Abstract
For 1400 years, Muslims and Christians in interfaith dialogue have encountered a perennial impasse surrounding the historical account of Jesus’ death. For most Muslims who hold a traditional interpretation of the Qur’an, Jesus did not die on the cross, but was assumed to heaven and another was crucified in his place. For Christians, however, the cross and subsequent resurrection are the center of gospel faith. This article recognizes the impasse over the crucifixion, but proposes that the conceptual distance surrounding the concept of atonement is a prior concern that needs to be addressed before one overcomes the historical question. In order to consider the barriers to communication and mutual understanding surrounding Jesus’ cross, we must first recognize that the qur’anic understanding of atonement presents linguistic, ritual, narrative, and worldview barriers to a biblical understanding of atonement. As such, before one answers the question, “Did Jesus die on the cross?” it is imperative to ask, “Why would Jesus’ death on the cross matter?” This article seeks to explain the distinct understanding of atonement represented in the Qur’an and to propose that the Book of Hebrews is uniquely suited to present a biblical understanding of atonement to one who is influenced by the Qur’an.
My interest in the topic of qur’anic atonement began in the streets of Alexandria, Egypt in the early dawn hours of a Muslim festival marked by animal sacrifice. While the sacrifices that were offered that morning were expected, I noticed a curious feature that one won’t often encounter in literature addressing Islamic practice and theology. As blood pooled in the streets issuing from the carcasses of sacrificial animals, worshippers came near to dip their hands in the blood and applied them around the mantles of the neighboring apartment buildings, storefronts, and even around car doors. As an Islamic celebration of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son, I did not expect the clear Passover undertones. This prompted me to ask the question, “What is the role of blood in Islamic theology and does it have any connection to atonement?” 1
Within the discipline of Christian theology one would be hard-pressed to find a more central theological concept than the atonement. As both a theoretical and applied doctrine, the atonement is the hub of robust trinitarian engagement, christological reflection, covenantal explanation, and soteriological discourse. The atonement effects the restored relationship between God and humanity, allows redeemed worshippers to withstand the presence of a holy and righteous God, and creates the Spirit-filled community of the church. The atonement is not everything in Christian theology, but it arguably affects everything.
As such, the atonement is a teaching that is of central concern to the Christian who intends to communicate the biblical gospel to those outside of the faith. It is fitting, then, for a Christian to be disturbed when noting that the biblical testimony regarding Christ’s substitutionary atonement provides a perennial point of impasse in conversations between Muslims and Christians.
At this point outside observers may be inclined to simply attribute such impasse to basic ideological differences much like one would encounter when comparing various theological convictions between Christians and Hindus. However, since the Qur’an and Islamic theology both make the claim that Islam rightly continues along the trajectory begun by the Christian Scriptures, completing and confirming the revelation therein, a unique complication emerges.
This complication arises as one recognizes that the apparent contradictions between the Qur’an and the Bible must now be attributed to one of three potential options. The first option would be to take the standard Islamic position. That would be to contend that the Qur’an and later Islamic theology are correct in positing that the Christian and Jewish Scriptures have been subject to tahrif—a concept typically taken to refer to an accusation of textual corruption of the revelation entrusted to Christians and Jews. 2 This option allows the Qur’an to side-step any contradictions by presenting itself as a corrective to the textual meddling of Jews and Christians.
For the Christian convinced of the integrity of the Bible, however, two potential paths of explanation remain. Either the Christian could assume that the authors of the Qur’an was intentionally contradicting the Bible or one might conclude that the author remained ignorant of biblical teaching. Thus, it fell to later Islamic communities who became aware of such contradictions to reconcile the claim to continuity with the clear points of discontinuity. I would argue that the truth is likely in the middle of these two latter options.
However, as it affects contemporary Islamic communities and their theological frameworks, I believe the Christian doctrine of atonement is yet obscured from view because of an unfamiliarity with biblical presentation of a concept that has superficial corollaries in the Qur’an. Regardless of how the authors of the Qur’an approached the task of extending biblical revelation, subsequent communities have encountered an impasse in discussion with Christian neighbors over the concept of atonement. This particular impasse has been attributed to and addressed by at least two different Christian approaches.
On the one hand, one might be inclined to assume this atonement impasse is primarily due to diametrically opposed teachings regarding whether or not Jesus was crucified in the first century. Islamic theologians typically interpret the Qur’an to indicate that Jesus was never crucified, but that he was rather assumed to heaven in order to avoid what would be an ignoble death unbefitting of a prophet of God. Thus, many Christians have focused their apologetic approaches on proving the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection.
On the other hand, however, it may be that such conversations regarding the relationship between Christ’s death and his accomplishment of atonement are often wrapped in misunderstanding. Upon closer inspection, one finds that there are layers of potential reasons that such misunderstanding might occur due to at least four barriers to communication. These four barriers exist at the lexical, ritual, narrative, and worldview levels. What this article intends to argue, then, is that before one concludes that the greatest need in Muslim–Christian dialogue is a better argument to defend the crucifixion of Jesus, our Muslim neighbors need to understand biblically why Jesus’ crucifixion is of such consequence for the Christian doctrine of atonement.
While the following explanation is driven by a burden for better communication rather than an overtly apologetic approach, there are certainly apologetic ramifications to be observed. Not the least of these is that, as one addresses the biblical logic of atonement from Leviticus through to Hebrews, the claim that the Qur’an is continuous with and a proper extension of biblical teaching is exposed as untenable. In order to begin this discussion, we must establish the biblical underpinnings of blood-bought atonement in order to consider whether or not the Qur’an’s atonement concept is continuous with its biblical corollary or divergent from it.
The concept cluster affecting Levitical atonement
In attempting to mine the biblical material for information regarding its presentation of the concept of atonement, one cannot avoid discussing the use of the root kaf pe resh in the context of the Pentateuch, and especially within the Book of Leviticus. There has been no shortage of attention given to the family of concepts carried by this root, especially as it pertains to the verbal form, kipper. In addition to its theological significance, part of the reason for so much scholarly attention is the fact that kipper atonement is presented as necessary in contexts of obvious sin and also in contexts of amoral ceremonial pollution.
Some scholars such as Baruch Lavine, in his work In the Presence, argue that the use of kipper in such very different contexts should indicate two forms of kipper such that one would translate kipper as “atonement” or “ransom” in the context of sin but in contexts of impurity one might render kipper as “cleansing.” However, having presented an exhaustive study of the use of kipper in the priestly literature of the Pentateuch, Jay Sklar, in his book Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions, convincingly argues that there is conceptual connection between situations of ritual impurity and sin, both of which require kipper for the same underlying reason.
This similarity can be seen in situations that mention both impurity and sin-guilt as requiring atonement. For example, as Lev 16:16 describes the Day of Atonement rituals, it presents the High Priest’s atonement as necessary “because of the uncleanness of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins.” On the basis of his extensive research and argument, Sklar concludes, “Impurity not only pollutes, it also endangers, while sin not only endangers, it also pollutes. In either case, therefore, the person presenting the sacrifice needs to effect both koper [ransom] and purgation. The verb used to describe this dual event is [kipper].” 3
This conclusion includes his recognition of the concept cluster that is prescribed to the priests for making atonement. This involves the presentation of a sacrificial animal and the application of blood on the kipporet or mercy seat within the holy of holies. Thus, biblical atonement requires ransoming and substitutionary sacrifice, a priestly representative of the people, the presentation of blood as a symbol of life, and the place in which God has come to dwell among his people.
Another scholar writing on these issues, David Moffit, writes of the logical congruence of the various elements of the Day of Atonement ritual, stating that, “Blood/life stands at the center of the process that results in atonement, since the life in the blood is the agent that has the power to redeem and purify. Because blood has these properties, blood offering both ameliorates the punitive danger the people face and enables the divine present to continue to dwell among the people in the tabernacle’s inner sanctum.” 4 That atonement effects purification and forgiveness by way of a substitutionary sacrifice and the cleansing of life blood is ultimately aimed at retaining the divine presence among his people. After all, the distinguishing marker of the people of YHWH that their holy God resides in their midst.
While there remains much to be said about the intricacies and effects of atonement in its biblical context, the preceding material suffices to provide a foil to the Qur’anic presentation of atonement. As we consider the elements of the atonement concept cluster as they appear in the Qur’an, we will see that there are multiple points of discontinuity that are obscured by superficially similar ideas. Let’s consider how atonement features in the Qur’an in order to unpack the lexical, ritual-, narrative-, and worldview-level barriers to understanding and communication.
Linguistic barriers
The initial barrier to understanding arises as one finds the word that the Arabic Bible uses to translate kipper featuring in the Qur’an. The Arabic word used by both the Qur’an and the Bible is kaffara. Kaffāra occurs as the nominal form four times in the Qur’an and fourteen times as kaffara, which is the verbal form. Thus, superficially, it appears that the Qur’an has drawn upon the biblical precedent for presenting a means to obtain atonement.
However, upon closer analysis, one discovers some immediate differences in the way that kaffara is used in the Qur’an as opposed to its use in the Arabic Bible. For instance, the Bible presents atonement as a process that is overseen by a high priest who serves to represent the community in effecting atonement according to divine instructions. The priest, then, is the subject of the verb kaffara. Contrary to this, in the Qur’an God is the subject of the verb kaffara in all but a single instance. The sole exception comes in Qur’an 2:271 where a person’s gift of charity appears to be the subject that will produce kaffara for the giver of the gift. In the Qur’an, then, a human who believes in God and acts according to his revealed will can potentially expect God to kaffara their bad deeds. There is, however, no mechanism for recognizing how God’s wrath against sin might be resolved justly in relation to sinners.
Furthermore, the function of kaffara in the Qur’an has no connection to the removal of impurity. There is another process related to cleansing that uses unrelated verbal forms and ritual processes in order to prepare a worshipper to be cleansed from contact with that which might defile a person. Kaffara in the Qur’an is solely focused on the forgiveness, expiation, or covering over of bad deeds. Kaffara is achieved by acting in repentance and according to God’s revealed will, but there is no connection between kaffara and sacrifice in the process of taking away a person’s sins. This is because Qur’an 6:164 teaches that no man may bear the burden of another, thus rejecting the concept of substitution of any sort, especially sacrificial substitution, as it states, “Whatever [wrong] any human being commits rests upon himself alone; and no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another’s burden.” 5 This leads us to the second barrier which emerges when we attend to the fact that the practice of Islam includes animal sacrifice without connecting it to substitution.
Ritual barriers
Whereas the Bible presents atonement as the outcome produced by the logical confluence of priest, sacrifice, forgiveness, purification, and blood, the Qur’an includes means of obtaining forgiveness and purification as separate processes without expressing the need to connect them. Likewise, sacrifice is commanded within the Qur’an, though as a distinctly Islamic practice. The prescription for Muslim sacrifice comes from the example of Abraham and his son as the Qur’an recognizes them both as having submitted their wills to God and thereby earned his favor. So too do contemporary Muslims participate in an annual sacrifice during ‘id al Adha, which commemorates this praiseworthy demonstration of submission. Superficially, then, a person observing Muslims engaging in sacrifice while claiming to continue the biblical narrative might assume their sacrificial practice to be overtly connected to a Levitical approach to atonement.
However, as one consults the Qur’an’s teaching, it becomes apparent that sacrifice does not play the same role in the Qur’an as it does in Leviticus. Consider the teaching of Qur’an 22:36–37: And as for the sacrifice of cattle, We have ordained it for you as one of the symbols set up by God, in which there is [much] good for you. Hence, extol the name of God over them when they are lined up [for sacrifice] . . . [But bear in mind:] never does this flesh reach God, and neither does their blood: it is only your God-consciousness that reaches him. It is to this end that We have made them subservient to your needs, so that you might glorify God for all the guidance with which He has graced you.
Commentator and translator Muhammad Asad clarifies that this verse is intended to show the reader that the sacrificial ritual that was given to the Islamic community is to serve as part of a sign or a symbol of God’s provision of revelation and guidance for his people. 6
That sacrifice is to be understood as playing this symbolic role is reinforced elsewhere in the Qur’an, specifically in Qur’an 22:34, 67 and 5:3. While we have just seen how Qur’an 22:36–37 discuss the fact that sacrifices are symbols of God’s guidance that do not reach him, the framing of this declaration between two similar references in Qur’an 22:34 and 67 help provide understanding as to why such symbolic importance might be accorded to sacrificial rites. In Qur’an 22:34 we read, “And [thus it is:] unto every community [that has ever believed in Us] have We appointed [sacrifice as] an act of worship, so that they might extol the name of God over whatever heads of cattle He may have provided for them unto [this end].” This idea is then echoed in Qur’an 22:67a when it states, “Unto every community We appointed different ways of worship, which they ought to observe.” In other words, these two verses contend that each community to whom God has delivered guidance has also received rituals and sacrifices to serve as signs and symbols that confirm his favor upon them and serve to mark off the community as distinct from others.
The Qur’an presents the reader with an indicator that there has come a final dispensation of perfected religion in Islam as it records in Qur’an 5:3, “This day I have perfected for you your religion, and completed My Blessings upon you, and have approved for you as religion, Submission (Islam).” 7 Therefore, if the Qur’an is consistent with itself, there must also be a corresponding symbol, sign, or ritual to authenticate this final and perfected form of religion.
This is where Islamic studies scholar Michel Cuypers makes an important contribution to the interpretation of Qur’an 5 as a rhetorical argument for Islamic supersession of Judaism and Christianity. Having analyzed the entire chapter and convincingly demonstrated its rhetorical features and ring-structure, Cuypers concludes that this sura demonstrates that the confirming symbol given to the Muslim community whose religion has been perfected in Islam is that of the hajj pilgrimage and its ritual sacrifice. Cuypers further demonstrates how the sura presents Islam as having succeeded Judaism and Christianity as he notes that Qur’an 5:114 portrays Jesus as asking God to send down a banquet table that will be for all generations. However, this request is never fully realized within the Qur’an’s account.
Having demonstrated the ring-structure of the sura, Cuypers shows how the reader is intended to return from Jesus’ unrealized request in 5:114 to Qur’an 5:3 where Jesus’ request is finally realized in the presentation of the hajj sacrifice as the ultimate heavenly provision for the perfected form of religion: Islam. 8 Thus, for Islam, the role of sacrifice is not connected to atonement except perhaps as one of many signs of God to be acknowledged as a means to receiving God’s pardon. Instead, the role of sacrifice is primarily to distinguish a people and to “symbolize the provision of identity and legitimate worship to each dispensation of divine revelation.” 9 As one considers the reference for the sacrifice of ‘id al Adha and the narrative in which it occurs, one encounters the focal point for the third barrier to communication.
Narrative barriers
As noted above, the sacrifice performed as a component of the hajj pilgrimage occurs on ‘id al-Adha as a rehearsal and a reminder of the submission of Abraham and his son when God instructed Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice. 10 In Genesis 22, the reader watches with baited breath as God apparently is asking Abram to kill his covenant-son and thereby end the hope that the seed promised in Gen 3:15 would come through his line. At the last moment, however, God stops Abram from sacrificing Isaac and provides instead a substitutionary sacrifice. This provision is packed with the latent logic of blood-bought atonement to be revealed later through the Levitical system, and it serves to prepare the reader for the act of sacrifice as a means of sinners being reconciled to God.
Despite parallels with Genesis 22, the Qur’an utilizes the Abrahamic sacrifice for its own purposes. Rather than connecting this passage with redemptive history, the Qur’an lays hold of this precursor to Israelite sacrifice and appropriates it as its own symbol of communal identity affirmation and religions confirmation. That the Qur’an intends to establish Islam as both the original and the final religion is seen at exactly this juncture between the Abrahamic sacrificial narrative and the claim that God has established Islam as the final religion as can be seen in Qur’an 3:67 which asserts, “Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian, but rather was a hanif, a submitter {Ar. muslim}, and he was not one of the idolaters.” The overarching story in which this narrative features, then, does not progressively reveal divine activity in providing a vicarious atonement in order to dwell with his people. Rather, this narrative serves the Qur’an as an indicator that there has been but a single message of Islam given to various generations which is now being perfected and completed in the advent of Islam.
Thus, the role of ritual, pilgrimage, and sacrifice in Islam is not related to the concept cluster surrounding atonement. Rather it is intended to distinguish the religion of Islam as both the primal religion for which Abraham and his son were praised, and also the final religion in that the rehearsal of this Abrahamic sacrifice was revealed to Muhammad as the confirmation of Islam as the perfection of religion. This alternative story emerges from and reinforces the final barrier to communication: divergent worldviews.
Worldview barriers
As seen above, atonement features in the Qur’an lexically, though with a different meaning and function. The Qur’an also treats most of the aspects of the concept cluster that contribute to a biblical vision of atonement, however it treats them distinctly as means to forgiveness, steps toward effecting cleansing, and as an identity-confirming sacrificial ritual. One might at this point ask what effect the story differences have on the overarching worldview presented by the Qur’an. 11
While many particular elements of the qur’anic worldview might be explored, perhaps the most important one has to do with the different expectations that the Qur’an has for the relationship between God and worshipper. Or, to utilize the helpful worldview-eliciting questions proposed by N. T. Wright, perhaps the greatest point of divergence between Christianity and Islam is the answer each system gives to the question, “Why?”—what purpose does creation and humanity serve? 12
First, the Qur’an indicates that the purpose of humanity in creation is to remember and submit to God’s will and guidance. Thus, Qur’an 5:48b states, “To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed He would have made you a single People, but (His plan is) to test you in what he hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues.” 13 If such is the basic purpose of the creatures within God’s creation, then the particular revelations of his will and the rituals that are asked of each people might differ while yet retaining a singular and ultimate message of submission—Islam—to God.
Second, in the Qur’an, the content of revelation is guidance and instruction regarding God’s will rather than the revelation of God himself. 14 As Kenneth Cragg notes, qur’anic revelation does not include anything like the incarnation because, “God sends rather than comes.” 15 Thus, the Qur’an presents itself as a means to informing believers regarding how they are to follow God’s will without the threat of God’s presence drawing near. As a result, perfection is not required because presence is not promised. The Islamic concept of atonement, then, can simply be understood as an overlooking of sin, or an external purification of impurity, without the requisite removal of sin and impurity seen in the Bible precipitated by the fact that a sin-guilty and defiled worshipper is endangered by the immediate presence of a holy and righteous God.
And third, the Qur’an nowhere presents God as one who is interested in drawing near to comingle with his creatures. The Qur’an characterizes the relationship between humans and God in terms of subjects and Master, servants and Lord. It never uses the intimate language of the Bible that demonstrates God to be Father to his people, nor does it include reference to God’s ultimate purpose to be “Emmanuel” God with us. The vision for eternity within Islam is not one that is marked by the clear and beautiful declaration of Revelation 21:3 in which the voice from the throne victoriously proclaims, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man.” Therefore, sin and impurity do not pose the same kind of problem in Islam as they do within the biblical worldview. As a result, sin and impurity do not require the same sort of atonement. If the human problem is forgetfulness and rebellion amidst the test of life, God’s solution is a reminder and guidance, not a substitutionary savior.
Thus, from the perspective of a Muslim who is instructed by the Qur’an, God can offer atonement from his own prerogative without requiring a means to eradicate or remove sin and impurity. Within the context of the Qur’an, this offer is not illogical due to the fact that sin and impurity do not present the problem that they do when a holy and righteous God draws near to a sin-guilty and impurity-stained people. Thus, when Christians contend that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, the Muslim not only contests this fact historically on the basis of qur’anic insinuations about Christ’s death, but also lacks the biblical framework whereby to connect such a death with the concept of atonement. Atonement, from the qur’anic perspective, might be considered forgiveness or overlooking of sins. Therefore the Muslim in dialogue with a Christian neighbor remains justified according to qur’anic logic to contend that atonement is available—indeed, it has been available from Adam to Moses to Jesus and now through the message confirmed by Muhammad—without any need for a vicarious substitute.
However, this offer of substitutionless-atonement does present a conflict between the worldview, narratives, ritual, and lexical presentation of atonement in the Bible. Further, with the complication of shared language, such divergent concepts are further obscured for the parties involved. It remains to consider how a Christian communicator might overcome such barriers to communication in the final section of this article.
Overcoming barriers and explaining “why” before “what”
For the Christian, recognizing such an impasse is but the first step in communication. The pressing concern remains to overcome such barriers to understanding by explaining how the concept of atonement functions distinctly within the biblical testimony. Even upon recognizing that the concept of atonement functions differently in Islam than it does in Christianity, a Muslim still may question why Jesus’ death is of such central importance to their Christian friends.
In order to expose the biblical foundation for the relationship between atonement and Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, I believe the Book of Hebrews is uniquely helpful. It answers the question of the importance of Christ’s death and resurrection by demonstrating that sacrificial ritual which pointed toward the atonement between God and God’s people finds its fulfillment in Jesus. Furthermore, the manner in which Jesus satisfies and extends the narrative of the Old Testament presents a challenge to the qur’anic claim to continuity with biblical revelation. Let us briefly consider how Hebrews can initially confront the barriers to communication listed above.
First, the Book of Hebrews addresses the lexical barrier as it refers to atonement in multiple places. For example, in Heb 2:17, we read, “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation [Gk. hilasksthai; Ar. kaffara] for the sins of the people.” Noting some of the contemporary discussion about this passage and the translation of hilasksthai, commentator William Lane writes, The making of propitiation for sins exhibits the primary concern of the high priestly office with the reconciliation of the people to God. The concept implies sacrifice, and in this context the propitiatory work of the Son consisted in the laying down of his life for others (cf. vv 10, 14, 18).
16
Thus, this verse introduces the reader to the role of a representative priest in the biblical process of making atonement in a way that demonstrates the contrast with qur’anic expectations listed above. As Hebrews utilizes this shared lexeme of kaffara, the context allows the reader to apprehend the divergence between the biblical use and the qur’anic use.
Second, the Book of Hebrews demonstrates substantial continuity with the Hebrew Bible’s mechanism for atonement as it is presents Christ as the great High Priest and the hapax sacrifice. For example, in Heb 10:12–14 the reader sees that Christ offers the final, once-for-all sacrifice that provides the model for which all prior sacrifices were the prototype. Likewise, it connects his completed work as sacrifice and priest with the issuance of perfection and sanctification for the believing beneficiaries of his atoning work. By contrast, the Qur’an, depends upon a discontinuous dispensational approach to various iterations of the divine call to Islam. It claims to be continuous with the biblical material, yet it fails to account for how each new community might appropriate or understand the symbols and practices of the previous community. Thus, Hebrews addresses the ritual difference by demonstrating that Israel’s vision of the vicarious role of a High Priest and a substitutionary sacrifice coalesce in the person and work of Jesus. Such extension of the Israelite ritual in Christ stands in clear contrast with the dislocated qur’anic discussion of atonement on one hand and the unrelated function of sacrifice on the other.
Third, the Book of Hebrews functions as a retelling of Israel’s story through the lens of the Christ event. The whole of Hebrews recounts Israel’s story as a prelude to the coming of the Messiah. However, of particular interest in tying Israel’s story into Christ is Hebrews chapter 11 with its triumphant transition to Heb 12:1–3. Chapter 11 includes the list of faithful forbearers who prepare the way by their faith for the fulfillment of faith that is to come in Christ. And then the first three verses of Hebrews 12 show Christ as the founder and perfecter of faith demonstrates the singular mechanism of salvation that God has promised and now fulfilled in Christ. This demonstrates a different expectation for fulfillment and confirmation of prior Scriptures and their story than is expected by the Qur’an.
And finally, Hebrews contends and demonstrates that the purpose of humanity is to dwell in the presence of the eternal, holy, and righteous God of creation. Hebrews 10:19–23 presents Christ opening the way to the throne of God by the curtain of his body, having offered his blood for atonement. In this one sees an immediate distinction between the invitation to draw near to God the qur’anic expectation that God is forever transcendent.
While these four aspects of Hebrews may not convince Muslims of the death of Jesus, a study of the book can both reveal the distinctive biblical concept of atonement and also demonstrate why Christians view Christ’s death and resurrection as essential. Furthermore, as noted above, such distinction between the two atonement concepts presents an implicit challenge to the qur’anic claim of continuity by presenting Christ’s atonement as a demonstration of a greater continuity than the disparate dispensationalism required to maintain qur’anic inheritance of biblical narrative, ritual, worldview, and atonement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, then, there are at least four reasons that a Muslim and a Christian might find themselves at an impasse when discussing the relationship between Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension and the provision of atonement. Before arguing with our Muslim friends over whether or not Jesus died, it is important that we provide them with the biblical background that would inform them as to why Jesus’ death would matter in the first place. The Book of Hebrews is a uniquely helpful place in Scripture to help guide our Muslim friends to understand what we mean when we say atonement and to differentiate this concept from the similar but ultimately divergent concepts that have superficial parallels in the Qur’an. While this may not lead our Muslim friends and neighbors to be convinced of the biblical account, it at least affords us a better opportunity for communicating what we mean.
Without successful communication of what biblical atonement achieves and requires, our Muslim neighbors are likely to remain confused as to why Jesus’ death and resurrection have anything to do with our pursuit of atonement. Allowing our Muslim friends to remain in this confusion cannot be an option for evangelicals who are convinced that, without Christ, our Muslim neighbors are damned in this impasse.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
