This article is part of a series: Top 6 Misquoted Bible Verses. Click here to visit the introduction article.
Although not technically a Christian group, Islam does claim to be connected to Judeo-Christianity. In fact, although modern Muslims like to claim otherwise, the Qur'an repeatedly affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority, of the Christian Scriptures. Modern Muslims attempt to solve this dilemma by claiming Bible corruption, while ironically, there are also many attempts by Muslims to twist the Bible into supporting (their version of) Islam. In this article, I will briefly look at 6 of these attempts.
James 1:13
One of the biggest sins you can commit, according to Islam, is "shirk". That is, the association of partners with Allah. To say that Jesus is God is one of the many ways in which Christians commit shirk. But in spite of claims that the Bible has been corrupted, Muslims also claim it preserves a number of proofs that Jesus is not God, beginning with James 1:13, which says "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." If God cannot be tempted by evil, they reason, how can Jesus have been tempted by the ultimate evil (Satan) in the wilderness?
Of course, using this logic, we can also ask how God could have been tempted in Deuteronomy 6:16: "“You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted Him in Massah." It seems illogical to say the Lord your God is not, in fact, God, given that He was tempted in Massah. In the same way, it makes no sense to say that the Lord whose name you literally have to call on to be saved (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13) is not God because the devil tried, and failed, to tempt Him.
The answer to this apparent dilemma is in the concept of a homonym. A homonym is when two similar words have different meanings. In this case, someone can be tempted without being tempted. When the Jews tempted God at Massah, they provoked Him to anger, such that He would be justified in destroying them. Because this would have been justified, even His inclination towards doing so would not actually be evil.
In the case of the temptation of Jesus, the inclination was not even present, as Satan was attempting to tempt Him towards evil. Anyone can tell God to do something evil, no matter what form He takes. You can look to the sky right now and say "hey, God, make Brian say Jesus was just a prophet". That would be tempting God. Yet, because God cannot be tempted to evil, there is a 0% chance He would answer such a wicked prayer. Therefore, Jesus, while He was tempted by evil in the sense that the devil made several evil suggestions, He was not tempted by evil, because He was in no way inclined to obey those suggestions. Thus, James 1:13, rather than being a proof text against the Deity of Christ, actually serves as excellent evidence that He is, indeed, divine, as He cannot be tempted by evil.
Jeremiah 36:28
If you want proof that the Bible is corrupt, the absolute last place you realistically want to go is the Bible. This makes sense, not only because someone so evil as to corrupt the Bible isn't likely to corrupt it by saying "by the way, I'm corrupting the Bible", but also because Islam flat out refutes the possibility of Bible corruption. By saying no one can corrupt Allah's words (Qur'an 6:115, 18:27), and yet affirming that the Bible is Allah's word (Qur'an 3:3-4, 5:47-48, 68), any attempt to prove the Bible is corrupt is to scream from the rooftops "there is no truth in Islam!"
But while Muslims need the Bible to be true, because their Qur'an says it is true, Muslims also need the Bible to be false, because the Bible says the Qur'an is false. Therefore, if they can find any evidence of Bible corruption within the Bible... that still doesn't help their case. But they think it does, and so they have claimed Jeremiah 36:28 as their proof text: "“Take yet another scroll, and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned."
And so here we have a prophet of God (Jeremiah) being told to write some words on a scroll. Words which were on another scroll, which were burned by Jehoiakim, king of Judah. To a non-Muslim, that means exactly what it says. The king burned the scroll, so Jeremiah... re-wrote the scroll. But to Muslims, that's the same as the Bible at one point in time supporting Islam, but at a later date (that isn't even consistent with the Islamic timeline), it would be changed to support Christianity.
Now, why first, would I say it's inconsistent with the Islamic timeline? Simply because Jeremiah lived about 1,200 years before Muhammad, whereas Muhammad himself affirmed the Bible in his own time, not only with the Qur'an, but also with several accounts within the Haddith. If Jehoiakim really did corrupt the Bible, and no prophet between Jeremiah and Jesus managed to restore it, Muhammad certainly was not aware of this.
Of course, Muhammad was not aware of this corruption because it never happened. Even in Jeremiah 36:28, we do not have an example of corruption, but of restoration. Jehoiakim burned the scroll, but Jeremiah is being told to re-write it, which he did. In fact, a mere one verse later, the Lord Himself re-states what was burned. Corruption, by definition, requires not only that the old words are destroyed, but that they are also replaced. In reality, "...Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the instruction of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And besides, there were added to them many similar words." (v32). Therefore, Jeremiah 36:28, rather than being a proof text for Bible corruption, contextually shows that attempts to destroy the word of God will always be thwarted.
Matthew 12:39-40
Whereas Scripture and history are quite clear on the fact that Jesus was killed by crucifixion, and rose again on the third day, Islamic apologetics gives a number of conflicting theories on exactly what happened to Him. Whatever the alternative explanation, Jesus is not the risen Lord according to Islam.
In order to prove that He is not the risen Lord in Scripture either, Islamic apologists like Zakir Naik have chosen a rather interesting strategy, citing Matthew 12:39-40 as proof that Jesus did not die on the cross. The verse in question says "But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Thus, Muslims ask, did Jonah die at any point during his encounter with the great fish? Well, surprisingly, the answer may well be yes. Whereas our culture assumes Jonah survived, both Jewish tradition, and Scripture itself, indicates that Jonah called out to God from "...the belly of Sheol..." (Jonah 2:2). Yet, Biblically speaking, Sheol is the place of the dead, where the spirits and souls of the dead go to await the final resurrection.
So, already we have a major problem with Naik's argument: It depends on a minor detail of a more modern interpretation. If the interpretation that Jonah survived in the belly of the fish is wrong, which it certainly appears to be, then this argument fails.
But the argument fails even if we assume an air-breathing man survived 3 days with no drinkable water inside the belly of a great fish. See, I believe in a God who can perform miracles. Therefore, I have no more problem assuming God could spare Jonah's life than that He could return it. What I do have a problem with is assuming every part of an analogy has to be exactly equivalent in order to be true.
We can make a similar argument to prove the existence of rock golems. You say Jesus must have been alive in the tomb because Jonah was alive in the fish? I say Jesus' tomb must have been alive, since the fish was alive too. If this sounds like silly reasoning, it's because it is, in fact, very silly. Jesus did not say that just as Jonah survived for 3 days, so would He survive 3 days. He said just as Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the great fish, so also would He spend 3 days in the heart of the Earth.
The Bible then goes on to tell us, repeatedly, that Jesus died, and that He rose again, which requires Him to have died, and that if we are to be saved, we must confess that God raised Him from the dead, and that the spirit of the Antichrist will tell us that Jesus never rose from the dead. Contextually, it is impossible to use Matthew 12:39-40 as a proof text against Jesus' death. If anything, it seems to be fantastic evidence that He rose again.
John 16:7
Since the Qur'an claims that Muhammad is in the Bible, the onus is on Muslims to find him, lest their religion be exposed as fraudulent. There are several verses Muslims use for this one, including one from Song of Solomon. To be generous to Muslims, I have decided not to address that one, as it would steer the conversation in directions no Muslim wants it to go. If you're in any way familiar with the content of Song of Solomon, you'll understand why I have instead chosen to address their claims that Muhammad is the helper foretold in John 16:7.
It is surprising that in spite of being a highly significant prophet according to Islam, His main message seems to have been "Muhammad is coming". Everything else He supposedly preached is completely gone, corrupted by the malevolent Apostle Paul and his ilk. Even Christ's own Apostle, Peter, seems to have been lead astray, as he calls Paul's works Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Evidently, Allah was in one of his "greatest of deceivers" moods when he promised to elevate Jesus' followers over unbelievers until the Day of Resurrection (Qur'an 3:55).
Thankfully, Allah decided to send Muhammad to clear things up. What evidence is there of this? "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." "Zinga!", saith Muslim apologists. Muhammad, in their religion, is the seal of the prophets, and so clearly, when Jesus said He must depart in order for the Helper to come, He meant Muhammad.
It's shocking to me that Muslims, who believe Allah sent Muhammad, will use John 16:7 to prove it, given that Jesus is saying He sent this Helper. If the helper in question really is Muhammad, then Jesus sent Muhammad. Syllogism time:
P1: Allah sent Muhammad.
P2: Jesus sent Muhammad.
C: Jesus is Allah.
Right about now, everyone should be feeling a little uncomfortable. If they cling to this interpretation of John 16:7, they must admit Jesus is God. If they let it go, they lose this proof text, along with all credibility they may have had, since they cited such a silly proof text for their so-called prophet.
But even Christians should hate this argument, because it relies on the same erroneous interpretation as Muslims make. But obviously, John 16:7 is in no way referring to Muhammad. Muhammad cannot be found in the Bible, unless you count vague allusions to false prophets that can fit Muhammad, but can just as accurately be ascribed to other false prophets.
In truth, this Helper is the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, and at this point in time, the Apostles "...know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:17). Furthermore, Jesus says "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (v18, emphasis added).
When you understand the doctrine of the Trinity (which Muslims virtually never do), this makes sense. God is one God, who consists of three co-equal persons acting with one accord. Therefore, what one person does, all three do. That is why the Bible can say things like "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1), or "But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8). With all this in mind, we see that Jesus both sends the Helper and is the Helper! John 16:7, therefore, is one more alleged proof text for Islam that works powerfully against Islam.
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 19:17 is yet another attempt Muslims, and indeed anti-Trinitarians in general, use to try to disprove the Deity of Christ. "So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”" If the Muslim interpretation is true, that destroys the entire Christian faith. But while this is perhaps the most convincing proof text Muslims cite, it once again works against the Islamic position.
See, a common element between Christianity and Islam is that Jesus is very much good. Islamic scholars disagree on the exact extent. Was Jesus completely without sin, or was He, as with all the prophets of Islam, merely protected from major sin? Although it does not expressly say Jesus is without sin, Sahih al-Bukhari 4712 does seem to indicate as much. Describing the Day of Resurrection, Muhammad claims "I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection." He describes people seeking the intercession of various prophets. They go to Adam, but he says he made Allah angry by disobediently eating the forbidden fruit, and therefore they should go to another messenger; Noah. And this trend goes on, until Moses says go to Jesus. "Jesus will not mention any sin, but will say, 'Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad." And so the people say to Muhammad "Allah forgave your early and late sins." Jesus, therefore, appears to be without sin in this Haddith. Not explicitly, but He is the only one who doesn't mention His own sins, and even Muhammad is noted as having his sins forgiven.
But regardless of whether Jesus is good in Islam, Jesus is most certainly good in the Bible. Jesus knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), and fulfilled all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). Jesus, therefore, was so good that He was able to receive in Himself all penalty due for sin, allowing we, who are evil, to become the very righteousness of God! Only if Jesus is good could He possibly have done this. Therefore, rather than being a proof text that Jesus is not God, Matthew 19:17 is the excellent proof that He is.
John 10:34-36
Of course, there are ways in which non-divine beings can be referred to as gods. Moses, for example, was "as God" to Aaron (Exodus 4:16), and God Himself even judged the "gods of Egypt" (Exodus 12:12). In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers to a similar Scripture, saying "...Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming, ’because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
So, could Jesus simply be claiming to be a god, and not God Himself? Especially since He is being threatened because "...For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." (v33).
In reality, this passage as a whole is devastating to Muslims. Not only does the response of the Jews show that they knew He was claiming to be God, but His response to them shows that He acknowledges it. Whereas Muslims attempt to claim Jesus is correcting them, saying "I am not God, I'm just a god", He is actually pointing out how He has the right to call Himself the Son of God.
To understand this, we first have to understand the Scripture being spoken of. Jesus is specifically quoting Psalm 82:6. As it is only a short Psalm, we can cite the whole thing here: "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You shall inherit all nations."
We see, then, that in effect, a "god" in the lower case sense is a human being who represents God on the Earth. They wield His power, a thing to be feared, and their authority comes from Him. Most notably, these particular gods fail. They judge unjustly, they show partiality to the wicked, they do not do defend, deliver, or give justice to the poor, needy, afflicted, or fatherless.
Psalm 82 is a stern reminder that though Earthly judges represent God on this Earth, they, too, will face the judgement of God for how they did. But in John 10:34-36, Jesus takes it, not only applying it to Himself, but adding further context: "I am "...Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world...".
In other words, "I'm different from those people. I am no mere prince, no mere magistrate, no mere judge. I am..." the Son of God! The one thing the Qur'an says Allah does not have (Qur'an 19:35, 88-93, 23:91), and indeed cannot have (Qur'an 6:101), Jesus claims to be!
Now tell me, aside from the obvious fact Jesus here makes what the Qur'an calls an "outrageous claim", what's the son of a lion? A lion. What's the son of a ram? A ram. What's the son of a bull? A bull. So what is the Son of God? The Son of God, my friends, is God, and so when the Jews sought to kill Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God, they were seeking to kill Him for claiming to be God, and in John 10:34-36, He specifically tells them "yes, I make myself God, because I am God". And so what kind of proof text is this that Jesus denies His own divinity?
Conclusion
You see, then, how Muslims abuse the Scriptures in some of the most egregious ways when attempting to defend their religion. The vast majority of Islamic proof texts are actually failed attacks on the Trinity, in particular the Deity of Christ. Beyond that, Muslims seek to prove the Bible has been corrupted, all the while they try to find some remnant of Muhammad, who claimed to be found within. Ultimately, we find that more often than not, Islamic proof texts backfire, doing more damage to Islam than to any truly Christian view.