1027518

research-article2021
MIS0010.1177/00918296211027518MissiologyBennett

Article

Missiology: An International Review

Atonement impasse: The

2022, Vol. 50(4) 374­–385
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
perennial problem of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00918296211027518
https://doi.org/10.1177/00918296211027518
communicating Christ’s journals.sagepub.com/home/mis

atonement to Muslims

Matthew Aaron Bennett

Cedarville University, USA

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.

Keywords
atonement, Islam, missiology, mission to Muslims, Hebrews, Qur’an

Corresponding author:
Matthew Aaron Bennett, Cedarville University, 251 N. Main Street’ Cedarville, OH 45314-0601, USA.
Email: mabennett@cedarville.edu
Bennett 375

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, wor-
shippers 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 com-
munity 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 conversa-
tions 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 trajec-
tory 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.
376 Missiology: An International Review 50(4)

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 pri-
marily due to diametrically opposed teachings regarding whether or not Jesus was
crucified in the first century. Islamic theologians typically interpret the Qur’an to indi-
cate 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 rela-
tionship 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 barri-
ers 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 con-
tinuous 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 signifi-
cance, part of the reason for so much scholarly attention is the fact that kipper atone-
ment is presented as necessary in contexts of obvious sin and also in contexts of amoral
ceremonial pollution.
Bennett 377

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 pre-
sented 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 ritu-
als, 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, there-
fore, the person presenting the sacrifice needs to effect both koper [ransom] and purga-
tion. 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 congru-
ence 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 proper-
ties, 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 substitu-
tionary 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 dis-
continuity that are obscured by superficially similar ideas. Let’s consider how atone-
ment 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
378 Missiology: An International Review 50(4)

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 conflu-
ence 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 submit-
ted 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 praise-
worthy 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:
Bennett 379

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 else-
where 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 impor-
tance 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 dispen-
sation of perfected religion in Islam as it records in Qur’an 5:3, “This day I have per-
fected 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 contribu-
tion 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 sacri-
fice. 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
380 Missiology: An International Review 50(4)

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 cove-
nant-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 sys-
tem, 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. mus-
lim}, and he was not one of the idolaters.” The overarching story in which this narra-
tive 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 genera-
tions 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
Bennett 381

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, per-
haps 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 world-
view-eliciting questions proposed by N. T. Wright, perhaps the greatest point of diver-
gence 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 regard-
ing 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 believ-
ers 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 worship-
per 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 pro-
claims, “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 world-
view. 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
382 Missiology: An International Review 50(4)

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 con-
cept 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 communica-
tor 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 explain-
ing 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 res-
urrection 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
Bennett 383

Thus, this verse introduces the reader to the role of a representative priest in the bibli-
cal 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 con-
text 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 con-
trast with the dislocated qur’anic discussion of atonement on one hand and the unre-
lated 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 fulfill-
ment 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 dispensational-
ism required to maintain qur’anic inheritance of biblical narrative, ritual, worldview,
and atonement.
384 Missiology: An International Review 50(4)

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 resur-
rection 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.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Matthew Aaron Bennett https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4449-106X

Notes
1. For the full treatment of my argument, the volume in the American Society of Missiology’s
Monograph Series entitled, Narratives in Conflict: Atonement in Hebrews and the Qur’an
(Bennett, 2019).
2. While this is the standard Islamic theological interpretation, scholars such as Gabriel Said
Reynolds (2010) convincingly show that the Qur’an nowhere accuses the People of the
Book of textual alteration of their Scriptures. Rather the Qur’an contends that it is their
interpretations that are faulty.
3. Sklar, 2015: 187. Sklar states it a different way as well, concluding his book with the fol-
lowing summary: “Inadvertent sin and major impurity both require sacrifice for atonement.
Since both inadvertent sin and major impurity endanger (requiring ransom) and pollute
(requiring purgation), sacrificial atonement must both ransom and cleanse. The verb used
to describe this dual event is the verb [kipper], and the power of the [kipper]-rite to accom-
plish both is due to the lifeblood of the animal.”
4. Moffat, 2013: 265.
5. See explanation and translation by Muhammad Asad (2003: 229 n163), who states, “This
statement—which is also found in 17:15, 35:18, 39:7, and 53:38—constitutes a categorical
rejection of the Christian doctrines of ‘original sin’ and ‘vicarious atonement.’” See also
Qur’an 35:18.
Bennett 385

6. Asad, 2003: 568 n47.

7. Quoted from Nasr, 2015: 274.
8. This is a complicated argument requiring extensive familiarity with the text of the Qur’an
and the stylistic and rhetorical features of ring-structure, but Cuypers’s argument that the
reader is instructed to read from the beginning to the end and then to return to the beginning
of the chapter is convincing and clear. See especially Cuypers, 2009: 87.
9. Bennett, 2019: 138.
10. This is recorded in Qur’an 37:99–111.
11. For the role of story in shaping worldview, see VanHoozer, The Drama of Doctrine
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005).
12. Wright, 2013: 26–27.
13. Ali, 2005.
14. Cragg, 2003: 41.
15. Cragg, 2003: 42.
16. Lane, 1991: 65–66. Noting some of the contemporary discussion about this passage, Lane
comments, “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).”

References
Ali AY (2005) The Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile
Qur’an Inc.
Asad M (trans.) (2003) The Message of the Qur’an. London: The Book Foundation.
Bennett MA (2019) Narratives in Conflict: Atonement in Hebrews and the Qur’an. Eugene,
OR: Pickwick.
Cragg K (2003) The Call of the Minaret, 3rd ed. Oxford: OneWorld.
Cuypers M (2009) The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an. Miami, FL:
Convivium.
Lane W (1991) Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47a. Dallas, TX: Word.
Moffat D (2013) Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden:
Brill.
Nasr SH (ed.) (2015) The Study Qur’an. New York: HarperOne.
Reynolds GS (2010) On the Qur’anic accusation of scriptural falsification (tahrif) and Christian
anti-Jewish polemic. JOAS 130: 189–202.
Sklar J (2015) Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix.
VanHoozer K (2005) Drama of Doctrine. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Wright NT (2013) Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Author biography
Matthew Bennett serves as Assistant Professor of Missions and Theology at Cedarville
University in Cedarville Ohio. He has written Narratives in Conflict: Atonement in Hebrews
and the Qur’an and 40 Questions about Islam. Matthew and his family spent seven years living
in North Africa and the Middle East where he developed a heart for Muslims to hear, under-
stand, and embrace the gospel of Jesus.