The Crucifixion - comparison between Christian and Islamic views

[nashkage]

Part 1 : The Biblical account of the crucifixion

1) The Christian account of the crucifixion is that Jews demanded from Pontius Pilate the death sentence for Jesus, following which the Roman executioners carried out the crucifixion – a standard Roman execution procedure at that time. This implies that the Messiah, Jesus was killed at the hands of men – the Roman executioners who nailed him to the cross and more importantly, the Jewish priests who wanted him dead.

2) John 10:18 opposes the idea of Jesus having his life taken by men. Here Jesus makes a fascinating declaration, that he – with God-given authority – was in charge of his own life and that no man could take his life away from him. The exact verse is as follows :

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. – John 10:18

3) The implications of John 10:18 is that Jesus could not have been truly “killed” by men, whether the Roman executioners or the Jewish priests. If it were so, then Jesus’ declaration that no man could take his life would be severely contradicted. In light of John 10:18, Jesus would have laid his life down on his own, only to take it back in the tomb after which, he ascended to God, but he did not die of the crucifixion, and nobody killed him.

Part 2 – The Islamic account of the crucifixion compared to the Biblical account.

1) The Koran assertively declares that Jesus was not killed, but that Allah raised Jesus up to himself.

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. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. – Koran 4:157-158
(“They” and “them” refers to the Jews.)

2a) The above verses are often (mis)interpreted as meaning that Jesus was not personally taken up to the cross, and that somebody else was transformed to look like Jesus and mistakenly crucified in place of Jesus. This happens to be the popular interpretation of the Korans statement on the crucifixion. However, what if the above verses are actually fully in line with the sayings of Jesus and the Biblical account of the crucifixion? I will comment on the underlined parts of the verses, (But only Allah best knows the meanings)

2b) “they killed him not, nor crucified him” : Lets be clear first that to“crucify” is to KILL. It doesn’t mean to merely nail someone to a cross and leave it open ended. The 2 thieves died of the crucifixion and stayed dead. You could legitimately say that they were “killed / crucified”.

Jesus however, is exempt from falling the same category as the thieves for 2 reasons:
First, his own declaration in John 10:18 holds that no one could take his life from him and that he could lay down life on his own. And according to the Gospels, Jesus indeed laid down his life after he said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46). Second, Jesus had authority to take back his own life. His resurrection in the tomb and ascension are well known. Putting the two together, we see that it echoes the Koranic statements that “they killed him not, nor crucified him…Allah took him up to Himself”.

2c. “but so it was made to appear to them” : To the Jews (and everybody else) looking on, it would have appeared as if he “died” as a result of the crucifixion But unbeknownst to them, Jesus had laid his own life, as he said he could and therefore, unlike the 2 thieves, did not die as a natural result of the crucifixion.

2d) “but only conjecture to follow” : The Jews remained convinced that Jesus was dead, and even spread rumors that Jesus “dead body” was stolen from the tomb by his disciples. Matthew 28:11 says that this story “has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day”. The Talmud supposedly contains a reference to the crucifixion and Jews continue to believe they executed a false prophet, but Christians know that was resurrected and ascended to God.

2e) “Allah took him up to Himself” : This does not need any further commentary, because its also the Christian view that Jesus ascended to God (John 20:17).

Part 3 : Conclusion
1. Jesus’ statement in John 10:18, “no man can take my life” corroborates the Korans statement that he was not killed/crucified.

“No man can take my life” = Jesus could NOT have been killed by men.
“I lay it down on my own” = Jesus did NOT suffer death by crucifixion like the thieves.
“I can take it back” = Jesus took it back in the tomb, or rather God returned his life back to him.

Reading the crucifixion in light of John 10:18, Jesus laid his own life and did not die by the hands of men carrying out the crucifixion. Nailed to the cross, yes. Died of the crucifixion, no. Jesus came back to life and ascended to God.

2. Hence, the Korans few sentences on the crucifixion, “they killed him not” … “but it was made to appear to them” … “having only conjecture to follow”…”Allah took him up to Himself”… elegantly summarizes the Bibles long account of Jesus’ “death”, the Jews storymongering and his ascent. We see that the Koran does not contradict the Bibles account of the crucifixion, but instead condenses it to a few short, crisp and poetic sentences.

Related verses from Bible : John 10:18, Luke 23:46, Matthew 28:11, John 20:17
Related verses from Koran : Koran 4:157-158

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nashkage, and welcome aboard.

Had this been posted on the Islam board, I would have let it pass. As it's posted on the Christianity board, I'm assuming you've put it there inviting a response from Christians.

The implications of John 10:18 is that Jesus could not have been truly “killed” by men, whether the Roman executioners or the Jewish priests. If it were so, then Jesus’ declaration that no man could take his life would be severely contradicted.

Not if one takes the second part of the declaration into account – Jesus laid down his life Himself, that is, He gave Himself up — that’s what the final journey to Jerusalem was all about. The disciple Thomas realised this (John 11:16) and questioned Jesus about it at the Last Supper (John 14:5).

Texts need to be read in context, because reading verses in isolation, all manner of men find justification for all manner of actions. Scholars treat John as two-fold: the first part of his gospel is called ‘The Book of Signs’ which points towards His mission and His divinity, and the second part ‘The Book of Glory’ which is all about the Passion, the Cross and the Resurrection. To try and use Scripture to argue that Jesus did not die, when the authors of Scripture are in no doubt that He did, is really self-defeating, as the text refutes you. John 20:9 says it explicitly: “For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead”.

Lets be clear first that to“crucify” is to KILL. It doesn’t mean to merely nail someone to a cross and leave it open ended. The 2 thieves died of the crucifixion and stayed dead. You could legitimately say that they were “killed / crucified”.

Quite, and there is no way in the world that the Romans, who oversaw the crucifixion and made sure that the two criminals were dead, would have missed the fact that Jesus was still alive. Not someone who had the potential to start a revolution in an increasingly difficult corner of the empire. (This was the reason the Sanhedrin wanted Him ‘dealt with’. They thought He would inspire a revolt and the Romans would crush them.)

The breaking of the legs was the standard practice of killing off the crucified. The Romans did not break the legs of Jesus, presumably because they saw He was already dead. According to the texts, the centurion in charge made sure of it himself by delivering ‘the legionnaire’s cut’, a thrust between the ribs with sword or spear to puncture the heart, used to finish the enemy, and a quick end for one’s won wounded when they were beyond hope of rescue or recovery.

First, his own declaration in John 10:18 holds that no one could take his life from him and that he could lay down life on his own.

Yes, that is what He did.

And according to the Gospels, Jesus indeed laid down his life after he said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46).

Yes.

Second, Jesus had authority to take back his own life.

Yes. Don’t overlook the implication of that ...

His resurrection in the tomb and ascension are well known.

Yes.

Putting the two together, we see that it echoes the Koranic statements that “they killed him not, nor crucified him…Allah took him up to Himself”.

Oh, no, no no. Not at all. Scriptures states that He died, by crucifixion.

The Jews remained convinced that Jesus was dead, and even spread rumors that Jesus “dead body” was stolen from the tomb by his disciples.

Quite. But that wasn’t the case. His disciples were as much ‘in the dark’ as the Jews. They thought He was dead. Thomas was certain of it, despite being told by his companions that they’d seen Him.

So the disciples, the Jews and the Romans believed He was dead … the story that He had survives the cross was one of the gnostic theory concocted during the 2nd century to explain it away. Another gnostic theory is that someone else, Joseph of Arimathea, Judas, Simon or some other unfortunate (there are different versions), was crucified in His place. Yet another was that He was not a man at all but an angelic being who just looked a lot like a man … there's a 'Gnostic' solution for everybody.

Part 3 : Conclusion
1. Jesus’ statement in John 10:18, “no man can take my life” corroborates the Korans statement that he was not killed/crucified.

No it doesn’t. It simply says that no man can take His life if He does not allow it to be taken.

From the testimony of the arrest in the garden of Gethsemane, it's clear Jesus allowed Himself to be arrested.

“No man can take my life” = Jesus could NOT have been killed by men.

No. See above.

“I lay it down on my own” = Jesus did NOT suffer death by crucifixion like the thieves.

His words in no way can be read to support the meaning you ascribe to them. In fact the opposite — His words in the context of the testimonies assert that He gave Himself up to the Cross.

“I can take it back” = Jesus took it back in the tomb, or rather God returned his life back to him.

'Destroy this temple, and in three days ... '

Hence, the Korans few sentences on the crucifixion … elegantly summarizes the Bibles long account of Jesus’ “death” …

No it doesn’t. you’re making assumptions not supported by the text, rather, they’re refuted by it.

 

[nashkage]

Oh, no, no no. Not at all. Scriptures states that He died, by crucifixion.

If you are strapped to an electric chair, and just before the electricity kills you, you send your life/spirit to God, it cannot be said that you died by electrocution, can it?

The same applies to Jesus. He was nailed to the cross. But before the cross killed him, he sent his spirit to God (as per Luke 23:46). You cannot say he died by crucifixion. The only ones who died by crucifixion were the two thieves -- because they did not have the power to lay down their lives at will. But since Jesus dodged a natural death by committing his spirit to God, it cannot be said that he died by crucifixion. This is what Islam means when the Quran says "they killed him not".

Also, according to medical experts, it takes DAYS to die by crucifixion. Jesus was on the cross for a few hours. He became lifeless because he laid his life down, not because he died by crucifixion.

No it doesn’t. It simply says that no man can take His life if He does not allow it to be taken..

Jesus did not say "no man can take my life, but I will allow the Romans to take my life anyway".

Jesus did not allow any man to take his life. Period. He laid it down as he said he could, and in doing so, denied the Pharisees the "privilege" of being able to say "we killed Jesus".

 

[Devils' Advocate]

To bad a Roman CSI wasn't around back then!

But then the timing of JC's life has always bothered me. He waited thousands of years that already had a world populated with people. Were those who came before he did not as relevant for some reason? He left them all in the dust of history.

And when he came instead of taking action that was world wide in scope, he picked a tiny little corner of the world to deliver his message when there was no way to effectively and accurately disperse the knowledge he gave us.

If the timing of his coming was not that critical, as it seems to suggest since he waited so long after people were capable of understanding his message, why not wait until a technology was in place so that he could deliver his message to the entire planet and have it easily and accurately delivered.

People who are skeptical about the whole thing, in my opinion, have every right to be skeptical. For a God bringing the most important words the human race has ever heard, he did it in a really poor way.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nashkage —

I’ve just followed my own advice: ‘read the text’.

The Koran says:

And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him but [another] was made to resemble him to them (4:157-8 emphasis mine)

So our discussion about whether or not He was killed or gave up His life is irrelevant, as the Koran states that neither is the case.

This idea, that someone else took Christ’s place on the cross (and permutations of it), originated around the 2nd century within the so-called ‘Gnostics’, and seems to have found its way into the Koran from there.

Likewise the stories that the child Jesus spoke from the moment He was born, and turned clay birds into living birds, are also apocryphal, but seem to have found their way into the Moslem tradition. They were dismissed by the Christians as apocryphal tales, as there was a thriving industry manufacturing childhood stories to fill the gaps in 'the missing years'.

 

[Thomas]

But then the timing of JC's life has always bothered me.

I'm pretty sure in whatever time or place He was born, it would bother the rest of us!

People who are skeptical about the whole thing, in my opinion, have every right to be skeptical. For a God bringing the most important words the human race has ever heard, he did it in a really poor way.

Remember it's all about Faith, not Fact.

If there was irrefutable proof of the Divinity of Christ, that would defeat the object, and defeat the human race.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I understand what you are saying. Guess this will always be a contention for me as I put little faith in faith. Well that is not quite right as I do believe in faith. It is absolute faith that I cannot accept. My cosmic view of reality can neither be proven nor disproven any more than anyone else's view can. I have faith in my perception of reality - I don't have absolute faith though. I'm willing to admit what I believe could be wrong.

That humbleness seems to be lacking in all too many of people of faith.

 

[Ahanu]

Hi Nashkage —

I’ve just followed my own advice: ‘read the text’.

The Koran says: And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him but [another] was made to resemble him to them (4:157-8 emphasis mine)

Bad translation. The translation you quoted lacks ambiguity, and reflects a particular interpretation. The phrase wa-lakin shubbiha la-hum has always been ambiguous and cryptic for Muslim commentators. There are better translations. Translations from Pickthall ("But it appeared so unto them"), Yusuf Ali ("But so it was made to appear unto them"), and Abdel Haleem ("Though it was made to appear like that to them") are a few examples. Of course, these translations can also be used to affirm somebody replaced Jesus, but there's room for other interpretations too . . .

This idea, that someone else took Christ’s place on the cross (and permutations of it), originated around the 2nd century within the so-called ‘Gnostics’, and seems to have found its way into the Koran from there.

It hasn't been established that the Koran is saying that, however.

 

[Ahanu]

If the timing of his coming was not that critical, as it seems to suggest since he waited so long after people were capable of understanding his message, why not wait until a technology was in place so that he could deliver his message to the entire planet and have it easily and accurately delivered.

People who are skeptical about the whole thing, in my opinion, have every right to be skeptical. For a God bringing the most important words the human race has ever heard, he did it in a really poor way.

I see your point. For example, Jesus, according to the Christian tradition, physically appeared to his disciples after his death, but he doesn't physically appear to us. They had proof, for Christ physically appeared to them. It's a fair question.

 

[Thomas]

That humbleness seems to be lacking in all too many of people of faith.

I hear you!

 

[Thomas]

The translation you quoted lacks ambiguity ... The phrase wa-lakin shubbiha la-hum has always been ambiguous and cryptic for Muslim commentators.

I can see that.

There's no ambiguity from Scripture, though.

 

[Thomas]

I'm willing to admit what I believe could be wrong.

I find faith is something you have to work at, it's a commitment as much as a conviction. And when you take your eyes off the road ...

From a certain viewpoint I could say the time was right in that particular place — the meeting of Hebrew and Hellenic thinking had the potential to produce something. My dear departed course director said "Christianity is the Salvation History of the Jews contemplated in the light of the Greek Philosophical Tradition" which says a very great deal and continues to unfold ... I think those who say that Christianity is just Greek mythologising of Judaism have a shallow appreciation of both traditions.

Fr John was converted at a Billy Graham rally here in the UK. Started off secular, became an Anglican then headed over to Rome. Fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Ugaritic and a range of European languages, he sat on various Biblical translation commissions. A saint, although he'll never bee canonised.

He and Cardinal Avery Dulles were pals and used to get together when they could. His favourite story of the cardinal was when they were going through an airport in NY. "Ha," said the guy on the passport desk, "We've got an airport named after you," to which the cardinal replied, "Not me. My dad."

Dulles was raised Presbyterian but was agnostic in his student days. He had his epiphany when he watched a a tree beginning to flower, something happened and after that he never "doubted the existence of an all-good and omnipotent God." On studying his new-found faith, he noted "The more I examined, the more I was impressed with the consistency and sublimity of Catholic doctrine," and converted.

My faith challenges me all the time. So does the world.

 

[Ahanu]

There's no ambiguity from Scripture, though.

Hi Thomas!

It depends on the reader. Why did some Muslim commentators conclude with "God knows best what happened" after reading what their conflicting traditions had to say about Koran 4.157-8? Because it appeared ambiguous to them. My point is scripture can appear ambiguous to those "without knowledge," because the prophets conceal their meaning, leaving their interpretation to be unveiled at an appointed time. "And none knows its interpretation save God" (Koran 3.7). "As for these similitudes, We coin them for mankind, but none will grasp their meaning save the wise" (29.43). "Then it is Ours to explain it" (75.19). Similar sayings are in the Gospels.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I see your point. For example, Jesus, according to the Christian tradition, physically appeared to his disciples after his death, but he doesn't physically appear to us. They had proof, for Christ physically appeared to them. It's a fair question.

Yes. Precisely. His own disciples doubted and JC gave them proof by his actions. They didn't just accept on faith alone, they had to be shown. Yet after them everybody has been/is expected to accept all of this on faith alone. It's a double standard, seems to me.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I find faith is something you have to work at, it's a commitment as much as a conviction. And when you take your eyes off the road ...

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you are saying here. There is something very wrong about this statement, and I have been pondering it and cannot put my finger on why. Could you elaborate?

My faith challenges me all the time. So does the world.

Okay I get that. The world can and would challenge just about anyone's faith if they use their brain cells at all. Not sure we are speaking of the same thing though. My acceptance that my beliefs may be entirely wrong is not based on conflicts between what my theology tells me versus what the world shows me, which is what I believe you are talking about.

It is something much more basic. I accept that my world view may be wrong because I can not prove it is right. I'm a broken record on this one I know; it just seems like hubris to believe what one accepts on faith is absolutely true. No doubts about it. It absolutely positively MUST be.

Theology isn't about fact. It is believing in something beyond fact. I really do understand that. Which is why I understand faith and yet cannot understand absolute faith. One can accept a reality based on faith. An ironclad belief based on faith though is not justifiable. Obviously a whole lot of people disagree with me on that. But there it is.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Do you have faith DA?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I do. It is a faith tempered by what little bit of wisdom I have managed to acquire along the way.

 

[Ahanu]

It is something much more basic. I accept that my world view may be wrong because I can not prove it is right. I'm a broken record on this one I know; it just seems like hubris to believe what one accepts on faith is absolutely true. No doubts about it. It absolutely positively MUST be.

Let's illustrate what I think is an example of what you've said here (but let me know if I haven't captured your point). The Quakers believed that slavery was wrong. But most of their contemporaries accepted slavery. Abolitionist arguments couldn't convince their opponents slavery was wrong, so they couldn't prove it. Is it a sign of the Quaker's hubris to continue having absolute faith that slavery is wrong?

 

[arthra]

2b) “they killed him not, nor crucified him” : Lets be clear first that to“crucify” is to KILL. It doesn’t mean to merely nail someone to a cross and leave it open ended. The 2 thieves died of the crucifixion and stayed dead. You could legitimately say that they were “killed / crucified”.

I normally don't post on a Christian forum here but my only response to this is to consider carefully the following Aya in Surih al-Baqarah

2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157.... while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed...but in verse 158:

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke..

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

....and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit" with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46


So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur'an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I do. It is a faith tempered by what little bit of wisdom I have managed to acquire along the way.

It's not that I question it, of course, I just realised that I can't remember you ever talking about your faith. I don't know what faith is to you and what you have faith in.