are delivered from sin and its final and most fearful consequence, which is exclusion from God's presence and eternal death. If Christ had been merely man, by His perfect obedience even unto death He could have done nothing except save Himself, for He could not have given spiritual life unto other men. But, being perfect God as well as perfect man, He can and does give this new spiritual life to those who believe in Him (John v. 26). God is immortal, and cannot die: but the Word of God, becoming man, was able in His human nature to taste of death for every man (Heb. ii. 9). For us He died unto sin once (Rom. iv. 25; vi. 10). but He rose again from the dead, having conquered death and annulled it (2 Tim. i. 10), and brought life to those who are united to Him by faith (John iii. 16; xi. 25, 26).
As we have already said, God must hate sin because He is Holy by Nature. Sin in us can be overcome only through the manifestation of God's love in Christ Jesus, whom we love because He first loved us (John iii. 16; I John iv. 19). This constraining love of Christ enables us to love Him and, by the grace of God's Holy Spirit, to live in accordance with God's holy will in some measure here, and fully beyond the grave (2 Cor. v. 14).
Through Christ's death on the cross two special benefits are offered to us: (1) deliverance from eternal death, and (2) grace to hate sin and to overcome it (Rom. vi. 5-11; Gal. ii. 20; vi. 14; Col. iii. 1-17; I John i. 7). He has ransomed us from our bondage to sin (Matt. xx. 28; I Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; I Pet. i. 18-21). He has offered the one true and effectual propitiation for sin (Heb. ii. 17; I John ii. 2; iv. 10), of which the sacrifices for sin under the Jewish law were but symbols.
Our conscience, which accuses us of sin and threatens us with the wrath of God, thereby teaches us our urgent need of a reconciliation with God Most High. As we cannot ourselves offer a perfect propitiation, God has provided one in Christ, who is perfect man as well as perfect God. Christ's death shows us the terrible and heinous nature of sin. The crime of putting Christ to death was the acme and consummation of the world's sin. Self-love and self-will had caused Adam's sin. Christ on the cross offered self to death. The atoning virtue of His death consists not in His physical sufferings as such, but in the infinite offering of His love, which led Him, the sinless Head of the human race, to endure the suffering which is the result of other men's sins. He of His own free will (John x. 17, 18) laid down His life for us, and He thereby as our representative made an act of submission to the justice of God's sentence on sin and on sinners (Ezek. xviii. 20). It was not the actual death itself so much as the free surrender of Himself, and obedience to God's Holy Will even unto death, that was of the essence of the sacrifice which He offered for us. Yet He suffered everything that human nature united to the Divine Nature could suffer, and that not only in body, but in mind and spirit also, for His grief for men's sins broke His loving heart (John xix. 34). Being one with His Father, His holiness and His love for man led Him to feel the heinousness of our sins: becoming one with us in His humanity, He felt the terrible nature of the curse under which sin must necessarily lie, since God is perfectly Holy. Hence Christ "tasted death for every man" (Heb. ii. 9) in a way in which none but the Sinless One could (Ps. xxii. 1; Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34). Thus were displayed at once God's love. His justice, and His mercy.
He who in His human nature died on the cross was God as well as man. As He took upon Himself the burden of our sins and died on the cross for us sinners, therefore those who by true faith are united to Him as branches to the vine (John xv. 4, 5) receive forgiveness of sin and are delivered from the fear of death (Heb. ii. 14, 15), since the sting of death is sin (I Cor. xv. 56), which causes the unpardoned sinner to look forward with a fearful dread to the wrath of God. That Christ's sacrifice was accepted and His Atonement effectual is proved by His Resurrection (Rom. i. 4), and His Ascension to Heaven (Luke xxii. 51) to present Himself there as our representative (Heb. ix. 24), and to return to the glory which He had with His Father before the world had come into existence (John xvii. 5).
We now proceed to point out a few of the blessed results which proceed from the Atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ.
The first of these is that God for Christ's sake forgives the sins and transgressions of all true Christians (Rom. v. 5-21; Eph. i. 3-7; Heb. x. 1-25; I John i. 7). Then God, for Christ's sake, grants them His special grace and the light of His heavenly guidance. He illumines their hearts so that they may be able to understand their own inner condition and may truly know God. By filling their hearts with love to Himself, who first loved them, He enables them to go on gaining more and more spiritual strength, so as to keep His commandments, attain to purity of heart, and acquire perfect knowledge of the truth (John viii. 31; Rom. v. 5; viii. 5; I Cor. i. 4, 5; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 15-23; Phil. iv. 13; Col. ii. 3; Titus ii. 11-14; Heb. ix. 11-14). Another result of the Atonement is that Christ has thereby freed His true disciples from the slavery of Satan, has delivered them from the love of sin, and has made them heirs of eternal felicity (Rom. viii. 12-17; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; Heb. ii. 14, 15; 1 Pet. i. 3-9).
Now, since the salvation offered to sinners in Christ is so blessed and so precious a thing that by it men are cleansed from the defilements of sin, have the gate of God's good pleasure and loving-kindness opened to them, find enlightenment and sanctification, and at last enter upon the enjoyment of eternal life and endless, pure and holy felicity, it is therefore clearer than the sun at noonday that the doctrines of the Gospel are those which satisfy those yearnings of man's heart of which we have spoken in the Introduction. Hence the Bible must be the True Revelation, the Word of God.
[…]
In the Divine Plan of Salvation God's love and mercy, as well as His justice and holiness, are clearly manifested. Out of the abundance of His love, and to save man from the destruction caused by sin, God hath freely given His only Son, the effulgence of His glory, in order that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. Thus does this priceless doctrine exhibit most clearly those Attributes of God which it behoves us most to know, and, by teaching us how abhorrent sin is in His most holy sight, it urges us to obey His commandments and walk in the way of faith in Christ which leads to eternal life.
4. The Doctrine of the Divine and Undivided Trinity in the Unity of God Most High
Pfander, The Mizanu'l Haqq, rev. Tisdall (1910), Part II, ch. V, pp. 177–183
This passage opens Pfander's chapter on the Trinity. It does what Unit 5 asks of every pastor: it begins by agreeing with Muslims that God is one, shows that Christians do not believe in three gods, and then explains one God in three Persons from Scripture, admitting honestly that it is a mystery. Caution: it is over a century old. Its comparisons (the mind, the sunbeam, fire and heat) are only imperfect pictures, as Pfander says himself. Never let them replace the Bible's own words.
WHAT has been said in the fourth chapter concerning the way of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be properly understood by the seeker for the truth until he has studied the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Our use of the word Trinity is often a stumbling-block to our Muslim brothers, because they do not know what the Christian doctrine on this subject really is. Hence they fancy that it is directly contrary to belief in the One True God. But this is by no means the case. God forbid! On the contrary, the doctrine of the Divine Unity is the very foundation of our belief in the Trinity. All Christians believe in One God, not in three Gods.
Any one who studies the commentary of Jalalu'ddin on Surah v. 77, and his note, as well as those of Baizawi and Yahya' on Surah iv. 156, will see that these commentators fancied that the Christians believed that the Most Holy Trinity consisted of Father, Mother and Son, imagining that the Virgin Mary was a goddess, and was one of three separate Deities. Now there can be no doubt that in Muhammad's time the common people among the Christians were very ignorant and had fallen into gross errors, offering worship to the Virgin Mary and to the saints, just as ignorant Muslims to-day perform pilgrimages to the graves of dead Walis. But as no man of learning can say that such conduct is in accordance with the teaching of the Qur'an. so no scholar now fancies that the errors of ignorant Christians in Muhammad's time should be supposed to represent the teaching of the Bible on this point. The Qur'an condemns the worship of the Virgin, and the Bible nowhere sanctions it. But this has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians have never acknowledged three Gods.
Since such thoughtful and learned men as these three famous commentators were misled on this point through prejudice, it is clear that all wise men should inquire into this important matter very carefully for themselves, lest they too should be deceived, and should through this mistake reject the truth. We Christians regard belief in three Deities, one being the Virgin Mary, with exactly the same abhorrence as do the Muslims. This will be seen from what we now proceed to explain with regard to our real doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity.
We have already pointed out that belief in the Oneness of God is taught in the Torah in the words "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut. vi. 4). In the Injil we find the Lord Jesus Christ quoting these very words as the foundation of His own teaching (Mark xii. 29). The doctrine of the Trinity is an expansion of this, founded upon the rest of His teaching,—for example, upon His command to His disciples to baptize their converts into the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matt. xxviii. 19). Here it is evident that the Unity of God is taught, because the word Name is in the singular: yet the three Hypostases are mentioned separately. The Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be creatures, for it would be manifestly wrong to associate creatures with the Creator in the Unity of the Most Holy Name. Nor can the titles "Son of God" and "Holy Spirit of God" be properly applied to creatures, however exalted. This is evident to everyone who reflects upon the matter.
The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity may be briefly stated thus:—
1. The Father, the Son and Holy Ghost are One, and only One God.
2. Each of these three Divine Hypostases has a peculiarity incommunicable to the others.
3. No One of these three Divine Hypostases, if He could be entirely parted from the others, which is impossible, would alone and by Himself be God.
4. Each Divine Hypostasis, being united with the other Two in eternal and inseparable unity, is God.
5. Each Divine Hypostasis is of the same Nature and Dignity as the other Two.
6. The chief office of One Most Holy Hypostasis is best expressed, as in Holy Scripture, by the titles Creator and Father; of the Second by the terms The Word of God, the Son of God, the Redeemer; of the Third by the words Sanctifier and Comforter.
7. As the three Most Holy Divine Hypostases are one in Nature, so they are in Will, Purpose, Power, Eternity, and in all other attributes.
8. Yet the Bible teaches that the Father is the Fountain of Deity, and in this sense is greater than the Son, though in Nature they are One.
It is often said that this Christian doctrine is a contradiction in terms. This statement is manifestly incorrect, and betrays ignorance of what we really believe. It is true that the doctrine involves a mystery, but that is quite another thing. If the Most Holy Nature of God Most High were devoid of mystery, that is to say, if the mode of His Existence could be fully comprehended by the finite intellect of His creatures, He would not be God, because He would be finite. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity contains a mystery is not therefore an argument against its truth. For a mystery is a thing about which we do not know how it is, though we know that it is. For example, we know that the grass grows, though we do not know how it grows. The Universe of God is full of mysteries, and man is a great mystery to himself. He does not know how the spiritual can influence the material, yet he is himself a spirit dwelling for a time in a material body. If therefore God has revealed in Scripture certain doctrines regarding His own Most Holy Nature, we cannot expect to find these doctrines devoid of mystery. Nor is their mysteriousness a ground for refusing to believe them, provided that we find that they are really taught in the Word of God. Every careful student of the Bible will find that the doctrine which we have above stated is undoubtedly taught there. It may be stated in other words than those which we have used. For example, the Doctrine of the Trinity is often couched in the following words, which all Christians will confess to be in accordance with the teaching of the Bible.
"There is but one Living and True God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons" (Hypostases), "of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Not only is this in accordance with Holy Scripture, but the earliest Christian writers whose works have come down to us show in them that they understood the Bible as teaching the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, just as we do now.
Reason itself teaches us that we can know nothing of God's Nature but what He has Himself revealed. Hence the wise have well said, "Disputation about the Nature of God is blasphemy."
Some of our Muslim brothers assert that the doctrine of the Unity of God is opposed to belief in the Trinity. But as both these doctrines are revealed in the Word of God, they cannot really contradict one another. The idea of unity does not exclude all kinds of plurality. For instance, it is admitted that God has a plurality of Attributes, such as mercy, justice, power, wisdom, eternity. In fact, Muslim theologians rightly teach that He is the "Union of Good Attributes". But plurality of Attributes is not a contradiction of the Divine Unity. So, too, the doctrine of the existence of three Hypostases in the Unity of the Divine Nature is not contrary to that Unity, belief in which is the foundation of all true religion. It is granted that no perfect illustration of the Divine Nature can be found in creation, yet imperfect illustrations may be helpful to our finite understandings. The Torah tells us that God created man in His own image (Gen. i. 27): and in accordance with this is the wise saying of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, "Whoso knoweth himself knoweth his Lord." Hence we may institute the following imperfect comparison. Each man is one single personality, yet he may correctly speak of his spirit as "I", as also of his mind and his soul. These three things are in some measure distinct from one another, for the mind is not the spirit, nor is either of these the soul: yet we cannot say that it is incorrect to call each of them the Ego, though the Ego is one, not three. Strictly speaking, any one of them, apart from the other two, is not the whole personality, yet all three are so united that they together form the Ego, nor are they ever separated, at least in this life. This is a mystery, one of the many mysteries in our own nature. We do not understand it, yet we know that so it is. Each individual is a single person, yet none the less is he conscious of this distinction within himself, which does not, however, contradict the fact of his own single personality. We do not adduce this illustration as in any sense a proof of the truth of the doctrine of the Divine Trinity in Unity. The proof of the doctrine, as we have already said, is found in the Bible, and especially in the New Testament. We accept this doctrine solely because it has been Divinely revealed by Him who is the Truth. What we are now endeavouring to do is merely to show that certain arguments commonly brought against the doctrine are not sufficient to refute it. On the contrary, they arise in some measure from misunderstanding the Christian doctrine on the subject of God's Most Holy Nature. Hence it is our duty to try and explain this doctrine, and thus to remove out of the path of our Muslim brothers one of those stumbling-blocks which now prevent them from coming to the knowledge of truth.
[…]
Although no similitude drawn from created things can at all perfectly set forth the Divine Nature, yet there are others besides that already mentioned which may help to show that there are certain kinds of plurality which are quite consistent with a real unity. For example, in a single ray of white sunlight there exist three distinct kinds of rays, those of (1) light, (2) heat, and (3) chemical action. Yet these cannot be so completely separated from one another as to form three distinct rays: on the contrary, the unity of the ray requires the existence of all three within it. Another way of putting the illustration maybe employed. Fire, light, and heat are three, and yet one. There is no fire without light and heat, while light and heat are of the same nature and origin as fire. They are, moreover, of the same age with it. We may say that the fire gives out light and heat, and that light and heat are produced by fire, or that they proceed forth from the fire. But this does not imply that they are ever separated from the fire, and do not continue to exist in the fire at the very time at which they are rightly spoken of as having issued forth from it. In the same way, Mind, Thought, Speech, are one, and yet are distinct from one another. We cannot conceive of a mind utterly destitute of thought, and thought has within it speech, whether uttered or unuttered. Here again we see that certain forms of plurality are not opposed to unity, and that there exist certain things the very nature of which is plurality in unity.
5. Does the Bible contain Prophecies concerning Muhammad?
Pfander, The Mizanu'l Haqq, rev. Tisdall (1910), Part III, ch. II, pp. 226–231, 246–247
Muslim friends often say that the Bible foretells Muhammad, especially in Deuteronomy 18:18 and in Jesus' promise of the Paraclete in John 14–16. This passage shows how to test such claims by the words, the context and the wider Scripture, calmly and without anger. Caution: it was written in 1910 for readers in British India, so some arguments and phrases sound dated; use its method, speak gently, and leave out what would wound a neighbour. Omitted parts are marked […].
THERE can be no question that Christ's coming was foretold in the Old Testament in many different places. If, therefore, God Most High had intended to send into the world a Prophet far greater than He was, we should naturally expect to find predictions concerning this future Prophet in the Old Testament, and still more in the New. It is natural therefore for Muslims to seek for such prophecies regarding the Founder of their religion. For, if Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, the person on whose account God created the universe, it would be very strange had God concealed from men the fact that they should look for and obey the coming Prophet. Hence those who believe in Muhammad tell us that clear and unmistakeable predictions regarding him are to be found in the Bible: though they often add that others were once there, but were struck out by Jews and Christians.
We need not concern ourselves with this latter assertion, since in Part I we have proved that the Old Testament and the New remain in our hands in their original languages and in the same form in which they existed in Muhammad's time and for many centuries previously. They have not been corrupted either before or after Muhammad's time. It follows from this that we have nothing to do with mere assertions, but that, if in the text of the Bible as we now have it there do exist true and genuine predictions of Muhammad's coming, we Christians must admit it to be so. We cannot get rid of the force of this argument by saying that such passages are interpolations. On the other hand, should it become clear that the passages which Muslims quote do not refer to Muhammad, it will not be allowable for Muslims to say, "Well, the Bible did once contain such prophecies, but you People of the Book have expunged them."
The appeal to the Bible in this matter implies that those who refer to it and adduce from it passages which they think to refer to Muhammad thereby admit that it is (1) Divinely inspired, and (2) uncorrupt: otherwise of what use would it be to refer to such a book as authoritative? If our Muslim brothers admit these two points, then an inquiry into the alleged Biblical prophecies regarding Muhammad maybe very interesting and instructive. But if they do not admit these points, it is difficult to see what use it is for them to refer to the Bible at all in proof of the Mission of their prophet. Of course many learned Muslims—all, in fact, who have carefully studied the matter—do admit these two facts. We may hope too that our honoured readers will grant that what has been said in Parts I and II of this Treatise is in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture.
It will be granted that we are justified in explaining one passage of the Bible by another. Wise men will admit that this is the correct method of proceeding in case of doubt, difficulty, or dispute about the meaning of any verse or passage not only in the Bible but in any other Book. Obscure passages can often be cleared up by plainer verses and by the context. If a later passage explains an earlier prophecy, for instance, it is unworthy of an unprejudiced man of learning to refuse to accept the explanation thus given by an inspired writer, and to expect us to receive instead some comment which does not suit the context and which is in contradiction to many other passages in the book.
We now proceed to examine the chief passages of the Old Testament in the first place in which our Muslim brethren claim to find predictions regarding Muhammad.
2. Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It is urged that the promised prophet was not to rise among the Israelites ("from the midst of thee" in ver. 15 does not occur in the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch, nor in Acts iii. 22) but among their "brethren" the Ishmaelites (compare Gen. xxv. 9, 18) : that no such prophet did rise among the Israelites (Deut. xxxiv. 10): that Muhammad was like Moses in many points, e.g., both were brought up in their enemies' houses, appeared among idolaters, were at first rejected by their own people and afterwards accepted by them, each gave a law, fled from their enemies (Moses to Midian, Muhammad to Medinah, a name of a similar meaning), marched to battle against their enemies, wrought miracles, and enabled their followers after their own decease to conquer Palestine. In reply it may be said that Deut. xxxiv. 10 refers only to the time at which it was written, and the word "since" may be said to imply the expectation that such a prophet would arise " in Israel", not outside. The words "from the midst of thee" are almost certainly genuine, though even without them the meaning is clear. It is true that Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother: but, if the Ishmaelites may be called the brethren of Israel, assuredly, the Israelite tribes may more correctly be called one another's brethren. (Compare Surah vii, Al A'raf, ver. 83, "their brother Shu'aib.") Israelites are called one another's brethren in this very book of Deuteronomy, e.g., in chapters iii. 18; xv. 7; xvii. 15; xxiv. 14. In ch. xvii. 15 we have an exactly parallel passage in reference to the appointment of a king: "one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee." Most, if not all, the kingdoms of Europe are ruled by kings who belong to families which are or were originally foreign: but in all history we never hear of the Israelites appointing over themselves a foreigner as king. They should have gone to the Ishmaelites for their kings, if the Muslim explanation of "from among their brethren" in Deut. xviii. 18 is correct. They did not do so, because they understood their own language. Who at the present day among Muslims, if told to summon one of his "brethren" to receive some important post, would conclude that members of his own family were excluded, and that he must find a man whose ancestors had, hundreds of years before, been kindred to his own? Moreover, the Torah clearly says that no prophet was to be expected from Ishmael, for God's covenant was made with Isaac, not with him (Gen. xvii. 18-21; xxi. 10-12). The Qur'an also in several places speaks of the prophetic office as having been entrusted to Isaac's seed (Surah xxix, Al Ankabut, ver. 27; Surah xlv, Al Fathiyyah, ver. 15). The promised prophet was to be sent unto Israel: but Muhammad professed to be sent to the Arabs among whom he was born. As for a likeness to Moses, we learn from Deut. xxxiv. 10-12, that the two points in which the Israelites expected the coming prophet to resemble Moses were: (1) personal knowledge of God, and (2) mighty works. As regards the former, is there not a tradition that Muhammad said, "We have not known Thee in the truth of Thy knowledge (or as Thou shouldest be known)"? With reference to mighty works, the Qur'an tells us that Muhammad was not given the power of working miracles (Surah xvii, Al Asra', ver. 61: see Baizawi's and 'Abbasi's commentaries: Surahs ii. 112; vi. 37, 57, 109; vii. 202; x. 21; xiii. 8, 30; xxix. 49, 50).
[…]
Finally, God Himself has explained in the Gospel that this prophecy referred to Christ, not to Muhammad (compare Deut. xviii. 15, 19, "Unto Him ye shall hearken," &c., with Matt. xvii. 5: see also Mark ix. 2, and Luke ix. 35). Jesus explains that this and other passages in the Torah refer to Himself (John v. 46: see Gen. xii. 3; xxvi. 4; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxviii. 14). He was descended from Judah (Matt. i. 1-16; Luke iii. 23-38; Heb. vii. 14), was born in Israel, and spent almost all His life among the Jews, and sent His disciples in the first place to the latter (Matt. x. 6) and only secondly to the Gentiles (Luke xxiv. 47; Matt. xxviii. 18-20). In Acts iii. 25, 26, the prophecy we are considering is definitely referred to Christ.
[…]
9. John xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13, &c. Muslims assert that the Paraclete here mentioned by Christ is Muhammad, whose name they fancy to be a translation of this word. They contend that the prophecy was fulfilled in Muhammad, since he received the Qur'an from the Angel Gabriel (whom Muslims imagine to be the Holy Spirit), and bore witness to Christ (John xv. 26) and glorified Him (John xvi. 14) as a prophet, as born of a Virgin, as a worker of miracles, as having ascended up to Heaven without dying, as not God's Son, and as never having claimed to be such, and as having had the Gospel brought to Him. That the early Christians understood Christ to have promised that another great prophet should come is, the Muslims assert, clear from the fact that Mani claimed to be the Paraclete, and was on that account accepted by many Christians as having come in fulfilment of this prophecy. But it is quite impossible for any scholar and for anyone who carefully studies the New Testament to accept this explanation of our Lord's words in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of St. John's Gospel. For:
(1) First of all, the word Paraclete does not mean anything at all like "Muhammad". It means the "Comforter" or "Sustainer", and also the "Advocate".
[…]
(2) In the New Testament the title Paraclete is applied only to the Holy Spirit, as in these chapters (John xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13), and also by implication to Christ (John xiv. 16: see I John ii. 1). (3) The Paraclete of whom Christ here speaks is therefore not a man, but a spirit, the Spirit of Truth, invisible: He was then dwelling with Christ's disciples and was to be in their hearts (John xiv. 17; xvi. 14). (4) He was to be sent by Christ (John xv. 26; xvi. 7), which Muslims cannot admit concerning Muhammad. (5) His work was not to gather armies and gain victories with earthly weapons, but to convict men of sin, the very essence of sin being disbelief in Christ (xvi. 9). (6) His teaching was to glorify not Himself, but Christ, and was not to be His own, but what Christ gave Him (John xvi. 14, 15). (7) To teach men to deny the truth of Christ's Sonship, which Christ had affirmed on oath (Mark xiv. 61), and to oppose belief in His Divine Nature, which (as we have seen) is taught in both Old Testament and New (for example in Isa. ix. 6; Ps. xlv. 6; John x. 30; Heb. i), is not to glorify Christ, but to oppose Him. (8) To deny that Christ was crucified and thereby atoned for the sins of the whole world is to deny another of the most vital doctrines of the whole Bible (Ps. xxii; Isa. lii. 13 and liii; Matt. xx. 19, &c. &c.), for on the fact of the Atonement made in His death on the cross depends the salvation of all men. (9) Denial of His Crucifixion implies denial of His Resurrection, upon which the whole Christian faith is based (I Cor. xv. 17-19).