Study-Islam.org

CHAPTER II

THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW HAVE NEVER BEEN ABROGATED, AND CAN NEVER BE ABROGATED IN (1) THEIR FACTS, (2) THEIR DOCTRINES, AND (3) THEIR MORAL PRINCIPLES

FROM what has been said in the first chapter of this Treatise it is evident that all Muslims who really believe and accept the Qur'an are bound in duty to study, honour, and obey “the Book of God”, that is to say, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testaments.

But some deny that this conclusion is correct, because they assert (1) that the Old and the New Testaments have been abrogated. Others say (2) that the books now in circulation as the Bible, and generally received by Jews and Christians as their Holy Scriptures, are not those referred to in the Qur'an as such. Others again say (3) that, if the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are really those mentioned in the Qur'an, they have at least been altered and corrupted, and therefore are no longer worthy of reverence. With these two latter objections we propose, God helping us, to deal in later chapters. In the present chapter we devote our attention to the question whether it is true that the Old Testament and the New, that is to say, the Torah, the Zabur and the Injil, have been abrogated. It is granted that, if these objections are correct, our argument in Chapter I is thereby nullified: but at the same time the effect on the authority of the Qur'an itself will not be favourable, as will be clear to every thoughtful man.

Be it noticed that some Muslim writers distinctly assert that the Bible has been abrogated. For instance, Baizawi ¹ in his comments on Surah 9 (At Taubah), ver. 29, explains the words, “who profess not the Religion of the Truth,” by saying, “which abrogates the rest of the religions, and annuls them,” and he speaks of “their original religion, which is abrogated as to faith and conduct”. Again, in the book entitled عيرن اخبار آلرّضا, chapter 36, occurs the following passage: “Every ² prophet who was in the days of Moses and after him was upon the highroad of Moses and his religious law and obedient to his book, until the time of Jesus. And every prophet who was in the days of Jesus and after Him was upon the highroad of Jesus and His religious law, and obedient to His book, until the time of our prophet Muhammad. And the religious law of Muhammad shall not be abrogated until the day of the Resurrection.” Here it is distinctly implied that Jesus' law abrogated that of Moses, and that Muhammad's law abrogated that of Jesus. And Akhund Mulla Muhammad Taqqi yi Kashani, in his Persian work entitled هداية الطالبين در أُصول آلدّين, finished in A.H. 1285, ³ says (p. 66): “For the People of Islam knowledge has been acquired that now Muhammad is Prophet, and his religion abrogates the religion of the previous prophets.” This view is accepted by almost all the ignorant and by many of the learned in Muslim lands.

Yet it should be noted that there is not a single word in the Qur'an, nor is there a passage known to us in any of the Traditions (احاديث) current among either Sunnis or Shi‘ites, which supports this opinion. Indeed, the whole tenor of the Qur'an is entirely opposed to it. The verb nasakha (نَسَخَ), with the sense of “to abrogate”, occurs only twice in the Qur'an (in Surahs 2:100 and 22:51), and in neither of these instances is it used in reference to any part of the Old Testament or of the New. On the contrary, it is used of the abrogation of certain verses of the Qur'an itself, of which Muslim ‘Ulama say that 225 have been abrogated. Surah 2 (Al Baqarah), ver. 100, runs thus: “Whatever We abrogate of a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better than it, or its like: dost thou not know that God is Mighty over everything?” It is true that Baizawi ⁴ tells us that several different readings of the verse occur, e.g. “Whatsoever We cause thee to forget of a verse, or We abrogate it”, &c.: but in none is the sense changed at all. The reference is to the abrogation of certain Qur'anic verses, and to them only. A good illustration of the meaning is given in Baizawi's ⁵ commentary on Surah 22 (Al Hajj), ver. 51, where he tells us the story of how God abrogated in Surah 53 (An Najm), vers. 19, 20, the words, “These ⁶ are the exalted Swans, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for,” which Satan had beguiled Muhammad into uttering in regard to Al Lat, Manat, and Al Uzza', three Arabian goddesses. The same tale is told by Yahya' and Jalalu'ddin in their commentaries on Surah 22 (Al Hajj), ver. 51, and by Ibn Ishaq in Ibn Hisham's Siratu’r Rasul (vol. i, pp. 127 sqq.). Tabari and the Mawahibu’l Luduniyyah also narrate the tale. There can therefore be no doubt as to what is referred to by the words فَيَنْسَخُ اللهُ in this latter verse.

Although the fancy that the descent of the Zabur abrogated the Torah, and that the Injil in like manner abrogated the Zabur, is entirely devoid of foundation in the Qur'an and Traditions (احاديث), yet it is so widely held and so often asserted publicly among Muslims that it may be worth while to quote a book of some authority among them to confute it. Shaikh Haji Rahmatu'llah of Dehli, in his Izharu’l Haqq (إظهار الْحقّ), published in A.H. 1284, Vol. i, pp. 11 and 12, says that the statement that the Torah was abrogated by the Zabur and the Zabur by the appearance of the Injil “is ⁷ a falsehood of which there is no trace in the Qur'an or in the Commentaries; nay, there is no trace of it in any authoritative book belonging to the People of Islam. And in our opinion the Zabur does not abrogate the Torah, nor is it abrogated by the Injil. David was subject to the religious law of Moses, and the Zabur was (a collection of) prayers.” This writer asserts that only the ignorant and the common people among Muslims hold the erroneous idea which he is confuting.

It is true that such an idle fancy can have arisen and can continue to exist only through want of knowledge of the Qur’an in the first place, and of the Old Testament and the New in the second. For if anyone carefully and prayerfully studies the Bible, when he comes to understand its teaching he will clearly perceive that the doctrines of the Old Testament and of the New are in harmony with one another. By this we mean that their teaching is given in a definite order of instruction, and in this is gradually unfolded to men the knowledge of God's Eternal Purpose.

In the Old Testament we are informed how men were created by God Most High, how they fell into sin, how a Divine promise was then given of the coming of a Man born of the seed of the woman, how (many years later, when all the nations had wandered far from the truth) God called Abraham and made a covenant with him, declaring that the Promised Saviour would be born of his progeny through Isaac. We are then told that this promise was renewed to Isaac and his son Jacob; that the children of Israel were trained in Egypt and Canaan for the work to which God had called them. We learn also how the Torah was given to Moses, and in it these promises were recorded and fresh ones added. Prophets were raised up generation after generation, to reprove the Israelites for their sins and to explain God's will. These prophets, one succeeding another, gave teaching which gradually grew in spirituality, and taught those who were pious and faithful to attain to a fuller knowledge of God. Prophet after prophet explained more and more clearly the work of the coming Saviour, telling beforehand where He was to be born, what He would do, and what He was to suffer. Then in the New Testament it is related how these prophecies were fulfilled, and how the Saviour commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth, to make all nations disciples, and to await His promised return, to judge both the quick and the dead, to restore the earth itself to perfection, and to reign for ever and ever. The Acts and the Epistles tell us how this work of evangelization was begun by the Apostles and the other disciples. Finally, the Book of Revelation prophetically narrates the conflict of the Christian Church against Satan and wicked men, and the ultimate triumph of God's eternal kingdom. Thus the Old and the New Testaments taken together form one consecutive system of instruction and of the gradual revelation of the accomplishment of God's gracious purpose and the final victory of good. The Bible forms a marvellous structure, the Torah being the foundation and the other books the completion of the glorious edifice. The whole of the perfected building shows forth the wisdom, the justice, and the unfathomable love of God Most Merciful, the Almighty Creator of all things. In the Torah God's gracious Purpose concerning men is so stated as to make it possible for them, through knowledge of the One True God, to have faith in Him, to serve Him acceptably, and thus to satisfy the yearnings of their spirits and to attain to eternal bliss. In the books of the Prophets and in the Zabur this teaching gradually reaches higher levels. In these books God shows us how from the first He was training the children of Israel, in spite of their many sins and shortcomings, to be the teachers of the world in religious matters. He thus gradually through the Prophets made it clear that the outward rites and ceremonies, in most cases originally taken from the heathen, but improved and sanctioned in the Torah for a time for the use of Israel, were not of any value in themselves or as an end, though they were useful as means to the attainment of an end. This end seems to have been twofold: (1) to separate the Israelites from all other nations until the Promised Deliverer should come, and (2) to teach them that the ceremonial ordinances of even a Divinely given law (شريعة) could not satisfy man's spirit nor please God, but that these were the shadows and symbols of true worship, since those who worship God acceptably must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Thus Samuel says: “Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). In the Book of the Prophet Micah we are told that King Balak asked this question: “Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” The answer that the Prophet then gave him showed how useless all sacrifices and all other rites were without the devotion of heart and life to the service of the living God. “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:6-8). In full accordance with this teaching of the Old Testament prophets are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23, 24).

When this lofty and spiritual teaching had thus been fully revealed, and when Atonement had been made for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), then chosen and trained witnesses, the Apostles (الحواريّون) and other disciples of Christ, were sent forth to proclaim this good news everywhere, and to invite all men to accept the free gift of God, which is eternal life in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23), enabling them thus to rise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness, and to endeavour to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9).

The doctrine that in time to come the adoration enjoined in the Torah, and offered by means of animal sacrifices, incense, and other outward rites and ceremonies, would be replaced by the spiritual worship of which these things were the types, and without which they were useless, and might easily become harmful (as is the husk or shell when the seed or nut is growing into a plant) was not a new one. This had been clearly taught in several passages of the Old Testament, for instance in Jeremiah 31:31-33:

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, saith the LORD; I will put my Law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

It is from this passage that the name of the New Covenant (Testament) is given to the second volume of the Bible.

The Lord Jesus Christ's words in John 4:21-24, teach the same lesson, that the temporary parts of the Law (شريعة), and those parts which dealt with Jewish rites and ceremonies, were to be done away with in the fuller spirituality of the New Covenant which He was about to make with all who believed in Him, to whatever nation they might belong. Therefore He says to the woman of Samaria: “The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father . . . But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” That not only the faithful Jews (Luke 2:29-32) but the most thoughtful of even the Samaritans understood that the Promised Messiah would introduce this New Covenant is clear from the Samaritan woman's reply to these words of Christ (John 4:25).

The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes the passage of the Prophet Jeremiah which we have given above, and points out that the mention of the future New Covenant implies that even in Jeremiah's time it was recognized that the Mosaic Covenant was old, and that it was therefore destined to give place gradually to the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13), which would not annul (Romans 3:31) but fulfil the types and spiritual teaching of the Torah (Matthew 5:17, 18).

Truth is in its very nature eternal and everlasting, and incapable of change or abrogation. The eternal truths of the Old Covenant must always remain true. The New Covenant, instead of abolishing them, taught them more clearly, and presented them in a form suited for all men in all ages. The Old Covenant was made with Israel alone, and was to be binding until its fulfilment in the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of His Kingdom. Then, as Jeremiah foretold, the New Covenant was to be made with all true believers in Christ, with the spiritual Israel, the Israel of God, whether by birth Jews or Gentiles. It would thus be world-wide, as distinguished from the Mosaic Covenant. For the latter, as we have seen, was limited in its temporary parts, its rites and ordinances, to the one special nation which was being trained by means of it to become the disciples of the Promised Messiah and, through His grace, the religious teachers of the whole world. The husk in due time fell off, the seed grew and developed into a plant, into a tree. It could no longer be confined within the narrow bounds of the husk. But the seed was not destroyed and replaced by a new plant. It was developed into a tree, which is a very different thing.

Hence it is not correct to say that the Old Testament was abrogated by the New, except perhaps with respect to the local and temporary parts of its rites and ceremonies, which were enjoined on the Jews only, and on them merely for a time. The husk was let fall off the growing plant, but the latter grew and flourished, and still bears fruit to God's glory. Let it be again noted that to say this is quite different from saying that the Torah was abrogated by the Gospel, unless it can be said that the blade of wheat destroys the seed from which it sprang. It does not destroy it; otherwise there would be no young shoot to spring up. The latter is the proof of the survival of the seed in a more vigorous form. It is not the destruction but the development of the germ from which it came forth. Only the husk is left behind, because the duty of the husk is done when the young shoot appears above the earth, and begins to drink in the sunlight that streams down upon it from heaven.

Let it not be overlooked that the precepts of the Torah are of two different kinds, (1) the Ceremonial, and (2) the Moral. The former were binding on the Jewish nation alone, and for the most part did not become so until the Law (شريعة) was given ⁸ at Sinai. They were not generally binding on Abraham: only the ordinance of circumcision (with possibly a few others) was enjoined on him. This fact is admitted by all. It is of great importance, because it shows that such ordinances were not always matters of obligation even for Abraham's descendants, still less were they binding upon other men. In the Torah we learn that they were given hundreds of years after Abraham's time. They seem to have been appointed mainly, as has already been said, for two reasons: (1) To make a clear distinction between the Children of Israel and all other nations until the establishment of the Messiah's kingdom: thus keeping them free from the temptation to fall into the idolatry practised by the rest of the world. (2) To make them learn by experience that even Divinely sanctioned rites and ceremonies could not satisfy man's spiritual needs, though some spiritual meaning underlay them, and must be sought. This search was a preparation for the fuller spiritual worship of which the Prophets taught so much (compare Psalms 51:16, 17), and which was fully established by the Lord Jesus Christ. The ceremonial precepts of the Jewish Law were never imposed by God upon Gentiles. Even upon Jews they ceased to be binding when Christ's Kingdom had been fully established by His Resurrection from the dead.

But the Moral precepts, on the other hand, are of eternal (ازلي و ابدي) obligation upon all men everywhere. They were included in the Shari’at (Law) given on Mount Sinai, but were binding on all men from the time of the creation of Adam, and will never cease to be binding. It was never right and in accordance with God's Law to commit adultery, to steal, to murder, to be an idolater, to worship any but the One True God. This Moral Law, being in accord with God's Most Holy Nature (ذات), is therefore eternal and everlasting, and can never be abrogated. Hence it is clear that the fancy that the Injil has abrogated the Torah is wrong, and is due to want of knowledge of the latter. The Injil has not abrogated the Torah. On the contrary, it forms the complement of the Torah and completes its teaching, Hence it is that in the New Testament there are so many verses from the Old Testament quoted and explained. The Injil thus most truly confirms the Torah, as indeed the Qur'an asserts: “And We caused Jesus the Son of Mary to follow upon their footsteps, confirming what was before Him of the Torah, and We gave Him the Injil” (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 5:50).

We must repeat that those Old Testament precepts which are not binding upon Christians are merely those which are ceremonial, and were as ceremonies imposed only on the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Even the latter are not annulled by the Gospel: they are fulfilled. For instance, in the Torah God sanctioned and regulated the very ancient custom of animal sacrifice, which from very early days had been common to all nations. The Torah commanded that different animals should be offered on different occasions and for different purposes. One of these purposes was to make atonement for sin. Yet it is clear that the sacrifice of animals can never take away human sin. Hence the Prophet David said: “Thou delightest not in sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering” (Psalms 51:16). In complete accordance with this is what we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, they can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when He [Christ] cometh into the world, He saith,

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
But a body didst Thou prepare for Me;
In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst
no pleasure
Then said I, Lo, I am come
(In the roll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Thy will, O God.

Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the Law), then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:1-10). The Prophet Isaiah showed beforehand the spiritual meaning of such animal sacrifices by the wonderful prophecy of the Lamb of God (Isaiah lii. 13-liii, fin.), who, in God's “eternal purpose”, had been “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). As this one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world has been once offered, animal sacrifices, which were merely types and shadows of it, are no longer needed. Hence Christians offer none. Nor do the Jews, since their Law forbids them to offer sacrifices except in Jerusalem, where the Temple stood; and as the Mosque of ‘Umar now occupies its place, Muslims themselves prevent the Jews from there offering sacrifices. Instead, however, of slaying animals in sacrifice, Christians are bound to offer themselves, body, soul and spirit, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto the Living God, thus fulfilling the meaning which underlay the Whole Burnt Offerings of the Mosaic Law (compare Romans  12:1, 2; 1 Peter 2:15).

Again, in the Torah ablutions of the body are enjoined. For this doubtless there were two reasons. In the first place, God wishes us to keep our bodies clean and healthy, since He has made them. Filth of body generally leads to defilement of spirit. In the second place, it was intended that men should learn by experience that by washing the body the spirit is not purified from past sins, nor the mind from evil thoughts and desires. Hence, to satisfy our spirits' need for holiness, without which no man can see the Lord, it became evident that Jewish ablutions were ineffective; that they were merely types and shadows of a true and spiritual purification, which can be obtained only through the blood of the Lamb of God, which through faith in Him cleanses from all sin. Therefore the true Christian should obey the direction of the Apostle who says, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1). Both bodily and spiritual purification are necessary, but the former will not produce the latter.

Again, in the Torah it was commanded that only in one place should sacrifices be offered to God (Deuteronomy  12:13, 14), the place which God promised to choose “to put His Name there”, that it might be considered in a typical sense to be His habitation (Deuteronomy  12:5). This place was at first Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), and afterwards Jerusalem. Yet King Solomon, who built the Temple, declared that it was not really God's dwelling, but only a sign of God's presence among His people, for He said: “Will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded!” (1 Kings 8:27). Isaiah taught the same doctrine, for in his book we read: “Thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones” (Isaiah lvii. 15). Our Lord Jesus Christ's teaching was, as we have seen, that the acceptableness of worship depends not on the place, but on the spirit of the worshipper (John 4:21-24). We have also seen that, after Christ had offered at Jerusalem the one perfect sacrifice of Himself, there was no longer any room for such sacrifices as had previously been offered. Hence there was no longer anyone special spot on earth appointed to offer them at. The New Covenant has admitted believers in Christ, of whatever nation they may be, to participation in all its blessings and privileges. It is necessary for each true Christian to offer himself to God, not in one special place, but in one special Person, that is to say, in Christ, to be a living sacrifice unto God. Thus the old command regarding sacrifice has been fulfilled with a new and higher meaning. And this took place at the moment when obedience to it, in its literal sense, was no longer requisite, beneficial, or indeed possible.

In the Torah three special festivals were appointed to be observed by the Jews, and it was commanded that their males should in this way, thrice every year, present themselves before the LORD in the pace which He should choose to set His Name there (Exodus 23:14, 17; Deuteronomy 16:16). But when the Jews in process of time came to fancy that the more outward observance of these festivals, and the performance of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, quite apart from inward reverence and holiness, was acceptable to God Most High, and that such things were means of storing up merit, then His Prophets were commissioned to declare them to be thus rendered things abominable in His sight (Isaiah 1:14-17; Amos 5:21). Spiritual approach to God was the one thing really needful. That is attained in the New Covenant through a living faith in Christ's Atonement (Colossians 1:20-22 sqq. ; Hebrews 10:19-22).

Circumcision was appointed in the Torah as a sign of the covenant between God on the one side and Abraham and his descendants on the other. But it implied that those who received this seal of circumcision bound themselves thereby to believe the promise that One descended from Abraham through his son Isaac should be the cause of the shedding of God's blessing on all nations (Genesis 17:10-14; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4). Through Moses the same command was again given to Israel (Leviticus  12:3), though its object could not have been to distinguish the Israelites from the heathen, for many of the latter were also circumcised. It was doubtless intended to teach God's people the need of cutting off from their hearts all sensual desires. Hence in the Torah itself the command is given, “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16). This is explained in Deuteronomy 30:6, where the Israelites are told that love to God will alone drive out sensual desires and purify their hearts. The teaching of the New Testament agrees with this (Romans 2:25, 28, 29). When God's New Covenant was made through Christ with believers of all nations, a new sign of the covenant was appointed, Baptism (Matthew 28:19). This is suitable for all, men and women, old and young; and it taught the same lesson of purity. A change of sign was needful because of the New Covenant. It was necessary also to distinguish Christians both from Jews and from those heathens who practised circumcision. But the need of purity of heart and life was insisted on more strongly than ever (Colossians 3:5-17).

There are many other rites and ceremonies of the Jewish Law which in the same manner were intended to teach spiritual lessons. When these lessons had been learnt, there was no longer need for the outward observance of these rites. The outward observances might in fact be injurious, because those Jews who rejected Christ observed them, and thought thereby to win salvation. But it will be evident to all men of understanding that in such matters the Injil did not abrogate the Torah, but explained the spiritual meaning of the Ceremonial Law, and insisted on the necessity of rendering this spiritual service to God. It was in this sense that Christ Himself said: “Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:17, 18). What we have now said may suffice to show in what way Christianity deals with the Jewish Ceremonial Law.

With regard to the Moral Law, on the other hand, as we have already said, it is in the nature of the case impossible that it should ever be abrogated. The New Covenant, so far from abrogating the Moral Law as taught in the Old Testament, amplified and emphasized its meaning and requirements. For example, murder was forbidden in the Torah (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) : but Christ declared that this command was transgressed not only by killing a human being, but by permitting angry feelings in the heart, which if unchecked would lead to the desire to kill (Matthew 5:21, 22). In the Torah God had forbidden adultery (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy v.18): but Christ declared that a lustful glance and thought were a breach of this law in God's sight (Matthew 5:27, 28). He also said that, though Moses had permitted divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts, yet those who practised divorce for any cause but the one which rendered it necessary were guilty of adultery, and of causing others to commit it (Matthew 5:31, 32). The Torah forbade men to forswear themselves, but bade them, if they swore, to take an oath in God's name, and keep it (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 6:13). In our Lord's time the Israelites were accustomed to use oaths lightly in ordinary conversation. Christ told them that the need for taking oaths at all arose from evil, from men's common habit of speaking falsely. He bade them abstain altogether from this light taking of oaths when not necessary, and always to speak the truth without an oath (Matthew 5:33-37). The Torah commands to love one's neighbour as oneself (Leviticus 19:18). The Jews applied this rule to those who were of their own nation, and in ordinary speech, when quoting this injunction, used to add the words, “and hate thine enemy.” Christ commands love even to our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). The best and most God fearing men in Moses' time probably found it a hard task to restrain their wrath, and abstain from murder when offended. It was also difficult to obey the other commandments which prohibited theft, adultery, and covetousness. But perhaps in Christ's time the influence of God's Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Prophets had made these things possible for all but the very worst of the Jews. Hence the time had come for an advance in the teaching of the Moral Law, and to show how much more exacting were its demands than even the best of the Israelites realized. Through the life and example of Christ, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, even the very humblest of His true followers were enabled to reach a higher level of obedience to the Moral Law than the very best of men had done before. The Law of Moses prohibited evil actions, that of Christ forbids not only evil actions, but even evil thoughts. The Law of Moses was negative, that is to say, prohibitory in its teaching; the Law of Christ is positive, not merely saying, “Thou shalt not do evil,” but, “Thou shalt do good.” Under the Mosaic Law men were condemned for having done evil: under Christ's law men are condemned for not having done good. Hence in one of His Parables Christ condemns the priest and the Levite who did not help the man wounded by the robbers (Luke 10:30-37), and in another the servant who had hid in a napkin the pound which he should have used for his master's benefit (Luke 19:20-24). The Law of Moses forbade the Israelites to mingle with the heathen and, through imitating their bad example, fall into idolatry and other sins. The Law of Christ does not merely forbid Christians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and to imitate them, it commands Christians to make all nations disciples, and to teach them the knowledge of the True God.

In one respect there is a necessary difference between the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament taught men their sinful state in God's sight, and bade them look forward to the coming of a Saviour, who would be born of a Virgin, at Bethlehem, and who was to make His own life an offering for the sins of His people. The New Testament, on the other hand, tells men of the fulfilment of this promise, and bids them believe on Him who has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the whole world. But this difference again is but the completion of the work begun in the earlier revelation.

To some people it may seem that, owing to the gradual but steady growth of learning and civilization, the religion which was suitable in Moses' time was out of date and antiquated in that of Christ; and in the same way that the religion taught by Christ had, in Muhammad's day, some six centuries later, grown old, and that it therefore required to be supplanted by Islam. The answer to this is threefold: (1) Religious rites and ceremonies may become antiquated, and, though at first helpful, may at last, under changed circumstances and through loss of all thought of their spiritual significance, grow useless and even harmful. But the principles of True Religion are unchangeable, like the Moral Law. If they were once true, they must be true in every age. The principles of the Mosaic Law were true in Adam's time, in Abraham's, in Christ's: they are true now, and will be until the Resurrection day, and even beyond it. Therefore the essence of true Religion can never change or become out of date and effete. (2) If the progress of learning and civilization requires that there should be a corresponding progress in religious practices and ideas, and if we grant (which we do not) that Muhammad's age and country were far superior to what Palestine had been in Christ's time in learning and enlightenment, then it is manifest that Islam, in order to suit a more advanced age and to be fit to be God's final Revelation, must be at the very least as far superior to Christianity in morality, in spirituality, and in freedom from a multitude of purely local rites, ceremonies, and observances, as Christianity itself is in these respects superior to Judaism. Whether this is so or not let those judge who are well acquainted with the teaching of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. (3) Human nature is the same in all ages in its needs, its longings, and its corruptions. In every age alike, therefore, it requires to be purified by the influence of God's Holy Spirit. In every age man is prone to sin, and requires to be drawn to God. This can be done only though the revelation of God's love. The words of the Apostle, “We love Him because He first loved us,” are therefore the expression of the highest conceivable degree of success in drawing man to God and reconciling him to his Creator. The human mind cannot imagine any appeal in religion to any higher or more unselfish part of human nature than that one which is thus affected and made active in God's service by faith in Christ.

Once more: the baseless fancy that the Bible has been abrogated is confuted by the clear and definite statements of God's prophets and apostles, and by those of Christ Himself contained therein. Regarding the Old Testament, Isaiah, for example, says: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8). The Lord Jesus Christ teaches the same truth, that the Old Testament shall not be abrogated, but that even the very slightest essential matter in it shall remain in (Luke 19:20-24). The Law of Moses forbade the Israelites to mingle with the heathen and, through imitating their bad example, fall into idolatry and other sins. The Law of Christ does not merely forbid Christians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and to imitate them, it commands Christians to make all nations disciples, and to teach them the knowledge of the True God.

In one respect there is a necessary difference between the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament taught men their sinful state in God's sight, and bade them look forward to the coming of a Saviour, who would be born of a Virgin, at Bethlehem, and who was to make His own life an offering for the sins of His people. The New Testament, on the other hand, tells men of the fulfilment of this promise, and bids them believe on Him who has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the whole world. But this difference again is but the completion of the work begun in the earlier revelation.

To some people it may seem that, owing to the gradual but steady growth of learning and civilization, the religion which was suitable in Moses' time was out of date and antiquated in that of Christ; and in the same way that the religion taught by Christ had, in Muhammad's day, some six centuries later, grown old, and that it therefore required to be supplanted by Islam. The answer to this is threefold: (1) Religious rites and ceremonies may become antiquated, and, though at first helpful, may at last, under changed circumstances and through loss of all thought of their spiritual significance, grow useless and even harmful. But the principles of True Religion are unchangeable, like the Moral Law. If they were once true, they must be true in every age. The principles of the Mosaic Law were true in Adam's time, in Abraham's, in Christ's: they are true now, and will be until the Resurrection day, and even beyond it. Therefore the essence of true Religion can never change or become out of date and effete. (2) If the progress of learning and civilization requires that there should be a corresponding progress in religious practices and ideas, and if we grant (which we do not) that Muhammad's age and country were far superior to what Palestine had been in Christ's time in learning and enlightenment, then it is manifest that Islam, in order to suit a more advanced age and to be fit to be God's final Revelation, must be at the very least as far superior to Christianity in morality, in spirituality, and in freedom from a multitude of purely local rites, ceremonies, and observances, as Christianity itself is in these respects superior to Judaism. Whether this is so or not let those judge who are well acquainted with the teaching of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. (3) Human nature is the same in all ages in its needs, its longings, and its corruptions. In every age alike, therefore, it requires to be purified by the influence of God's Holy Spirit. In every age man is prone to sin, and requires to be drawn to God. This can be done only though the revelation of God's love. The words of the Apostle, “We love Him because He first loved us,” are therefore the expression of the highest conceivable degree of success in drawing man to God and reconciling him to his Creator. The human mind cannot imagine any appeal in religion to any higher or more unselfish part of human nature than that one which is thus affected and made active in God's service by faith in Christ.

Once more: the baseless fancy that the Bible has been abrogated is confuted by the clear and definite statements of God's prophets and apostles, and by those of Christ Himself contained therein. Regarding the Old Testament, Isaiah, for example, says: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8). The Lord Jesus Christ teaches the same truth, that the Old Testament shall not be abrogated, but that even the very slightest essential matter in it shall remain in force at least as long as the world lasts (Matthew 5:18). Regarding His own words (كلمات) He says the same thing: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).

It has been argued that Christ is here asserting merely that His words should remain until after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70). But the student of the New Testament will at once perceive that, according to the account given in each of these three Gospels, He has, just before uttering these words, been referring to His own Return, and the Resurrection Day and the Day of Judgement (Matthew 24:30, 31; Mark 13:26, 27; Luke 21:27, 28). It is in connexion with these terrible things that He asserts that, even after them, His words shall ⁹ continue. This explanation is confirmed by what Christ says in St. John's Gospel: “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John  12:48). It is impossible to misunderstand this language. We shall all be finally judged by His words: hence His teaching in the Injil is not abrogated, and cannot be abrogated. Nay more, we are told that, should anyone, even an angel from heaven, endeavour to supersede the Gospel of Christ by another message which professed to come from God, he should be accursed (Galatians 1:8, 9). This is the reason why true and enlightened Christians were not led away by Mani when he claimed to be the Paraclete, and why they have never expected any fresh Revelation from heaven after that contained in the New Testament.

Let it be noticed that these sayings of Christ about the permanence of His message are quite distinct from the question of the preservation of every actual oral utterance (لفظ) of His, or of every such word (لفظ) written in the Old Testament or in the New. No man of learning will confound الفاظ [des mots] with كلمات [des paroles]. There are various readings in the Old and in the New Testaments, as there are indeed in the Qur'an and in all ancient books. But all these together do not affect the meaning of a single doctrine, a single moral precept, of either Testament.

It has been argued that Christ's words would imply that the ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law must never be abrogated: but this objection has been answered above. The ceremonial precepts of the Torah have not been abrogated: they have been fulfilled, as Christ Himself taught (Matthew 5:17). As an instance of this we may notice what He says about Fasting, a practice not forbidden by any Prophet, though nowhere expressly commanded, and much esteemed among the Jews (Matthew 6:16-18).

The assertion has been made that Christ's own command in Matthew 10:5, and His statement in Matthew 15:24, are both abrogated by Matthew 28:19, 20. But temporary commands are not correctly said to be abrogated when they are fully obeyed: and the statement referred to is corroborated by the fact that, except on the occasion mentioned in Matthew 15:24, He did not (apparently) go beyond the limits of Palestine during His life on earth.

Turning now to the facts mentioned in the Bible, we see that they also are incapable of being abrogated. For it is evident to all men of understanding that an asserted fact is either true or false. We may require proof to establish its reality, but what is real cannot be made unreal, and what has occurred cannot be so erased from the pages of the world's history as never to have happened. Regarding this point it is needless to say more.

We conclude therefore that it has been clearly proved that the essential teachings of the Old Testament and the New are in their very nature incapable of being changed or annulled, because God's Will and Character are free from all change and alteration. Hence the Way of Salvation in all ages is the same, and in the last day all men will be judged according to the teachings of Christ, whose day Abraham rejoiced ¹⁰ to see with the eye of faith, and through belief in whom alone was it possible even for Abraham and all the prophets themselves to obtain salvation.