All the New Testament Citations of the Old Testament

Genesis: Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6; Acts 3:25, 7:3, 5-7; Romans 4:3, 9, 17, 18, 22, 9:7, 9, 12; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 15:45; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 3:6, 8, 4:30; Ephesians 5:31; Hebrews 4:4, 6:14, 11:5, 12, 18; James 2:23

Exodus: Matthew5:21, 27, 38, 15:4, 19:18-19, 22:32; Mark 7:10, 10:19, 12:26; Luke 2:23, 18:20, 20:37; Acts 4:24, 7:18, 27-29, 30, 32-34, 35, 40, 14:15, 23:5; John 6:31; Romans 7:7, 9:15, 17, 13:9; 1 Corinthians 10:7; 2 Corinthians 6:16, 8:15; Ephesians 6:2-3; Hebrews 8:5, 9:20, 12:20; 1 Peter 2:9; James 2:11Revelation 10:6

Leviticus: Matthew 5:33, 38, 43, 15:4, 22:39; Mark7:10, 12:31; Luke 10:28; 1 Peter 1:16; James 2:8; Romans 13:9; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 3:1; Ephesians 6:2-3

Numbers: Matthew 5:33; Luke 2:23

Deuteronomy: Matthew 4:4, 7, 10, 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 15:4, 18:16, 19:7, 18-19, 22:24, 37, 24:31; Mark 7:10, 10:4, 19, 12:19, 29-30, 32; Luke 4:4, 8, 12, 10:27, 18:20, 20:28; Acts 3:22, 7:37; Romans 7:7, 10:6-8, 19, 12:19, 13:9, 15:10; 1 Corinthians 5:13, 9:9; 2 Corinthians 13:1; Galatians 3:10, 13; 1 Timothy 5:18; Hebrews1:6; 10:30, 12:21, 13:5; 1 Peter 2:9; James 2:11; Revelation 19:2

Samuel: Acts 2:30, 13:22, Romans 15:9; 2 Corinthians6:18; Hebrews 1:5

Kings: Romans 11:3-4; Revelation 19:2

Chronicles: 2 Corinthians 6:18

Nehemiah: Acts 4:24; John 6:31

Job: Romans 11:35; 1 Corinthians 3:19

Psalms: Matthew 4:5, 5:35, 7:23, 13:35, 16:27, 21:9, 16, 42, 22:44, 23:39, 26:64, 27:43; Mark 11:9-10, 12:10-11, 36, 14:62, 15:34; Luke 1:50, 53, 71, 4:10, 13:27, 35, 19:38, 20:17, 42-43, 22:69, 23:46; Acts 1:20, 2:25-28, 30, 31, 34-35, 4:11, 24, 25-26, 13:33, 35, 14:15; John 2:17, John 6:31, 12:13, 13:18, 15:25, 19:24; Romans 2:6, 3:4, 10-12, 13, 14, 18, 4:7-8, 8:36, 10:18, 11:9, 15:3, 11; 1 Corinthians 3:20, 10:26, 15:27; 2 Corinthians 4:13, 9:9; Ephesians 4:8, 26; Hebrews 1:5, 6, 7, 8-9, 10-12, 13, 2:6-8, 12, 3:7-11, 15, 4:3, 5, 7, 5:5, 6, 7:17, 21, 10:5-7, 12, 13:6; 1 Peter 2:7, 3:10-12; Revelation 2:26-27, 15:3, 4, 19:2

Proverbs: Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:6, 12:20; Hebrews 12:5-6; 1 Peter 4:18, 5:5; 2 Peter 2:22; James 4:6

Isaiah: Matthew 1:23, 3:3, 4:15-16, 8:17, 11:5, 12:18-21, 13:14-15, 15:8-9, 21:13, 33, 24:29, 31; Mark 1:3, 4:12, 7:6-7, 8:18, 9:44, 46, 48, 11:17, 12:1, 13:24; Luke 1:79, 2:32, 3:4-6, 4:18-19, 7:22, 8:10, 19:46, 22:37, 23:30; Acts 7:49-50, 8:32-33, 13:34, 13:47, 28:26-27; John 1:23, 6:45, 12:38-40; Romans 2:24, 3:15, 9:27-29, 33, 10:11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 11:8, 26, 27, 11:34, 14:11, 15:12, 21; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 2:9, 16, 14:21, 15:32, 54; 2 Corinthians 6:2, 17; Galatians 4:27; Ephesians 2:17, 5:14, 6:14, 17; Philippians 2:10; Hebrews 2:13; 1 Peter 1:24-25, 2:6, 8, 2:9, 22, 3:14; Revelation 4:8, 15:4, 18:7, 19:3

Jeremiah: Matthew 2:18, 11:29; Luke 19:46; Romans11:27; 1 Corinthians 1:31; 2 Corinthians 6:16, 10:17; Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16-17; Revelation 15:4

Ezekiel: Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Luke 13:19; Romans 2:24; 2 Corinthians 6:16

Daniel: Matthew 13:43, 24:15, 30, 26:64; Mark 13:14, 26, 14:62; Luke 21:27; Revelation 1:7

Hosea: Matthew 2:15, 9:13, 12:7; Luke 23:30; Romans 9:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55; 1 Peter 2:10; Revelation 15:3

Joel: Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Acts 2:16-21; Romans 10:13

Amos: Matthew 24:29; Acts 7:42-43, 15:16-18

Jonah: Matthew 12:40

Micah: Matthew 2:6, 10:35-36

Habakkuk: Acts 13:41; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:37-38

Zephaniah: Revelation 18:7

Haggai: Hebrews 12:26

Zechariah: Matthew 21:5, 24:31, 26:31, 27:9-10; Mark 14:27; John 12:15, 19:37; Ephesians 4:25; Revelation 1:7

Malachi: Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke1:76, 7:27; Romans 9:13

Peter's Confession in the Synoptic Gospels: When Looking Closely is not Looking Closely Enough

The following is an article I wrote many years ago and originally posted on the Answering Islam website. Some of the links are now defunct.

--------

Some time ago Samuel Green put me in touch with Andrew Livingston, a former Christian who left the Lord Jesus Christ for Muhammad and who now writes for Taqwa magazine. Since I will be debating Andrew in the near future, I thought it might be good to read over his material. I also thought it might be of benefit to the readers of Answering Islam if I thought out loud, particularly since Andrew’s methodology appears to be similar to the method employed by Shabir Ally, Paul Williams, Yusha Evans, and many other devotees of Muhammad who are more popular than Andrew.

The first article of Andrew’s that I would like to address is titled A Closer Look at the Bible: Peter’s Confession at Caesarea Philippi.

In this article, Andrew argues that the version of Peter’s confession found in Matthew 16 is an embellishment of what really happened, and that Matthew had a wrong theological agenda and suffered from confirmation bias. This is supposed to be proven by a comparison of Matthew’s account with the version found in Mark 8, the latter of which Andrew believes was written first. Here is how Matthew records the story:

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (Matthew 16)

And here is the account as Mark recorded it:

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” 29 And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him. (Mark 8)

Since Matthew’s account includes words not also found in Mark’s account, i.e. “the Son of the Living God,” we are supposed to believe that Matthew has changed the story to make Jesus out to be the Son of God, something not taught in the supposedly “more original” account or “older” version found in Mark.

It is true enough that there are verbal variations between Matthew’s account and Mark’s account, but this doesn’t require positing the sinister explanation of Matthean embellishment, or anything more than the observation that Matthew included more of what Peter said than Mark did. As Pheme Perkins, Professor of Theology at Boston College, points out:

It is important to distinguish the textual evidence for differences between ways in which one Evangelist differs from the others and the speculative explanations that are suggested to explain an author’s choices. Scholars can agree on the data and disagree heatedly over its meaning. [Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), p. 64.]

All Andrew has done in his article is observe a difference between Matthew and Mark, and then offer an explanation that he finds satisfactory or even desirable, but which is by no means necessary.

In addition to being unnecessary, Andrew’s speculative explanation is fraught with insuperable philosophical, logical, and exegetical problems, as the following demonstrates. First, Andrew takes for granted the theory of “Markan Priority” (MP), a position that is no doubt popular but hardly unassailable. Since the argument for Matthean embellishment rests on an undemonstrated assumption that not all Christians buy into, it is hardly an assumption that can be taken for granted in an article intended to disprove what all Christians believe. Since I remain unconvinced of MP, as do many other Christians, this argument does not come anywhere close to challenging my view, not to mention that of any other Christian for nineteen centuries before Gottlob Storr’s innovative theory came into vogue.

Moreover, as for those Christians who have bought into MP, since they also believe that Jesus is the Son of God, any argument against the Sonship of Jesus that is premised on the assumption of Markan Priority, if such an argument is deemed to be otherwise sound, might just as well be taken as an argument against MP. In other words, there is no reason that someone who believes in MP and the Sonship of Jesus has to be forced to jettison Christ’s Sonship rather than MP in light of an argument from embellishment. The argument could simply be taken as proof that “Markan Prioritists” who confess Christ’s Sonship need to get their priorities straight. After all, Christ’s Sonship is a fundamental article of the Christian Faith; MP is not. The former is taught in the Bible; the latter is not. If one or the other has to go, then there should be no question for a Christian which one it has to be. In both Matthew and Mark Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ; in neither account does Peter confess that Markan Priority is true. Hence, the former is normative for Christians; the latter is not. The following analogy might help the reader to see the point:

Suppose you were talking to a pagan who believes the following two propositions: 1) the gods are immortal; and 2) Achilles is a god. Suppose further that evidence is presented proving that Achilles died and thus was not immortal. In light of the evidence for Achilles mortality, which of the two propositions would have to go? The fact is that while the evidence forces a choice between these two propositions, it does not by itself determine which of the two propositions one must choose. For those who are more committed to the view that the gods are immortal than they are to the view that Achilles is a god, they can conclude that Achilles’ mortality disproves his divine status. Alternatively, those who are more committed to the view of Achilles divinity than they are to the notion that the gods are immortal can conclude that Achilles mortality is proof that the gods are not immortal after all.

Analogously, Andrew’s argument at best only forces a choice between Markan Priority and the Sonship of Jesus. It does not determine which of the two has to be abandoned for the sake of restoring consistency. The fact that Andrew, when faced with a choice, automatically accepts Markan priority and rejects Christ’s Sonship is a reflection of his precommitment to Islam. No Christian is obligated to reason according to Andrew’s faith commitments, which are in submission to Muhammad and his putative deity. Indeed, Christians belong to the Lord Jesus Christ and are obligated to set Him apart as Lord, which means reasoning in a fashion that is consistent with and in submission to His Lordship.

Having said that, the argument as presented by Andrew is far too facile than to think it is actually sound or that it constitutes a real challenge even to Christians who hold to MP and Christ’s divine Sonship. If there are good reasons for rejecting MP, and I believe there are, it is not because of the kind of argument on offer by Andrew. After all, it is clear from Mark’s Gospel no less than Matthew’s that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, if the reader continues on in Mark’s account, he will see that immediately after Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ that Jesus goes on to refer to God as His Father, which is simply the correlative of saying that Jesus is the Son of God.

31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” 34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? 37 For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8)

So while Matthew’s account of Peter’s confession is fuller than what Mark provided, it can hardly be argued that the reason why it is fuller is because Matthew was trying to introduce something not taught in Mark’s gospel. Whatever the reason was that Mark left the phrase out and Matthew included it at this point, the reality is that the explanation contended for by Andrew does not comport with the facts at all: Jesus is presented as the Son of God in both Gospels; Matthew hardly needed to invent the idea of Jesus’ Sonship in an effort to push a “theological bias” that he did not share with Mark.

At this point, it might be asked: If, as you maintain, and as the church has maintained for nineteen centuries, Mark actually wrote after Matthew, then why would he abbreviate the account in the way that he did, i.e. having Peter confess that Jesus is the Christ and leaving out the words “the Son of the Living God”? The following may be said in response. That Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God goes hand in hand according to Mark. This is evident from the very first verse of Mark’s account, which reads:

“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1)

The same thing is seen towards the end of Mark’s account, during the high priest’s examination of Jesus:

…Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:61-62)

In other words, Mark viewed these two titles as a package deal, a unit: if the one, then the other. He joins them together several times at strategic points in his narrative. So when Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ in Mark 8, from the Markan perspective it was tantamount to a confession that Jesus is exactly what Mark in a fuller way already announced Him to be at the beginning of the Gospel, and what Jesus affirmed about Himself at the end of the Gospel. This is even the view of the High Priest who did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Though the High Priest denied that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, he did not deny that the Messiah would also legitimately bear the title “Son of God.” This much was clear to him based on the evidence of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In keeping with this, it is clear from Matthew’s account that Jesus considered the simple phrase “the Christ” to be a fit summation of what it means to confess that He is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” This is evident from the fact that the pericope in which Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, is preliminarily concluded in the following terse manner: “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ” (16:20). The short title, “the Christ,” is used here, by way of synecdoche, to refer to the full truth concerning Jesus that Peter had just confessed and that Jesus at this time was telling the disciples not to broadcast. Another example of a synecdoche is found in this same pericope when Jesus said, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you…” The phrase “flesh and blood” is used here by Matthew to refer to humanity, which is surely more than just flesh and blood. Another synecdoche is seen when Jesus says that “the gates of hell,” which refers to Satan’s kingdom, will not prevail against the Church. Jesus is not merely saying that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church but that hell itself will not do so.

So right in Matthew’s gospel, and right after Peter’s confession, Jesus Himself is said to have used “the Christ” as a way of encapsulating all that Peter had just confessed concerning Him. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus in Matthew is telling the disciples that they can’t tell people that He is the Christ but they can tell people that He is the Son of God, which is exceedingly untenable. Accordingly, when Mark distilled the full confession of Peter found in Matthew to the simple statement that Jesus is “the Christ,” he did nothing else than what Jesus himself did according to Matthew. If Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel used “the Christ” as a way of referring to Peter’s fuller confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” then surely Mark has warrant for doing so as well, especially in his own account where he has already brought these two titles together, even at the very beginning of his account (Mark 1:1), as well as at the end (Mark 14:61-62).

Although it has already been dealt with in principle, another point that Andrew makes in the article in an effort to bolster the claim that Matthew is embellishing upon what Mark reported is that there is a “plot hole” in Matthew. Supposedly Matthew goofed when adding the words “the Son of the Living God” to Peter’s confession from Mark’s account, because Matthew had already taught that the disciples believed in Christ’s Sonship earlier in his Gospel. According to Andrew, if the disciples already confessed Christ’s Sonship, then Jesus would have never asked them to affirm this same truth later, and he also believes that Jesus was surprised when Peter later confessed this truth at Caesarea Philippi, as if Peter never confessed it before. Here is the earlier passage from Matthew that Andrew has in mind:

22 Immediately He made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side, while He sent the crowds away. 23 After He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone. 24 But the boat was already a long distance from the land, battered by the waves; for the wind was contrary. 25 And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. 26 When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. 27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.” 28 Peter said to Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.” 29 And He said, “Come!” And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32 When they got into the boat, the wind stopped. 33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!” (Matthew 14:22-33)

And here are Andrew’s comments on the passage:

Did you catch it?, [sic] can you see the many plot holes? If the apostles confessed right there in the boat that Jesus (may he be infinitely blessed) is the Son of God, why then would he need to ask them a mere two chapters later who they reckoned he was? & [sic] why would he be so shocked to hear one of them give the correct answer? Let alone consider divine intervention to be the only possible explanation for Peter, knowing what he already knew? No, obviously the author of Matthew took the Markan account and theologically embellished it.

The above series of questions from Andrew is based on his already refuted assumptions that Mark wrote first, that Mark did not teach the divine Sonship of Jesus in his Gospel, and that Matthew, who did teach it, forgot that he already introduced this notion in chapter 14 when he added it to Peter’s answer in chapter 16. Once the false assumption of Markan priority is cleared away, the implied answers to Andrew’s leading questions cease to have any force. There simply is no reason to stumble over Jesus calling upon His disciples to confess this truth again on a later occasion, pretending all the while that this is evidence of a plot hole due to an unmindful alteration of what Mark taught if in fact Matthew did not write after Mark in the first place.

In fact, it is also the case that Mark taught Christ’s divinity before chapter 8, even doing so in the course of telling the very story Andrew thinks creates a plot hole in Matthew. The reason Andrew misses it is because he has leaned too heavily on unbelieving scholars who read the New Testament with a theological bias not shared by the Biblical authors. Here is the sea-walking pericope as recorded by Mark:

45 Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side to Bethsaida, while He Himself was sending the crowd away. 46 After bidding them farewell, He left for the mountain to pray. 47 When it was evening, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and He was alone on the land. 48 Seeing them straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea; and He intended to pass by them. 49 But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out; 50 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and said to them, “Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid.” 51 Then He got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped; and they were utterly astonished, 52 for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their heart was hardened. (Mark 6:45-52)

The reason for saying that Jesus here teaches and fully displays His own divinity to His disciples, who are constantly found wavering or going up and down in their faith and understanding, sometimes immediately after a flash of insight, is because this story has all the earmarks of a divine theophany, and because of Jesus’ emphatic self-identification as God in Mark 6:50. While it is not apparent in many English translations, including the NASB quoted above, anyone who can consult the Greek text, or who can at least pick up a commentary, would be aware of the fact that what Jesus literally said was, “Take courage; I Am, do not be afraid.”

Here is how Mark 6:50 reads in the Greek text:

πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. ὁ δὲ εὐθὺς ἐλάλησεν μετ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

And here is a handful of what can be gleaned from commentators who come from a variety of ecclesiastical and theological backgrounds:

Donahue and Harrington: “I am: Many translations render this phrase “It is I,” which can obscure the echo of the powerful OT divine revelational formula “I am” used in the context of God’s saving presence (Exod 3:14; Isa 41:4; 43:10-11).” (The Gospel of Mark, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 2 [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2002], p. 213.)

Mary Healy: “Take courage, it is I, do not be afraid! Biblical theophanies are often accompanied by an encouragement not to fear, so overwhelming is the presence of God or his angels. But the key to the episode is in the middle statement: “It is I” (ego eimi), which can also be translated “I AM,” the divine name revealed at the burning bush (Exod 3:14). It is a veiled reference to the divinity of Jesus. Indeed, his reassurance echoes the divine words of consolation: “Fear not, I am with you; be not dismayed; I am your God” (Isa 41:10). (The Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008], pp. 131-132.)

Morna D. Hooker: “It is I: since the words can mean also ‘I am’, they could be a reference to the divine name and so have a deeper significance than a simple self-identification: this would certainly be appropriate in the context.” (The Gospel According to Saint Mark, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1991), p. 170.)

Francis J. Moloney: “He is not a [phantasma] but Jesus: [ego eimi] (v. 50b)….Jesus’ self-identification approximates a revelation of his oneness with YHWH (see Exod 3:14; Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10).” (The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002], p. 134.)

M. Eugene Boring: “… in the context of all the other marks of divine epiphany, the phrase here must have the connotation of the divine self-revelation, the disclosure of the divine name as Yahweh, the one who says absolutely, ‘I am.’” (Mark: A Commentary [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], p. 190.)

William L. Lane: “Not only the immediate context of the walking upon the water but the words with which the emphatic “I” is framed favor the theophanic interpretation. The admonition to “take heart” and to “have no fear” which introduce the “I am he” are an integral part of the divine formula of self-revelation (e.g. Ps. 115:9ff.; 118:5f.; Isa. 41:4 ff., 13 ff.; 43:1 ff.; 44:2 ff.’ 51:9 ff.). (The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974], p. 237.)

James R. Edwards: “As in the forgiveness of sins (2:10) and in his power over nature (4:39), walking on the lake identifies Jesus unmistakably with God. This identification is reinforced when Jesus says, “‘Take courage! It is I.’” In Greek, “It is I’” (ego eimi) is identical with God’s self-disclosure to Moses. Thus Jesus not only walks in God’s stead, but he also takes God’s name.” (The Gospel According to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002], p. 198.)

One of the very reasons Andrew missed this in Mark is because of his tendency to lean so heavily on people who are hostile to the Biblical faith, i.e. people who are most likely to confirm his own bias. For example, Andrew has written elsewhere that scholars view the absolute “I Am” sayings in John’s Gospel with suspicion because allegedly such sayings are not found in the Synoptic Gospels (See his article: “Did Jesus Ever Claim Divinity?”). An example of a scholar that Andrew often quotes and so would likely have in mind here is Bart Ehrman. Here is what Ehrman has said on this issue in his most recent book:

It is true that Jesus claims to be divine in the last of our canonical Gospels to be written, the Gospel of John….In speaking of the father of the Jews, Abraham (who lived eighteen hundred years earlier), Jesus tells his opponents, “Truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am” (8:58)…. Jesus appears to be claiming not only to have existed before Abraham, but to have been given the name of God himself. His Jewish opponents know exactly what he is saying. They immediately take up stones to stone him…. But looked at from a historical perspective, they simply cannot be ascribed to the historical Jesus. They don’t pass any of our criteria. They are not multiply attested in our sources; they appear only in John, our latest and most theologically oriented Gospel…. Look at the matter in a different light… we have numerous earlier sources for the historical Jesus: a few comments in Paul (including several quotations from Jesus’s teachings), Mark, Q, M, and L, not to mention the finished Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In none of them do we find exalted claims of this sort…. none of these earlier sources says any such thing about him. Did they (all of them!) just decide not to mention the one thing that was most significant about Jesus? Almost certainly the divine self-claims in John are not historical. [Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Teacher from Galilee (New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2014), pp. 123-125. See also pp. 247-248.]

If Andrew would have availed himself of less hostile sources, he would have known that Ehrman is as wrong as wrong can be, for, as we have seen, Mark most certainly does contain an “I am” saying of Jesus, one that he also shares in common with both Matthew and John. In fact, Mark even includes “I Am” sayings of Jesus that not even John decided to include in His account (q.v. Mark 13:6, 14:62). Since Ehrman and other scholars on whom Andrew relies admit that such a manner of speaking is a claim to divinity in John, Andrew can’t very well lay claim to consistency if he fails to concede from the presence of the same phenomenon in Mark that it is evidence that Mark also taught the deity of Christ, and that he did so even before we meet with the same idea at Caesarea Philippi.

The upshot of the above is simply this: even as Matthew presents the disciples as having been taught and knowing that Jesus is the divine Son of God before He calls upon them in a formal manner to confess it again at Caesarea Philippi, so Mark also presents the disciples as having been taught and being aware of His divinity before the occasion recorded in Mark 8. There simply is no basis for arguing that evidence for a plot hole has been found. Neither is there any grounds for importing into Matthew’s account the idea that Jesus is surprised when Peter calls Him the Son of God, which is an embellishment on Andrew’s own part that nowhere appears in the story. Matthew 16 does not say that the Father first made this truth known to Peter in Caesarea Philippi. It only says that the origin of Peter’s illuminated understanding was the Father, a truth that would be true whenever it first lighted upon his mind, and it would have remained true no matter how many times he confessed the truth thereafter.

Having fully answered Andrew’s claims, it is interesting to observe that the Qur’an also has stories in it that are told more than once, and that there are verbal variations and other differences between these accounts. For example, the story of Allah speaking to Moses is told in four different Surahs, none of which read exactly the same.

With a little bit of effort, one could easily come up with a reconstruction of how these Surahs came about, how they are full of plot holes, and so on. A cursory sketch of how this could be done follows.

In Surah 27 Moses is quoted as saying, “I perceive a fire…” In Surah 20 and 28 these words attributed to Moses are preceded by the phrase “tarry ye,” words that are lacking in the other two Surahs.

In Surah 20, Allah asks what Moses has in his hand, as though he doesn’t know, to which Moses responds that it is a rod used for various purposes, which provokes Allah to tell him, “Throw it, O Moses!” In Surah 27 Allah appears to already know what Moses has in his hand, and says, without asking, and in different words, “Now do thou throw thy rod!” Perhaps this is why Allah in Surah 20 does not call himself “the wise” like he does in Surah 27. In any case, the command spoken to Moses is recorded differently.

In addition, in Surah 27 Moses is confident of bringing back some information or a burning brand from the fire: "I perceive a fire; soon will I bring you from there some information, or I will bring you a burning brand to light our fuel, that ye may warm yourselves.” But in Surahs 20 and 28 Moses is not so sure:

“Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; perhaps I can bring you some burning brand therefrom, or find some guidance at the fire.” (Surah 20)

"Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; I hope to bring you from there some information, or a burning firebrand, that ye may warm yourselves." (Surah 28)

Not only is there a difference between Moses’ level of confidence in Surah 27 on the one hand and Surahs 20 and 28 on the other, but even in the latter two, the wording differs. Furthermore, it makes sense that Moses expresses great confidence in Surah 27 but not so much in Surahs 20 and 28 since in the former Allah, i.e. “the Wise,” is presented as a greater source of confidence than he is in the latter Surahs.

In Surah 20 we are told that once Moses threw his rod “It was a snake, active in motion.” But in Surahs 27 and 28 we are told that the rod was made to move “as if it had been a snake.” Was it a snake that moved? Or did it move as if it had been a snake?

A great many other verbal variations and disparities appear between these accounts. I will leave it to the reader to discern others on his or her own, and to determine whether or not the above versions can be reconciled with each other.

What all of this demonstrates is that just like it is possible for Muslims to try to account for the variations in the Gospels in ways that Christians would reject — the latter for good reason, as already demonstrated above — it is possible for Christians to do the same thing with the different accounts found in the Qur’an. If Muslims do not think this is a problem for the Qur’an, then they need to explain why it is a problem for Christians, especially when Christians have a ready explanation for the differences between the Gospel accounts of Peter’s confession, an explanation that shows the complete consistency of the Christology found in Mark and Matthew, one that fully comports with the inspiration and inerrancy of the text of Scripture.

The Incarnation: Old Testament Objections Considered and Refuted

By Anthony Rogers

The New Testament teaching of the incarnation is deemed by many Muslims to be inconsistent with the teaching of the Old Testament. Several reasons are often put forward, each of which will be dealt with in turn.

God Is God (He is Not a Man)

Since a handful of passages in the Old Testament say God is not a man that He should lie, repent or change His mind (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9), many Muslims will argue that Jesus cannot be God incarnate. But this ignores several things:

1. The incarnation was still a future event from the perspective of OT saints (John 1:1-14; Galatians 4:4-5; Romans 1:1-3, 9:1-5; Hebrews 1:1-3), so statements to the effect that God is not a man that were made antecedent to the time when the Divine Word took on Himself a human nature are misdirected.

2. The passages in question did not rule out the possibility that God could temporarily assume or appear in the form of a man during Old Testament times, something He did many times over (Genesis 18:1-33, 32:24-30; Exodus 15:3, 24:1-18; Numbers 12:5-8; Ezekiel 1-2; Amos 7:7; et al.). If God could temporarily assume a human form without ceasing to be God and without violating the import of this trio of passages, then the same would appear to hold true in the case of the incarnation, for which it may well be argued those earlier appearances during the OT served to prepare for.

3. The same OT that says God is not a man predicts the future coming of God as an actual human being (e.g. Job 19:25; Psalm 68:17-19; Isaiah 7:14, 9:1-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 12:10, 14:3-4; et al.).

Since these verses in the Old Testament appear alongside verses that say God appeared many times as a man in the past and that He would actually become a human being in the future, it can’t be argued that the passages in question are being interpreted according to their original authorial intent when they are used to rule out the incarnation. In fact, the real thrust of these passages is to show that God is not a fallen or sinful human being; He never lies or goes back on His promises. As Old Testament commentators Keil and Delitzsch say on Numbers 23:

Balaam meets Balak's expectation that he will take back the blessing that he has uttered, with the declaration, that God does not alter His purposes like changeable and fickle men, but keeps His word unalterably, and carries it into execution. The unchangeableness of the divine purposes is a necessary consequence of the unchangeableness of the divine nature. With regard to His own counsels, God repents of nothing; but this does not prevent the repentance of God, understood as an anthropopathic expression, denoting the pain experienced by the love of God, on account of the destruction of its creatures (see at Gen 6:6, and Ex 32:14). (Source)

Since Jesus never lied/lies or failed/fails to keep His promises, as both the OT (e.g. Psalm 16:9-10; Isaiah 11:1-5, 42:1-9, 52:1-53:12; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Malachi 3:1-4) and NT (Luke 1:35; John 7:18, 8:29, 46; 1 Peter 2:22; et al.) affirm, the above verses when interpreted grammatically, historically, and in terms of their immediate and broader canonical context, are not prohibitive of the incarnation.

God is Immutable (He Does Not Change)

Another argument often levied against the incarnation is the teaching of the Old Testament that God is immutable, i.e. He does not change. The locus classicus for this teaching is found in Malachi 3:6, which says in part: “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” Another prominent passage that teaches God’s immutability is found in the Psalms, which says of the Lord:

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain and your years will never end. (Psalm 102:25-27)

A common metaphor or word-picture employed in Scripture to communicate God’s immutability is seen in the oft-repeated statement that He is the Rock (1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:3, 32, 47, 23:3; Psalm 18:2, 31, 46, 19:14, 28:1, 31:2, 61:2, 62:2, 7, 71:3, 73:26, 89:26, 92:15, 94:22, 95:1, 144:1; Isaiah 17:10, 26:4, 30:29, 44:8; Habakkuk 1:12), a title first used for Him after He delivered His people from Egypt and when He accompanied and cared for them in the wilderness:

"Give ear, O heavens, and let me speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth. Let my teaching drop as the rain, my speech distill as the dew, as the droplets on the fresh grass and as the showers on the herb. For I proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God! THE ROCK! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He. They have acted corruptly toward Him, they are not His children, because of their defect; but are a perverse and crooked generation. Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. Remember the days of old, consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of a wilderness; He encircled him, He cared for him, He guarded him as the pupil of His eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that hovers over its young, He spread His wings and caught them, He carried them on His pinions. The LORD alone guided him, and there was no foreign god with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, and he ate the produce of the field; and He made him suck honey from the rock, and oil from the flinty rock, curds of cows, and milk of the flock, with fat of lambs, and rams, the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the finest of the wheat-- and of the blood of grapes you drank wine." (Deuteronomy 32:1-14; see also vv. 15, 18, 30, 31)

Flowing from the fact that God is unchanging, the Scriptures teach that His word does not change or pass away.

"Forever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." (Isaiah 40:8; cf. 1 Peter 1:23-25)

Muslims believe that all of this militates against the incarnation, but here, again, is another argument that does not apply to what the New Testament teaches or to what Christians believe. In the incarnation Christ did not cease to be God (John 8:58; Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Colossians 2:9; etc.), so no change to His essential divine nature or character took place; rather, He took on Himself an additional nature, a human nature (Philippians 2:5-10; Romans 9:5; et al.). These two natures are united in His one person without either nature ceasing to be what it was or becoming what it was not. This belief is clearly expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed:

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."

Since the incarnation does not posit a change to Christ’s divine nature or character, the incarnation perfectly comports with the teaching of the Old Testament that God does not change. This is why it is not surprising to find not only that the same Old Testament that says God as God does not change and that His covenant faithfulness endures to all generations could appear in human form and would become a man, but the primary passage in the OT that conveys this truth also speaks of the Lord sending a herald ahead of Him to prepare the way for His coming and appearing at His temple, which is hardly what one would expect from a passage that is supposed to weigh in against the incarnation:

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the Lord of hosts. “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. “Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the Lord of hosts. “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord of hosts. “But you say, ‘How shall we return?’” (Malachi 3:1-7)

The coming one, whose way would be prepared by a messenger, is Himself referred to not only as “the messenger of the covenant,” as well as the one “whom you seek,” the one “in whom you delight,” and who is said to be “like a refiners fire and like fullers’ soap”; He is even referred to as “the Lord.” The phrase here in Hebrew is ha adon (הָאָד֣וֹן), which only refers to God in the Old Testament (Isaiah 1:24, 3:1, 10:16, 10:33 and 19:4 [cf. Joshua 3:11-13; Psalm 97:5; Micah 4:13; Zechariah 4:14 and 6:5]). That He is coming to “His temple” further underscores the divine identity of the coming one. The temple is clearly the temple that Yahweh refers to as “His temple” throughout the Old Testament (2 Samuel 22:7; Psalm 27:4, 29:9; Jeremiah 50:28, 51:11 [cf. Psalm 11:4, 48:9, 65:4, 68:29, 79:1, 138:2; Jonah 2:4, 7; Micah 1:2; Habakkuk 2:20]).

The above passage in Malachi is closely related to the prophecy of Isaiah, which also teaches that God would clear the way for His coming through a forerunner, and that His glory would then be revealed and be seen by all flesh, i.e. frail humanity:

A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. Let every valley be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; and let the rough ground become a plain, and the rugged terrain a broad valley; then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh will see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (Isaiah 40:3-5)

All of these passages, including the one from Malachi, are applied to Jesus by New Testament authors, a fact which certifies that they believed Christ is the immutable or unchanging Lord of the prophets: Malachi 3:1ff. (Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2); Isaiah 40:3ff. (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23).

Another Old Testament text that was mentioned above (Psalm 102:25-27), and which is often cited to demonstrate that God does not change, is also applied to Jesus in the New Testament, thus showing again that the New Testament authors thought of Jesus was Yahweh, and that for them His becoming a man did not involve any change in His essential divine nature or character:

And [of the Son He says], YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVNES ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END. (Hebrews 1:10).

The book of Hebrews even ends on the same high note: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8).

Jesus is also identified in the NT as the Rock that followed Israel in the wilderness:

"For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:1-13)

Likewise, since Jesus is the immutable Lord, the Rock of Israel, His words do not change or pass away: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Matthew 24:35; see also: Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)

Muslims who appeal to the fact that God does not change to reject the incarnation show that they neither understand the point being made in these Old Testament passages, and that they do not understand the NT teaching about the incarnation, which has nothing to do with God ceasing to be God and has everything to do with God taking on a human nature precisely because He is the unchanging God who is faithful to keep His covenant promises.

God Is Majestic (He Doesn’t Humble Himself)

Another argument sometimes plied by Muslims to this end is by pointing out that for God to become a man is something that would be beneath him to do, for it would involve God lowering Himself in some way; it would be inconsistent with His exalted majesty. While appearing as a man or becoming a man certainly involves an act of condescension on the part of God, and while it may be the case that the teachings of Islam preclude such a possibility, once again the Old Testament Scriptures do not hesitate to say that God does so humble Himself. In fact, quite apart from the Old Testament teaching that God condescended to appear on occasion as a man and would further condescend by taking on the form of a servant and being born as a man, the very act of God, who is exalted above the heavens and who inhabits eternity, taking note of things in heaven and on earth, i.e. the act of being cognizant or mindful or taking thought of the creatures He has made, involves lowering Himself in some way. As it is written in the Psalms:

O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth, who have displayed Your splendor ABOVE the heavens! … When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained; what is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him? (Psalm 8:1, 3-4)

The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. (Psalm 14:2; cf. 53:2 and 85:11)

For He looked down from His holy height; from heaven the Lord gazed upon the earth, to hear the groaning of the prisoner, to set free those who were doomed to death, that men may tell of the name of the Lord in Zion and His praise in Jerusalem, when the peoples are gathered together, And the kingdoms, to serve the Lord. (Psalm 102:19-22)

My eyes run down with streams of water Because of the destruction of the daughter of my people. My eyes pour down unceasingly, Without stopping, until the Lord looks down And sees from heaven. (Lamentations 3:48-50)

Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel, and the ground which You have given us, a land flowing with milk and honey, as You swore to our fathers.’ (Deuteronomy 26:15)

And, for a final example:

The LORD is HIGH ABOVE all nations; His glory is ABOVE the heavens. Who is like the LORD our God, who is enthroned ON HIGH, who HUMBLES Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth. (Psalm 113:4-6)

How appropriate to the latter portion of Scripture are the words of John Gill:

"Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth. The persons the highest heavens, the angels whom he upholds in their beings, and admits into his presence; who always behold his face, and he beholds them, delights in their persons, and accepts their services; which, though pure and perfect, it is a condescension in him to do, since they are but creature services, and chargeable with folly and weakness; and who themselves are as nothing in comparison of him, and veil their faces before him; Job 4:18, also glorified saints are continually in his view, and favoured with intimate communion with him: and he humbles himself to look lower than this, and behold the things in the starry heavens, the sun, and moon, and stars; whom he preserves in their being, directs their courses, and continues their influence; brings out their host by number, calls them by their names, and because of his power not one fails: he looks lower still, and beholds the things in the airy heavens; there is not a meteor or cloud that flies, or a wind that blows, but he observes, guides, and directs it; nor a bird in the air but his eye is on it; he feeds the fowls of the air, and not so much as a sparrow falls to the ground without his knowledge and will: and he also humbles himself to behold persons and things on earth, even every beast of the forest, the cattle on a thousand hills, all the fowls of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field; and their eyes are on him, and he gives them their food in due season; he looks down from heaven and beholds all the children of men, and is the Saviour of them in a providential way; in an especial manner his eye, both of providence and grace, is on his own people, whom he beholds in Christ as fair and comely: and rejoices over them to do them good; and he has respect to their services for his sake, and condescends to dwell on earth with them. This may also be applied to Christ, who humbled himself to look upon the angels in heaven, and take them under his care and protection, be the head of them, and confirm them in that estate in which they were created: and who from all eternity vouchsafed to look with delight upon the sons of men, rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth, where he knew they would dwell; and in the fulness of time he humbled himself to come down on earth in human nature and dwell among men, and become very man in that nature; made himself of no reputation, and humbled himself so as to become obedient to death, the death of the cross, and be made sin and a curse for his people. This was an humiliation indeed!" (Exposition of the Entire Bible by John Gill, Psalm 113)

As well, any revelation on the part of God – something Muslims believe their Allah deigned to do, a fact that turns out to be quite inconsistent given their view that God does not lower himself – is itself an act of condescension, an act whereby God necessarily stoops, as it were, to speak to creatures who are far beneath Him. For God to speak to His creatures necessarily involves an act of self-humbling.

Finally, as John Calvin well pointed out, for the absolute and infinite God to speak to limited and finite creatures, whether to the angels in heaven or to man on earth, necessarily involves an accommodation of His knowledge to our finite capacity. So Calvin:

"The doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting the subtleties of a profane philosophy. One of the ancients thought he spake shrewdly when he said that everything we see and everything we do not see is God (Senec. Praef. lib. 1 Quaest. Nat.). In this way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into every separate portion of the world. But although God, in order to keep us within the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all gross imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind. His immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his dwelling-place. It is true, indeed, that as he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the worlds that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity. And here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees, who, by adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of God. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did their monstrous infatuation.… For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.1).

If God necessarily condescends in the act of revealing Himself, then the greatest act of divine condescension would also be the greatest act of divine revelation, and vice versa. Such is what Christians have in the incarnation, for which reason we read that the living and incarnate Word perfectly exegetes and reveals God to us:

"At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matthew 11:25-27)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth…. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." (John 1:14, 18, ESV)

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" (John 14:7-10a)

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1:1-3)

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3)

God is Transcendent (He Is Not Immanent)

In addition to the above attempt to argue against the incarnation Muslims also sometimes try to argue that God could not appear as a man or become a man because God cannot enter into time and space. While this may be true for Muhammad’s novel teachings about his deity – at least according to what some Muslims claim is taught in the Islamic sources – nevertheless it certainly isn’t the case for the true God who revealed Himself to and through the OT prophets. Not only do the salient facts already pointed out above equally inveigh against this argument, the very fact that God is said to be not only transcendent over all of creation (1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6, 6:18, Psalm 8:1, 57:5 [cf. v. 11], 108:5, 113:4, 6, 123:1), thus surpassing spatio-temporal constraints and going beyond the created order, a conclusion that would also follow by necessary inference from the fact that God exists independently of creation and brought the spatio-temporal universe into existence (Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 40:12, 22, 42:25, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, 51:15), but is even said to be immanent, omnipresent and ubiquitous in creation (e.g. Genesis 28:15-16; Deuteronomy 4:39; Joshua 2:11; Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:23-24), to dwell in heaven in the presence of created angels and redeemed human beings (Genesis 19:24, 24:7; Exodus 20:22; Deuteronomy 4:36, 26:15; 1 Samuel 2:10; 2 Samuel 22:14; Nehemiah 9:13; 1 Kings 8:30, 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18, 30:27; Job 16:19, 22:12; Ecclesiasts 5:2; Psalm 2:7, 11:4, 14:2, 22:13, 53:2, 73:25; etc.), and to dwell in a special way in the midst of His people on earth (e.g. Exodus 29:45, 40:34-38; Leviticus 26:11-12; Haggai 2:7-9), additionally give the lie to this argument.

Reformed Dogmatician Herman Bavinck well summarizes the Biblical teaching here:

"God is the Creator; he is and remains the absolute Possessor of all things. He is the Lord, the possessor of heaven and earth, Gen. 14:19, 22; Deut. 10:14; and he is exalted above every creature and above all space. Heaven and earth cannot contain him, how much less an earthly temple! Cf. I Kings 8:27; II Chron. 2:6; Is. 66:1; Acts 7:48. Nevertheless, this does not mean that God is excluded from space. On the contrary, he fills heaven and earth; no one can be hid from his presence; he is a God at hand, and also afar off, Jer. 23:23, 24: Ps. 139:7-10; Act 17:27; “in him we live and move, and have our being,” Acts 17:28. Moreover, he is not present in the same degree and manner everywhere. Scripture everywhere teaches that heaven, though also created, has been God’s dwelling and throne ever since it was called into being, Deut. 26:15; II Sam. 22:7; I Kings 8:32; Ps. 11:4; 33:13; 115:3, 16; Is. 63:15; Matt. 5:34; 6:9; John 14:2; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 4:1 ff., etc. But from heaven God descends, Gen. 11:5, 7; 18:21; Ex. 3:8; walks in the garden, Gen. 3:8; appears often and at various places, Gen. 12, 15, 18, 19; etc.; and in a special sense comes down to his people on Mt. Sinai, Ex. 19:9, 11, 18, 20; Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:4. While he suffers the nations to walk in their own way, Acts 14:16; he dwells in a special sense in the midst of his people Israel, Ex. 19:6; 25:8; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; Jer. 11:4; Ezek. 11:20; 37:27; in the land of Canaan, Judg. 11:24; I Sam. 26:19; II Sam. 14:16; II Kings 1:3, 16; 5:17; in Jerusalem, Ex. 20:24; Deut. 12:11; 14:23, etc.; II Kings 21:7; I Chron. 23:25; II Chron. 6:6; Ez. 1:3; 5:16; 7:15; Ps. 135:21; Is. 24:23; Jer. 3:17; Joel 3:16; etc.; Matt. 5:34; Rev. 21:10; in the tabernacle and in Zion’s temple, called his house, Ex. 40:34, 35; I Kings 8:10; 11:2; II Chron. 5:14; Ps. 9:12; Is. 8:18; Matt. 23:21; above the ark between the Cherubim, I Sam. 4:4; II Sam. 6:2; II Kings 19:15; I Chron. 13:6; Ps. 80:1; 99:1; Is. 37:16. But again and again the prophets protest against the people’s trust in this dwelling of God in the midst of Israel, Is. 48:1, 2; Jer. 3:16 7:4, 14; 27:16; for the Lord is far removed from the wicked, Ps. 11:5; 35:10 ff.; 50:15 ff.; 145:20; but the upright shall behold his face, Ps. 11:7. He dwells with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, Is. 57:15; Ps. 51:19. When the Israelites forsake him, he returns to them in Christ, in whom all the fullness of the godhead dwelleth bodily, Col. 2:9. Through Christ and through the Spirit sent by him he dwells in the church as in his temple, John 14:23; Rom. 8:9, 11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Eph. 2:21; 3:17; until he will dwell with his people, and will be all in all, 1 Cor. 15:28; Rev. 21:3." (Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, [1951], 1991, p. 157-158)

As all of the foregoing demonstrates, God did in fact dwell and appear in time and space during the Old Covenant age, which is proof positive that there is nothing about the New Testament teaching that is not congenial to previous revelation. All attempts by Muslims to pit the OT against the NT in this regard must therefore be seen as abortive efforts. Muslims should learn from all of this not to impose their understanding on the OT or pretend that Christians are in the same boat as they are when Muslims deny or contradict previous revelation. The New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament. The Qur’an is inconsistent with both.