Islam and the Crucifixion of Jesus

The Muslim religion is one of the fastest -growing religions in the world today, if not perhaps even the fastest.

Among its many differences with Christianity is that it denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Whether Muslims believe in a substitution theory, the idea that another person was crucified in Jesus' place, or the ascension theory, the idea that Jesus was rescued from the cross and ascended to heaven, or even perhaps the swoon theory, the idea that Jesus did not actually die while on the cross and he actually survived the rigors of the crucifixion, each one of these theories clearly denies the death of Jesus by crucifixion.

This Islamic belief is not just something that modern Muslims conjured up in response to Christianity. Instead, the

Quran clearly denies the crucifixion of Jesus in Surah 4, 157 -158, which says the following,

They, in reference to the Jews, 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 raised him up unto himself.

Commenting on the above verses, the renowned Quranic translator and commentator Yusuf Ali states,

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews. The Muslim apologist and author

Ahmad Didat states, On the subject of the crucifixion, the Muslim is told in no uncertain terms in the

Holy Quran, that they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. Therefore the

Quranic teaching is clearly that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, which is in direct contrast to Christianity, which says there is no salvation apart from the cross.

See Matthew 26, 28, Mark 14, 22 -24, and also look at 1

Corinthians 1 .18. Putting all theological beliefs aside, what does the evidence actually suggest?

Did Jesus really die by crucifixion, or did he just appear dead? Let's look at the historical evidence.

The first evidence for Jesus' crucifixion is from a testimony of eyewitness sources. Many Muslims do not believe there is eyewitness material in the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In fact, one Muslim claims that not a single one of the Christians was a witness with them in reference to the

Jews. Rather, the apostles kept a distance through fear, and not one of them witnessed the crucifixion.

This argument, though, is based largely upon Matthew 26, 56, which says, Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.

Though the disciples forsook Jesus, as that passage teaches, some of them were still witnesses from a distance, as Mark 14, 54 says.

Also, there was an anonymous disciple whom Jesus, while on the cross, commanded to take care of Mary.

You can look at John 19, 26 -27. The Gospel of Luke reports that while Jesus was carrying the cross,

There followed him a great company of people and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

That's in Luke 23, 27. In addition to these people already mentioned, the Gospels are scattered with references to Jewish leaders, a

Roman centurion, and soldiers who witnessed the crucifixion. For Muslims to argue that the crucifixion is not historical simply does not square with the historical data, because there were multitudes of witnesses to the fact that the

Romans crucified Jesus. Second, another reason why we know that Jesus was crucified is due to the medical evidence.

In light of the eyewitness evidence from the Gospels, there is strong medical evidence that confirms the historicity of Christ's death as presented in the

Gospels. Before examining the medical evidence as a general point, the Romans knew how to crucify their victims.

To suppose that the Romans would have allowed Jesus to escape the cross is nonsensical. The Romans knew how to kill someone and they knew when someone was dead.

Concerning the specific medical evidence, the Gospels report specific conditions that a crucified victim would have experienced.

First, in Jesus' pre -crucifixion experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, the

Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus sweated great drops of blood. That's in Luke 22, verse 44.

According to Alexander Metheral, an MD and PhD, he says, "...this

is a known medical condition known as hematidrosis." He later acknowledged that tremendous stress like the kind that Jesus suffered could have produced this effect of sweating great drops of blood.

Second, Jesus' desire while on the cross to receive a drink confirms the fact that he likely was experiencing another known medical condition called hypovolemic shock, which would have been caused by his beating heart.

According to Metheral, hypovolemic shock does four things. First, the heart races to try to pump blood that isn't there.

Second, the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse. Third, the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is actually left.

And fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluid to replace the lost blood volume.

Third, the evidence from the spear thrust confirms the idea that Jesus did indeed die on the cross.

Concerning this, Metheral states that hypovolemic shock causes a rapid heartbeat, which results in fluid around the heart called a pericardial effusion.

The Gospel of John testifies to this fact in John 19 .34, which says, One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came out blood and water.

Metheral continues, The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart. So when the spear was pulled out, some fluid, the pericardial effusion and plural effusion came out.

This would have the appearance of a clear fluid like water. Therefore, given the above specific medical evidence, the

Journal of the American Medical Association is justified to conclude that, Interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.

Back to our third point, a third reason, the third main point that we know why Jesus was crucified are early statements of beliefs recorded in the

New Testament that testify to the crucifixion of Jesus. In addition to the medical evidence for the historicity of the

Gospel accounts, there is evidence from early Christian creeds which are located in various parts of the New Testament, including

Luke 24 .34, parts of Philippians 2, and 1 Corinthians 15, verses 3 -7.

The creed that provides the strongest evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus is from 1 Corinthians 15, verses 3 -5, and possibly verses 6 -7, which says,

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

End quote. That ends in verse 5. These few verses are just a sample of a much longer statement by Paul on the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Verses 6 -8 go on to describe 500 people, James, the apostles, and Paul himself.

Some scholars doubt the fact that the creed continues past verse 5, however, as Gary Habermas notes, it is agreed by virtually all scholars that the creed includes at least verses 3, 4, and 5.

End quote. Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 15, 3 -5 is a creed for a number of reasons.

First, there are certain words in the text that indicate someone was passing on tradition. William Lane Craig notes that the three -fold use of and that, or kaihoti in Greek, in the passage shows that someone is passing on tradition.

Other words also indicate the delivering of tradition, such as the words delivered and received. Second, there are many non -Pauline words in the text, such as for our sins according to the scriptures, he has been raised, the third day reference, he was seen, the twelve, etc.

So this indicates basically that Paul did not compose these verses on his own. That means that these verses predate

Paul. These are just some of the reasons why scholars think that this text is a creed, and numerous critical theologians date it from 3 -8 years after Jesus' crucifixion.

Though there is strong evidence that 1 Corinthians 15 contains an early creed, yet the question arises, how do scholars actually find the date for this creed?

Scholars generally start from the crucifixion of Jesus that is dated to about 30 AD, and then move to the fact of Paul's conversion, which took place around 33 -35

AD, they then proceed to Paul's own testimony in Galatians 1, which is an authentic Paul letter, by even the most critical scholars today.

In this passage in Galatians 1, Paul states, Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see

Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. By the simple fact that Paul tells the time when he went to see

Peter, one can date this event to around 36 -38 AD. So again, we have the death of Jesus, we have

Paul's conversion, then we have him going to visit Peter. He visits Peter again in Galatians 1 and 2.

So bear with me as I go through this chronology, my point is to get a date for this creed, and see how it relates to the crucifixion of Jesus.

So Paul goes to Jerusalem, say in 36 -38 AD, yet while in Jerusalem, Paul probably received the creed included in 1

Corinthians. As Gary Haberbas notes, the presence of both Peter and James in the list of appearances in 1

Corinthians 15, in verses 5 and 7, indicates the probability that Paul received this creed from the apostles when he visited

Jerusalem. Therefore, given the above evidence, the creed of 1 Corinthians is from within 8 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

On top of that, if one adds to the idea that Peter had the creed for a while before actually delivering it to Paul, one has to acknowledge that it goes back practically to the events themselves.

This has led even some scholars today to claim that there was never a time when the Christians did not believe in the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

So this presents a huge problem for those who would want to argue that the idea of Jesus being crucified was a later legendary embellishment from Christians, say from 70

AD to 100 AD, or worse yet, somebody would say that Christians made up the idea of the crucifixion hundreds of years after Jesus' death.

This is simply not true. This creed indicates that the early Christians believed that Jesus was crucified within a few years after the death of Jesus, and possibly they believed it as early as the events themselves.

So we can even detect in the New Testament themselves earlier material which points back very very early to Jesus' crucifixion.

So in addition to the fact that the creed is early, the evidence to the creed points to eyewitness accounts of the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Verse 5 states, quote, He was seen of Cephas then of the twelve, end quote. This verse implies that the disciples saw

Jesus collectively. Habermas states, quote, Even if we take the shorter creed and quit at verse 5, we still have an eyewitness report of a collective experience and appearance to the twelve, end quote.

Therefore, this is strong evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Not only is the creed early, but it likely contains eyewitness accounts.

Furthermore, the fact that the creed acknowledges Jesus' death and resurrection is strong evidence for the death of Jesus by crucifixion.

Since the material is undoubtedly early, it shows the fact that the fathers of Jesus believe that Jesus died very early in Christianity.

In light of this early testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, this points to a death of some sort.

So you can't have a resurrection without a death. Without the death of Christ, there is no resurrection of Christ and a resurrection again presupposes a death of some sort.

Therefore, the resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 provide strong evidence that Jesus really died by crucifixion.

In continuation, along with the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, there is also early preaching material which attests to the crucifixion in the book of Acts.

In his summary of the creeds in the New Testament, Habermas mentions five specific places in the book of Acts that mention the crucifixion.

Concerning some of these passages in Acts, John Drane notes, There can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts, its author has preserved material from very early sources.

What some scholars argue is that the speeches recorded in the book of Acts contained material that was translated from Aramaic, or its rough translation.

The New Testament was written in Greek, Acts was written in Greek, but the early apostles in Jesus spoke

Aramaic. Since we see in Acts material that looks like it was translated from Aramaic, it indicates that those sermons or material predate their actual composition in Acts.

Or in other words, they go back a lot earlier. Some scholars would date those speeches to say, the material to like the 40s or 50s at the latest.

So, these several verses in Acts, in addition to the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, provide specific evidence for Jesus' death by crucifixion.

Among the many reasons that scholars believe these are creeds is the underdeveloped theology in the speeches.

In Acts 2 .23, Peter states the following, Peter again makes this point in Acts 2 .36,

he says, But from the preaching of the apostles, we have clear reference to Jesus' crucifixion.

A fourth reason that supports the idea that Jesus was crucified is from the transformation of the disciples and the emergence of the

Christian church. It is a historical fact that the Christian church originated in the first century.

This is something which Christians and Muslims can agree. However, the hypothesis that Jesus never really died on the cross does not account for this phenomenon.

As has been shown, there were many people who witnessed Christ's death, but if the disciples began preaching a crucified and risen messiah, like Acts suggests, these witnesses could have produced

Jesus' body if he had not died. James Packer rightly states, Thus, any non -crucifixion theory just does not make sense.

Fifth, the final reason why Jesus' crucifixion makes sense is the fact of the failure of alternate theories to account for the crucifixion.

In conclusion, the naturalistic theories simply do not adequately account for the above evidence to explain

Jesus' crucifixion. For Muslims to believe that Jesus did not really die on the cross does not explain well the emergence of the

Christian church. It has been shown that the Christians preached the death and resurrection of Jesus extremely early in the history of the church and that many of them died for their beliefs.

To suppose that the disciples did not know that Jesus really died on the cross and arose from the dead does not go well with the fact that there is extremely early eyewitness creedal material that indicates

Jesus died and rose from the dead. Second, to suppose that the disciples knew Jesus did not die on the cross and then boldly proclaim that it happened is simply absurd.

People certainly die for things that they believe to be true, but they do not die for something that they know to be false.

Thus due to the eyewitness testimony, the medical evidence, the appearances of Jesus, and the emergence of the early church, this makes the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus a historical fact that every