The Qur'an and Jesus on the Cross

[SedesDomi]

Not all Muslims believe that someone else took Jesus’ place on the cross. Some Muslims point to the Qur’an as evidence that Jesus was indeed on the cross, even if Jesus did not actually “die” on the cross. See Surah (Chp) 4, v. 157 , whose footnotes “a” and “b” say:

[a] “The words ma salabu-hu do not [negate] Jesus’ being nailed to the cross; they [negate] his having expired on the cross as a result of being nailed to it…
Jesus did not die on the cross, nor was he killed as were the two thieves, but to the Jews he appeared as if he were dead.”

** “The story that someone else was made to resemble Jesus is not borne out by the words of the Qur’an, which could only mean, if an object were mentioned, that Jesus was made to resemble someone [dead], not that someone was made to resemble Jesus.”**One reason Jews don’t accept Jesus is due to Deuteronomy 21:23: “He that is hanged is accursed of God.” If the above Qur’anic interpretation is true, then we would have this scenario where Jesus was crucified, thus accursed, thus made a curse for all mankind for mankind’s salvation (see Galatians 3:13). Which leads to the question: for mankind’s salvation, is it necessary that Jesus “die” or is it sufficient that he is crucified? Is the Christian tradition unanimous on this issue?

And what does it mean to “die”? In Christianity, the death of humans means the entrance of the person’s spirit into some sort of waiting place (Hades, Purgatory, what-have-you). But if Jesus did not enter into such a waiting place – indeed, Jesus was the one who “destroyed Hades and death” – then the death of Jesus, who remained fully human and fully God, was not a normal human death; and thus perhaps Jesus could be described, even from a Christian perspective, as not having truly “died”, if to “die” is to die a human-death. Perhaps Islam and Christianity can achieve some degree of mutual understanding if the concept of what it means to “die” is looked at more closely.

Ah, so many questions.

 

[inJESUS]

Actually Muslims do neither know nor agree on what happened. Ahmadiyya say He was crucified but did not die on the cross. Mainstream Islam say neither crucified nor died but will not even try to explain what “it appeared as such” means because indeed, this will raise huge questions. Going back in history, even the apoocrypha quoted by Muhammad as Allah’s words do not deny it…only gnostics did. Basilides said it was Simon of Cyrene and some early Islamic interpreters held this view that it was someone else…other gnostics said it appeared that Jesus was crucified but in fact the spirit of the messiah was raised and only the appearance was crucified…resembles strikingly Muhammad;s words…

so actually you will find few to agree that He was crucified since the Quran says He was neither crucified nor killed…if they believe He was put on the cross but did not die, will lead to huge questions marks theologically and historically and logically. If they deny He was even crucified, they will face huge questions regarding what “it appeared as such” means.

 

[SedesDomi]

…the Quran says He was neither crucified nor killed…

Well, I think that’s the issue at hand: does the Qur’an really say that Jesus was not crucified?

The answer to that question might cause some turbulence in Islamic theology, but it wouldn’t undermine core Islamic beliefs.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, I think that’s the issue at hand: does the Qur’an really say that Jesus was not crucified?

The answer to that question might cause some turbulence in Islamic theology, but it wouldn’t undermine core Islamic beliefs.

Why would it not? If Jesus was crucified, then they must ask why would God abandon the prayers of a prophet and subject him to the cursed cross. Further, if the Qur’an does say that “They crucified him not, they killed him not,” then someone is wrong.

Further, if he did die, how does that fit the idea that he was not a sacrifice? Also, what about his resurection?

If he died just like it says in the Bible, how can they be sure he did not rise again?

 

[Lapell]

Why would it not? If Jesus was crucified, then they must ask why would God abandon the prayers of a prophet and subject him to the cursed cross. Further, if the Qur’an does say that “They crucified him not, they killed him not,” then someone is wrong.

Further, if he did die, how does that fit the idea that he was not a sacrifice? Also, what about his resurection?

If he died just like it says in the Bible, how can they be sure he did not rise again?

Sounds like Muslims never read the book of Job! And they couldn’t acknowledge that indeed “bad things do happen to good people” or rather “good people can end up dying an unjust death instead of bad people”!

 

[ralphinal]

Sounds like Muslims never read the book of Job! And they couldn’t acknowledge that indeed “bad things do happen to good people” or rather “good people can end up dying an unjust death instead of bad people”!

Amen!! I wonder if it is considered a corrupt text.

And I can also claim that they miss that in his suffering and death, Christ made suffering beautiful, something that we can offer for others.

 

[inJESUS]

Sounds like Muslims never read the book of Job! And they couldn’t acknowledge that indeed “bad things do happen to good people” or rather “good people can end up dying an unjust death instead of bad people”!

amen! beatifully said.

Actually, there is a Talmudic teaching in the Quran " whoever kills an innocent soul is like killing all, and whoever saves one innocent soul is like saving all" (paraphrasing)

isn’t this exactly what the NT is telling us? by the death of one innocent man we were all dead to sin, to old selves, to pay for our evilness, through Him, and through Him we are all alive again ? didn’t God fulfill what He said , that He will forget all our sins and wash our blackness and make it pure white? all through Him, by Him, and for His glory. Amen to the Lord of Lords.

not to mention that in wars or fights for a cause, sometimes one innocent man dies for all. Oh how much i witness this in my country, where sometimes death of a single soul leads to better lives for millions…

 

[ralphinal]

inJesus,
Your post makes me wonder and I think you can answer this question.

The New Testament is about how God willed the salvation of the entire world so he took drastic steps that those who beleived should not die but have eternal life.

You have read the Qur’an in Arabic, I think. What is the main focus of that work? Is it one showing that God loves us so much that he will do whatever he can that we may live with him? After that act, it shows us how he left us teachings to follow and a Church to help.

OR

Is it more of a how to get to heaven book according to Muhammed?

 

[inJESUS]

Well, I think that’s the issue at hand: does the Qur’an really say that Jesus was not crucified?

it could well be saying that Jesus was crucified indeed, but in gnostic terms, if you interpret it as some gnostics did.

The answer to that question might cause some turbulence in Islamic theology, but it wouldn’t undermine core Islamic beliefs.

 

[inJESUS]

You have read the Qur’an in Arabic, I think. What is the main focus of that work? Is it one showing that God loves us so much that he will do whatever he can that we may live with him?

 

[ralphinal]

the Quran is not theologically chronological…chapters are divided according to lenghth…the Bible is like a puzzle with the NT you end up understanding everything as a whole…, i think the Quran is rather that we should do whatever we can, and Allah scales at the end…slave striving for his master rather than Father striving for His children. Yes Allah send prophets and signs to guide people, but the spirit if a father we are taught is not the same in Quran.

 

[Sister_Amy]

A few things…

4:157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi **wama qataloohu wama salaboohu **walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

The jibberish is the transliteration of the Arabic. The part in bold–wa ma qataloohu means “they didn’t kill him.” And wa ma salaboohu means “and they didn’t crucify him.”

The fact that both verbs are used is significant–it doesn’t just say, “they didn’t kill him” nor does it only say “they didn’t crucify him.” It says both these things–so neither happened.

What did happen?–that’s everyone’s question, and there is not a clear answer. Which is precisely what the ayah says–that those who differ are only following speculation.

I have found that trying to reconcile the two ideas–crucifixion vs. no crucifixion–to be a futile effort. It is a strategy of people who are sort of putting out feelers toward Islam, from Christianity. It takes a little bit of mental gymnastics and will ultimately be unsatisfying, because basically the Qur’an is saying that what the Christians believe is not the truth.

Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the crux of it.

 

[ralphinal]

A few things…

4:157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi **wama qataloohu wama salaboohu **walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

The jibberish is the transliteration of the Arabic. The part in bold–wa ma qataloohu means “they didn’t kill him.” And wa ma salaboohu means “and they didn’t crucify him.”

The fact that both verbs are used is significant–it doesn’t just say, “they didn’t kill him” nor does it only say “they didn’t crucify him.” It says both these things–so neither happened.

What did happen?–that’s everyone’s question, and there is not a clear answer. Which is precisely what the ayah says–that those who differ are only following speculation.

I have found that trying to reconcile the two ideas–crucifixion vs. no crucifixion–to be a futile effort. It is a strategy of people who are sort of putting out feelers toward Islam, from Christianity. It takes a little bit of mental gymnastics and will ultimately be unsatisfying, because basically the Qur’an is saying that what the Christians believe is not the truth.

Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the crux of it.

No, it is not blunt. It is honest and there is no other way to say it. The Qur’an says that the New Testement is wrong about this. That leads to a whole new set of questions for another thread.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And I would like to add…

that the theories which attempt to describe what actually happened, in lieu of killing/crucifixion, are pretty much unfounded. They are, at best, guesses, and there is no proof.

That goes for people saying that someone was substituted or anything else. It’s just a theory, just a guess, with no real proof in Islamic sources.

 

[inJESUS]

The fact that both verbs are used is significant–it doesn’t just say, “they didn’t kill him” nor does it only say “they didn’t crucify him.” It says both these things–so neither happened

indeed, but there aren’t too many possibilities of what “it appeared as such means”. It either means that a crucifixion and death appeared to be, or it means it appears it was Jesus. Do you have other options?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sister_Amy]

Your opinion of Muhammad is so amazing. An illiterate shephard in the middle of the desert, you claim was fluent in the whole Bible (old and new Testaments) plus the Talmud, plus random gnostic scriptures that have barely escaped oblivion?

Honestly, it’s easier to believe he’s a prophet than that his knowledge was so encyclopaedic as you suggest.

And to answer your questions, I choose not to speculate, since I have no proof.

 

[Lapell]

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi **wama qataloohu wama salaboohu **walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

The jibberish is the transliteration of the Arabic. The part in bold–wa ma qataloohu means “they didn’t kill him.” And wa ma salaboohu means “and they didn’t crucify him.”

The fact that both verbs are used is significant–it doesn’t just say, “they didn’t kill him” nor does it only say “they didn’t crucify him.” It says both these things–so neither happened.

One question: could it have meant to imply something like: “Jesus was dying of his own free will, so theirs was not the victory when he was crucified and died…”? or would this be totally impossible? just a hunch I’m following…

 

[Lapell]

Hence the fact that “it appeared as though THEY had killed him by crucifying him.” Any chance that in THAT wording, it could imply such meaning in the Arabic in use in Muhammad’s area in the 7th century?

 

[Lapell]

If your teachers say it’s completely impossible, of course, I’ll have to accept their answer, I guess…

 

[inJESUS]

Your opinion of Muhammad is so amazing. An illiterate shephard