|
-
A comparative analysis
By: Azali
Part I - Introduction
When you hear the word "atonement", you normally think of the sin
offerings for atonement, the great Day of Atonement and the mercy seat
in the Old Testament, or of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on
the cross on Golgotha in the New Testament. But what does atonement have
to do with the Qur'an or with Islam? Does the expression "atonement"
even occur in the Qur'an? If so, what does it mean there and how does
the meaning differ from the one in the Bible?
To answer such questions and to make such a comparison, we must first
determine the meaning of atonement in the Old Testament, then ask if
this is sufficient to truly understand the salutary meaning of Jesus'
death in the New Testament, which is the content of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, because the gospel in its shortest form is, "Christ dies for our
sins." In a third step, we must try to enter the world of the Qur'anic
expression for atonement. For the Qur’an does use the concept of
atonement on certain occasions. Only with this background can we finally
turn to the difficult task of comparing and contrasting these three
worlds of meaning, to find out what consequences this understanding
might have when witnessing to a Muslim.
Part II - The Concept of Atonement in the Old Testament
Let us start with the concept of atonement in the Old Testament. This
concept of atonement in the Old Testament is connected with the Hebrew
root KPR. The Old Testament contains about 150 words that come from this
root: 101 verbal forms and 49 nominal forms (see Janowski (1982) 106).
The nominal forms come from the following three words: KOFÄR (a means of
atonement 14x), KIPPURIM (an atoning 8x) and KAPPORÄTH (mercy seat, lit.
the place where atonement is effected. This is the lid of the ark of the
covenant in the holy of holies in the tabernacle. 27x).
Most of the references connected to atonement are found in the books
Exodus (31x), Leviticus (59x) and Numbers (21x). Apart from these books,
the Hebrew root for atonement is only found 38x. Of the various contexts
in which the root KPR is used in the Old Testament I will discuss only
the two most important ones: the punishment of criminal offences
(especially the cases of murder and homicide) as well as the practices
of ritual sin offerings. In the following I will try to summarise the
most important discoveries that result from a detailed exegetical
analysis of the passages of the Old Testament related to this topic. My
summary is based on the results of the most important German study on
this topic in the last years: Bernd Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen.
Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschaft und zur Wurzel KPR im
Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. [Atonement as the Event of
Salvation. Studies on the theology of atonement in the priestly codex
and on the root KPR in the ancient Orient and in the Old Testament]
(Neukirchener Verlag) Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982; quoted as Janowski (1982).
A published lecture by his teacher Hartmut Gese, Die Sühne [The
Atonement], is a brilliant contribution on the same topic. In: Zur
biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vorträge. [On biblical theology.
Old Testament contributions] (Kaiser) München 1977, 85-106.
1. Atonement in connection with the punishment for criminal
offences
The term atonement in the Old Testament is found firstly in
connection with the punishment for criminal offences, specifically
various forms of killing. Three circumstances are distinguished:
a) If the one who committed the crime is known, as in 2 Samuel
21:1-14, the crime is atoned for by killing the one responsible for the
murder or his descendants:
1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year
after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, "On
Saul and on his house there lies a guilt of blood, It is because of Saul
and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the Gibeonites."
2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them...
3 ... "What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement,
that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?"...
5 Then they answered the king, "From the man who consumed us and
plotted against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of
the territories of Israel,
6 "let seven men of his descendants be delivered to us, and we will
hang them before the Lord in Gibeah, on the mountain of the Lord." And
the king said, "I will deliver them." ...
9 ...and they hanged them on the hill before the Lord. So they fell,
all seven together, and were put to death in the first days of harvest,
at the beginning of the barley harvest.
It is important to notice here that the situations that required
atonement were irreparable, that is, the harm done could not be
repaired. Moreover, such situations, requiring atonement, have not only
symbolic consequences for the individual or for the people, but they
endanger the very existence of the whole nation: for our text connects
the famine with Saul's crime, which had to be atoned. Carrying out the
atonement for a sin was considered to mean the same as forgiving of the
sin in question, which had led to such a dangerous situation endangering
the existence of the people.
b) The second case of killing that involves atonement is found in
Exodus 21:28-32. Here the one responsible for the offence is known, but
the killing was not actually performed by the one responsible for
it:
28 If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely
be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox
shall be acquitted.
29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it
has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so
that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its
owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there is imposed on him a means of atonement (lit.: KOPHÄR =
atonement), then he shall pay to redeem his life (PADAH), whatever is
imposed on him.
31 Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this
judgement it shall be done to him.
32 If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their
master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Here also the atonement for the offence that occured is the execution
of the person consciously responsible person. In the case of a ransom
two words are used. The KOPHÄR or means of atonement (from the root KPR)
designates the reparation in view of the harm for which the owner is
responsible. The ransom (Heb. PADAH), designates the reparation in view
of the owner as being responsible for the offence that occured.
c) Finally, there is a third case in which atonement is mentioned in
connection with a killing, as reported in Deuteronomy 21:1-8. Here the
one responsible for the crime is not known.
1 "If anyone is found slain, lying in the field in the land which the
Lord your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who killed
him,
2 "then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the
distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities.
3 "And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain
man will take a young cow which has not been worked and which has not
pulled with a yoke.
4 "The elders of that city shall bring the young cow down to a valley
with flowing water, which is neither ploughed nor sown, and they shall
break the neck of the young cow there in the valley....
6 "And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man...
7 "... shall answer and say, `Our hands have not shed this blood, nor
have our eyes seen it.
8 `Provide atonement, O Lord, for Your people Israel, whom You have
redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people
Israel.' And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the
blood.
In this context it is again important to notice that irreparable
damage, which requires atonement, is not considered to be a private
matter, but a matter that affects the whole nation. The crime of an
individual brings calamity on the entire nation, so the entire nation
must atone for the crime. Not the elders but Yahweh the LORD of Israel
pardons his people.
2. Atonement in the practices of ritual sin offerings
This has been taken up in the book of Hebrews to explain the atoning,
vicarious death of Jesus Christ. So it is important to know the Old
Testament background so that we can understand the central meaning of
the gospel. The second and by far larger group of Old Testament
references that mention atonement are the passages describing ritual sin
offerings. I will focus on one passage in Leviticus only, which will
stand for all the other texts of similar content.
In the prescriptions concerning sacrifices in the first chapters of
Leviticus different types of sacrifices are described. Among them one
finds the sin offerings, in the context of which atonement is mentioned
more often than in the context of the other types of offerings. In fact,
the only other references to atonement are found in connection with the
guilt offerings. From the various provisions for sin offerings found in
chapter 4 of Leviticus we will now take a closer look at verses 27-31.
The remaining passages in that chapter more or less follow the same
pattern as this special regulation for making a sin offering.
27 If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing
something against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which
ought not to be done, and thus becomes guilty, and is aware of his sin
which he has committed,
28 then he shall bring as his offering a goat, a female without
blemish, for his sin which he has committed.
29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and
kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering.
30 Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put
it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the
remaining blood at the base of the altar.
31 He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice
of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a
sweet aroma to the Lord. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and
it shall be forgiven him.
The fundamental prerequisite, which must be fulfilled, so that an
atoning sin offering can be performed is that the guilty person did not
sin deliberately but "unintentionally" (v. 27). The difference between
intentional and unintentional sin is explained in Numbers 15:22-31. If
someone has sinned unintentionally (Heb.: bishgaga, lit.: by mistake)
"the priest [should] make atonement for [him] before the LORD, and it
shall be forgiven him" (v. 28). But if someone sins intentionally (Heb.
beyad rama, lit.: with raised hand, that is, on purpose), “that one
brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his
people.... his guilt shall be upon him.” (v. 30f.). The entire procedure
of atonement can only be applied according to the Old Testament law if
the sin is "unintentional". Every intentional sin must be punished with
death.
This statement should not mislead us to think that the guilt of
unintentional sin is seen as trivial. Sin was not trivialised by
distinguishing between intentional and unintentional sins. Every sin,
intentional or not, leads to destruction and condemnation. Every sinner
is in the bonds of death, whether he sinned intentionally or
unintentionally. If he sins "by mistake", he only escapes death through
atonement.
When this basic condition is met, then "[the sinner] shall bring as
his offering a goat... And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin
offering, and kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering"
(Leviticus 4:28-29). The sinner only lays one hand on the head of the
sin offering, not two hands like Aaron did when he laid the sins of the
people on the head of the scapegoat for Azazel (Leviticus 16:21), or
like Aaron and his sons did at their consecration as priests, according
to Exodus 29:10-25. By laying his one hand on the sin offering, it
becomes the substitute for the sinner. This substitution is no
"exclusive" (GESE) or external substitution, where the animal in the
offering only externally carries the sin of the sinner, like the
scapegoat for Azazel, which destroys the people's sin by carrying it
into the wilderness. Rather it is an "inclusive" (GESE) or internal
substitution, where the life and death of the animal in the sin offering
stands for the life and death of the sinner who put his hand on its head
to identify himself inclusively with what will happen with the animal.
More precisely, the soul of the animal substitutes for the soul of the
sinner in the whole process of the offering. When the animal is killed,
this killing stands for the execution that the sinner actually deserves.
In other words the killing of the animal does not externally destroy the
sin loaded on its head by the imposition of the hand of the sinner on
its head, but the killing of the animal internally substitutes for the
death required of the sinner.
"Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it
on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining
blood at the base of the altar" (v. 30). The altar, like the mercy seat
in the holy of holies of the tabernacle, represents the boundary to the
presence of God, which no one can cross. The blood represents, according
to Leviticus 17:11, the soul of the animal and thus is the substitute
for the sinner's soul. Thus putting the blood on the horns of the altar
or on the mercy seat on the ark in the holy of holies (on the great day
of atonement, see Leviticus 16) means bringing that which substitutes
for the soul of the sinner in contact with the holy presence of God,
that is, in contact with the life-giving reality of God in the midst of
His people. Applying the blood here has nothing to do with purifying or
washing. Rather it is the means that the Lord Himself used to bring
about atonement, when the blood is put on the altar (or on the mercy
seat), in that it is a concrete visualisation of God´s promise to
restore life to the sinner albeit through the death of the animal. As
such the bringing in contact of the blood of the animal, substituting
the soul of the sinner in his deserved death, in contact with the place
of God´s sanctifying and life-giving presence in the midst of his people
can be seen as a hidden typology of the resurrection. Just as the blood
of the animal is a typology for the blood of Jesus shed for us on the
cross, so the application of the same blood by the priest either on the
altar or once a year at the place of the presence of the Lord in the
Holy of Holies is a typology of the NT message that things don´t end at
the cross but that the resurrection comes after it. Anyway this is what
the summary of the theology of ritual atonement in the Old Testament
seems to indicate. This is found in Leviticus 17:11, where we read: "For
the life (lit. nephesh, i.e. soul) of the body is in the blood, and I
have given it to you for the altar that you may be atoned with it; for
it is the blood that is the atoning, because the life (lit. nephesh,
i.e. soul) is in it." So the blood has an important role to play in the
ritual of atonement. It has been instituted by the Lord himself
exclusively for the altar, to make atonement with it. This atonement
only occurs through contact with the altar, marking God´s presence. And
it procures atonement for the sinner because it contains his life in a
substitutory manner i.e. because it is the substitute for the life of
the sinner. That is why the children of Israel were not allowed to eat
blood, because it was reserved exclusively for this purpose. And that is
why we find the following sentence in the New Testament: "...there is no
forgiveness without the shedding of blood" (Hebrews 9:22).
That brings us to the result of these practices. "So the priest shall
make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him" (v. 31). The act
of applying the bood to the altar is the act of atonement. The priest
atones, not God. And the passive form "and it shall be forgiven him" is
about God´s part in the whole affair. God alone can forgive. So, at
least in its original intention, the sin offering is not a good deed,
which the sinner can do in order to appease God's anger, rather it is
tied to God's assurance that He will forgive sin in the context of the
atoning sin-offerings. For the last phrase of our passage “and it shall
be forgiven him” is a promise of the Lord. The sinner does not give in
order to receive, rather he gives the offering because of the assurance
that was given him by the Lord himself in this phrase; which means he
gives as he has received.
As a summary of this theology of ritual atonement, it might be
advisable to mention a few mistaken ideas about this type of atonement
which have become widespread:
* Sin is not a thing/stuff/matter that is symbolically laid on the
sin offering before it is slaughtered in order to be destroyed with it
at its death. The scapegoat for Azazel, which played its role on the
great day of atonement, is laden with sin but it is not slaughtered.
Even if the laying on of the hand could be understood as a transferring
of the sin to the offering, this meaning would not explain the need to
put the blood on the altar.
* Neither is sin a condition or substance that can be covered or
washed away from the altar or mercy seat. In that case the sinner
himself, or the sin offering as his substitute, should have been washed
or sprinkled with the blood, and not the altar or mercy seat. Because it
is the sinner who carries his own sin and not the altar or the mercy
seat. This second image, that the blood of atonement is the blood that
cleanses us from our sins, includes two concepts that are never
connected in the Old Testament.
* Atonement is not a good deed that the sinner can do in order to
remove the consequences of his sin. For it is not the sinner but the
priest who atones, and God himself forgives, according to the promise
that he gave in connection with the atonement ritual.
* Finally, atonement is not only a vicarious punishment for sin, just
as it does not only mean the forgiveness of sin. Rather both of these
elements are joined together in atonement. For atonement is the
connection of a vicarious death with God´s presence. It is the
restoration of a living relationship with God through the actual event
of a vicarious death. In this way atonement is a way of overcoming sin
that does not treat sin lightly, but takes sin seriously as something
that leads to death. In the Old Testament form of atonement, therefore,
sin is not only overcome, but also taken seriously, and thus revealed in
its often hidden characteristic, namely that it leads to death. Ritual
atonement thus overcomes sin and reveals sin at the same time. This is
the most important aspect, I think, that atonement is not only a
solution for the problem of evil but also, at the same time, a
revelation of the problem of sin, because it exacts the death of the
animal. By showing that any sin leads to death, even to the death of the
animal, it shows that the reality of sin is a reality that leads to
death and exacts death. Any other description of sin is a
simplification, a false interpretation of what sin actually is.
Part III - Atonement in the New Testament
The term atonement in the New Testament is used exclusively in
connection with the explanation of Christ's vicarious death on the cross
for our sins. The most important observation one can make there is that
the expression occurs rarely, when compared with the Old Testament.
So we find the verb "hilaskomai" (Eng. to atone) only once in the New
Testament: Hebrews 2:17 -
"Therefore, in all things He [that is, Jesus Christ] had to be made
like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest
in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the
people.
The noun "hilasmos" [Eng. atonement or atoning sacrifice] only
appears twice: 1 John 2:2 - "And He Himself (that is, Jesus Christ) is
the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole
world." and 1 John 4:10 - "In this is love, not that we loved God, but
that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atonement for our sins."
Finally, we find the word "hilasterion" [Eng. mercy seat, lit. place
of atonement] only twice in the New Testament: Romans 3:25 - "whom [that
is, Jesus Christ] God set forth as a mercy seat [i.e. place of
atonement] by His blood, for faith, to demonstrate His righteousness,
because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were
previously committed," and Hebrews 9:5 - and above it [that is, the ark
of the covenant] were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat
[lit. place of atonement]. Of these things we cannot now speak in
detail."
The most important reasons for the sparing use of the term atonement
in the New Testament can be found after a detailed analysis of Hebrews,
chapter 9. Here we find explanations of the inner and outer difficulties
that develop when the Old Testament and ritualistic term for atonement
is used to explain the death of Christ. I will give a short summary of
this analysis.
1. Internal difficulties in explaining the meaning of the death of
Christ by means of the ritualistic theology of atonement of the Old
Testament.
The inner difficulties concern problems that arise at the use of the
internal structure of the Old Testament theology of atonement to explain
the vicarious death of Christ on the cross:
a) Through his death on the cross, Christ became the High Priest, who
in the Old Testament atoned for sin through the blood of the sin
offering; and at the same time he is the blood of the sin offering, with
which the High Priest in the Old Testament made atonement. For in
Hebrews 9:11 and 12 we read: "But Christ came as High Priest of the good
things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle, ... (and)
12 ...with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption."
b) In connection with his death on the cross Christ is in the
presence of God, a place that was marked by the mercy seat or the place
of atonement in the Old Testament; and at the same time he is the sin
offering, with whose blood sin is overcome in the Old Testament. For in
Hebrews 9:24 and 26 we read (see also Romans 3:25): 24 "For Christ
[entered] ... heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God [= the
mercy seat] for us;... [and] 26 ... once at the end of the ages, He has
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
Thus the Old Testament distinction between sin offering and priest on
the one hand, and between sin offering and mercy seat on the other hand
cannot be maintained with regard to the death of Christ. For Christ, in
his substitutionary death of atonement is, on the one hand sin offering
as well as priest (that is, the passively atoning sacrifice as well as
the actively atoning priest), and on the other hand Christ is at the
same time the sin offering as well as the mercy seat (that is, the
sacrifice as means of atonement as well as the mercy seat as the place
of atonement).
2. External difficulties in explaining the meaning of the death of
Christ by means of the ritualistic theology of atonement of the Old
Testament.
The outer difficulties concern problems in comparing Old Testament
forgiveness, which was bound to the sin offering, with the New Testament
forgiveness, which is based on Christ's death on the cross.
a) The forgiving atonement of the Old Testament sin offerings is
limited in time, for it applies only to one sin. Every new sin required
a new atoning sin offering. Even the great day of atonement must be
repeated every year. But Christ's atoning death does not have to be
repeated, for "with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once
for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
b) The forgiving atonement of the Old Testament sin offering is
limited in content also, for not every sin could be atoned for.
Deliberate sin could be atoned, its wages were the execution of the
sinner. But Christ's substitutionary death has pardoned all sin, for
"once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26).
c) The forgiving atonement of the Old Testament sin offering is
moreover limited personally, for it applied only to the people of
Israel. There was no atoning sacrifice for the people outside of Israel.
But Christ's death made salvation available to everyone, for "He Himself
is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the
whole world" (1 John 2:2, see also Hebrews 9:28).
d) The forgiving atonement of the Old Testament sin offering is
lastly limited in effectiveness, for it did not conquer death. It only
conquered some characteristics of death by promising forgiveness. But in
the presence of death itself, it failed. Death is stronger than the
atonement of the sin offering. But Christ, through his death on the
cross, conquered death itself, for "as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22, see also Romans
6:8 and John 11:25). Christ's forgiving atonement is stronger than
death.
3. Consequences of these difficulties
These inner and outer difficulties in applying the ritual theology of
atonement to explain the death of Christ are apparently the reason we
find the term atonement so seldom in the New Testament. The same applies
to other Old Testament concepts of salvation, like mediation,
reconciliation, justification, redemption, the covenant and so on. All
these expressions can be found in the New Testament in connection with
Christ's substitutionary death, but none is sufficient to describe or
summarise this momentous death by itself. Christ's death is more than
atonement, more than mediation, more than redemption, more than a
covenant. It is an act of salvation which has never occurred before.
Some Old Testament terms like atonement or reconciliation could be
applied to it in order to understand some aspects of its nature, but
none of these terms could describe it exhaustively.
So it is not these Old Testament expressions for salvation which are
most frequently used in the New Testament to describe Christ's death and
its meaning. Instead, two very simple expressions, which do not appear
in the Old Testament, are used. The one can be called the
deliverance-formula and the other the death-formula.
An example of the deliverance-formula can be found in Romans 4:25,
where we read: "who [that is, Jesus] was delivered up because of our
offences and raised up because of our justification." A similar
formulation "[He] delivered him up for us all" can be found in Romans
8:32; Ephesians 5:2; Titus 2:14 and 1 Timothy 2:6.
The most important example of the death-formula can be found in 1
Corinthians 15:3, where we read: "Christ died for our sins according to
the Scripture...." We who have become used to this simple expression
"Christ died" can barely imagine how impossible this sounded and still
sounds to practising Jewish people, for the Christ, the Messiah, was the
embodiment of all their hopes for the religious, national and political
restoration of a Jewish kingdom on earth. The death of this Messiah
before any political victory was simply unimaginable. It was a
blasphemy. How could God, in the very moment of the reversal of the
previous promises, expectations and hopes, save the world? "Christ died,
he died for us" is simultaneously a battle cry against all mistaken
expectations from the Messiah, and the most basic assurance of salvation
that exists. Similar expressions can be found in Romans 14:9; 5:6 and 8;
2 Corinthians 5:14 and 15; 1 Peter 3:18.
The only two formulations which go as deep or maybe even deeper than
this simple death-formula are the curse- and the sin-formulas
respectively. The curse-formula can be found in Galatians 3:13 "Christ
has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us
(for it is written, (Deuteronomy 21:23) "Cursed is everyone who hangs on
a tree"). The sin-formula, the deepest statement on the salutary meaning
of Christ's death on the cross, can be found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him." With this statement we return to a basic
truth of the Old Testament theology of ritual atonement: Just like the
atoning sin offering provisionally not only conquered sin, but also took
it seriously and first showed it to be what it was, so also Christ's
death on the cross not only conquered sin conclusively but also
definitively showed sin to be what it is: that reality that separates us
from God and thus leads us into unescapable death.
Part IV - Atonement in the Qur'an
We now come to the Qur'an, in order to examine the terminology of
atonement found there. The Qur'an contains words that come from the same
Old Testament root as the Old Testament "kippeer". The corresponding
Arabic root is KFR.
There are two completely different meanings in the Qur'an for words
which come from this root KFR. The first meaning is in noun form
"kufrun" and means ingratitude or thanklessness, or unbelief. This is,
without doubt, the most widely used meaning in the Qur'an. It occurs in
about 520 Qur'anic verses. When a Muslim falls away from Islam, as when
he becomes a Christian, he is called a word which comes from this
semantic field. He is a "kaafir", someone who has committed "kufr", and
according to the Qur'anic law must be put to death. This meaning is not
directly connected to atonement and will not be discussed here.
Instead we will deal with the second meaning of the root KFR. It has
the noun form "kaffaaratun" and means to cover or wipe away. This
meaning occurs relatively seldom in the Qur'an (13 verb forms and 4 noun
forms). But these occurrences are important, for they contain some of
the few assurances of salvation that Allah makes to a Muslim, and thus
are not only related to the Old Testament in their word forms but also
in their theology. What follows summarises their contents. We will deal
with the verb form first, and will then go to the noun forms, which are
used much differently.
1. The Verb forms: Allah hides or wipes away (lit. atones) men's evil
deeds= Arab.: Allahu yukaffiru (anil)insaani sayyi)aatihi
The examples that contain the verb form "kaffara" (= hide or wipe
away), mostly follow the same pattern. The following is a compilation of
these examples:
Whoever believes in Allah (al-Ma`ida 5:56; al-`Ankabut 29:7; Muhammad
47:2; al-Mursalat 77:8)
and in his Messenger (al-Ma`ida 5:12);
whoever believes what he sent down to Muhammad, that is, what he
revealed to him (Muhammad 47:2);
whoever turns to Allah (Arab.: taaba; al-`Ankabut 29:7; Muhammad
47:2; al-Tahrim 66:8);
and fears him (Arab.: ittaqaa; al-Ma`ida 5:65; al-Anfal 8:29;
al-Talaq 65:5);
whoever does good (al-Taghabun 64:9);
whoever says the prayers and gives alms (al-Ma`ida 5:12);
whoever avoids that which is not allowed in the great commandments
(al-Nisa 4:31);
whoever emigrates for Allah's sake and is driven from his home,
whoever suffers hardship and fights and (with that) is killed (Al Imran
3:195);
he is the one, whose bad deeds Allah will wipe away (lit. atone
before him: Al Imran 3:195; al-Nisa 4:31; al-Ma`ida 5:12+65; al-Anfal
8:29; al-`Ankabut 29:7; al-Zumar 39:35; Muhammad 47:2; al-Fath 48:5;
al-Taghabun 64:9; al-Talaq 65:5; al-Tahrim 66:8);
and whom he will allow to enter gardens where streams flow in the
valleys (Al Imran 3:195; al-Ma`ida 5:12+65; al-Fath 48:5; al-Taghabun
64:9; al-Tahrim 66:8);
and whom he will give a great reward (al-Talaq 65:5);
and whose best deeds he will repay (al-Zumar 39:35; al-`Ankabut
29:7);
and for whom he will restore everything (Muhammad 47:2);
and whom he will help (al-Anfal 8:29);
and whom he forgives (Al Imran 3:193; al-Anfal 8:29).
The basic meaning of atonement in all these examples, which have a
similar form, is the covering and the hiding of the bad deeds. The
underlying meaning is the wiping away or the erasing of these deeds,
like the wind wipes away footprints in the sand. So when Allah "atones"
for someone's bad deeds, he covers them and wipes them away. We must
take special notice of the fact that Allah is the one who "atones", and
not the sinner or a priest. Moreover, this "atonement" is not free of
charge, rather it is tied to conditions like faith, fear of God and good
deeds. Finally we need to note that we do not find any categories in the
"atonable" bad deeds, like intentional and unintentional.
2. The noun form: Atonement in the canonical law
In Sura al-Maida 5 there are the three examples using the noun form
"kafaaratun" (that is, atonement), all with formulations used in legal
proceedings:
5:45 "But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is
an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light
of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) wrong-doers."
5:89 "Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your
oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for
atonement, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the
food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If
that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the atonement
for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths."
5:95 "O ye who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts
or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally, the
compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka'ba, of a domestic animal
equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you;
or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent
in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. God forgives
what is past: for repetition God will exact from him the penalty. For
God is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution."
What was the condition for Allah's atoning effacement of the bad
deeds in the examples with verb forms, i.e. the good deeds, has become
atonement itself in the examples with noun forms. This means that the
sinner himself is the one who atones and not Allah. The Qur'an contains
no direct statement, which with the help of a verb commands or allows
the sinner to atone for himself. But verse al-Baqara 2:271 almost makes
this statement by advising: "If ye disclose (acts of) charity, even so
it is well, but if ye conceal them, and make them reach those (really)
in need, that is best for you: It will atone from you some of your
(stains of) evil. And God is well acquainted with what ye do."
However one ought to interpret this passage, it is important here
that the passages with noun forms, in contrast to the passages with verb
forms, distinguish between different types of bad deeds that can be
atoned for. So atonement can be atonement for an oath or atonement for
hunting during Ramadan. What has not changed is that the condition for
atonement is simply doing a good deed.
Part V - Comparison between Bible and Qur'an
The main difference in the meaning of atonement in the Bible and the
Qur'an is easiest to see in the difference between the means of
atonement in each instance: the sacrifice in the Bible and the good deed
in the Qur'an.
The priestly atonement in the Old Testament and Christ's atonement in
the New Testament are based on an understanding of the sacrifice and its
spilled blood. Without a blood sacrifice there is no substitutionary
death and no taking sin seriously as a reality which kills. Without
spilling blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). Qur'anic theology
does not acknowledge this type of sacrifice. Instead we read in Sura
al-Hajj 22:37 in direct confrontation to what the Old Testament
practices imply: "It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches
Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him." For this reason Qur'anic
theology has neither the possibility of making contact with Allah by
means of a sin offering, nor the possibility of a substitutionary death
for a sinner. With that every possible means for a free forgiveness
based on the grace of God is blocked in Islam.
Instead we find a completely new understanding of atonement in the
Qur'an, over and against the Bible: Not the priest through the blood of
the sin offering nor Christ through his own blood, but Allah himself
covers up the sins of mankind. He does this with only one condition:
that they do certain deeds. The basis for this Qur'anic understanding of
salvation is summarised in Sura Al Imran 3:195: "I waste not the labour
of any that labours among you, be you male or female..." The deeds, in
that they are kept by Allah, are basic, the good as well as the bad
ones: the good deeds as the means for carrying out the atonement and the
bad deeds as a basis for the necessity of the atoning good deeds.
From the biblical point of view, neither the good nor the bad deeds
have the power to expose the deadly truth of sin. On the contrary,
setting up the good and bad deeds as the basis for the Islamic salvation
theology masks not only the reality of sin but also the victory of
Christ over sin through his atoning death and his justifying
resurrection (Romans 4:25). Only through the substitutionary death of
the blood sacrifice can the full meaning of sin and its destructive
power be revealed, and in atonement it is revealed as a defeated
power.
After we have understood this basic difference between the Qur'anic
and the Biblical understanding of atonement, we need not wonder that the
Qur'an denies the most important atoning event of the Bible, namely
Christ's death on the cross for our sins. This death was and remains a
stumbling block not only for the Jews and Greeks, but also for the
Muslims - except when the Holy Spirit creates faith in the crucified
Saviour in them and allows this faith to grow.
|