The Death of Jesus and Islamic Objections

The death of Jesus is central to the Christian faith. If Jesus didn't die, there is no redemption for humans. Islam contradicts the death of Jesus with two views. This sermon looks at the Islamic Objections to the Death of Jesus.

https://www.anushjohn.com/post/death-of-jesus-and-islamic-objections

anushjohn.com

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Alright, let's look at the death of Jesus versus Islamic objections. We will look first at the Christian view of the death of Jesus, and then we will look at the Islamic objections to it. I want to talk about three things. First is the fact of the crucifixion. The fact of the crucifixion. The cross was one of the most vicious, depraved methods of punishment, of execution that humanity has ever devised. And there was no standard procedure to do a crucifixion. The executioners were given the authority to do whatever they wanted at the crucifixion. And the crucifixion was reserved by Rome as a punishment when they wanted to make a statement. It was not the best way to kill a person. There were better ways to kill a person. But when Rome wanted to make a statement, that is when they used crucifixion. And so, since the executioners were given the authority to do whatever they wanted, they just were as brutal and creatively brutal as they wanted to be. Victims were fixed in various poses and nailed to the cross. Sometimes they were nailed through their groins. Sometimes they were nailed and forced to watch the violation of their wives. Sometimes they were nailed and forced to watch the massacre of their families. Sometimes they were crucified and then their dead sons were hung on their necks. They could do whatever they wanted. The cross was intended to be brutal and the victims were not treated gently. And that is why there is no record in history of a person who survived a full Roman crucifixion. There is not one record in history where a person has survived a full Roman crucifixion. And I use the word full Roman crucifixion because there is an account of the Jewish historian Josephus who writes about three of his friends who were crucified for something that they did. And he was friends with General Titus before he became emperor. And so Josephus quickly requests General Titus to save his three friends who were being crucified. So their crucifixions were interrupted, and because of the authority behind it, they were given the best care from their partial crucifixion. Of the three people that were that started being crucified, two of them died. One person survived, and the reason why he survived is that because he faced only a partial crucifixion and he received the best medical care available at that time. But no one who has gone through a full crucifixion has survived. And that is the fact of crucifixion. Second, let's look at the view of crucifixion. The view of crucifixion is written by Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 23, where he says, But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. The Jews thought the cross was a tremendous stigma. Deuteronomy chapter 21 says that anyone who is hung on a tree is cursed. So the Jews were not expecting a messiah who would die, much less a messiah who would be crucified. That was the worst way to die from a Jewish standpoint. What did the Romans think about the cross? The earliest known pictorial representation of Jesus on a cross was found in 1857 at the Palatine Hill in Rome, where it shows Jesus as being on a cross, and there is a worshiper worshipping him. And it says there, Alexamenos worships his God in great. But the head of the person on the cross is the head of a donkey. Just to show what the people at that time, this was from the second, this inscription was from the second or third century. So even at that early time, they did not have a good view of a God who was crucified. And if this was the view of the cross, why on earth would the Christians want to preach about a crucified Messiah? In fact, any other message would have been more attractive. They could have said Jesus survived. They could have said that Jesus was never on the cross. The only reason, the only probable reason why they talk about a crucified Messiah is because Jesus actually died by crucifixion. And if they had to be honest to what happened, they had to preach the truth that Jesus died. That was a view of crucifixion. And third, let's look at the report of the crucifixion. I want to show you three different types or reports from three different groups of people. Obviously, the Christians reported about the crucifixion very early. As we looked in Philippians chapter 2, it talks very early, within five years of the events happening, we see that the account of the crucifixion was written. But then there is a Jewish account that talks about the crucified Jesus. Josephus, I'm not going to read it. Josephus, in his book Jewish Antiquities, talks about the crucifixion of Jesus. The Roman historian Tacitus in his book Annals writes about the crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius. So in the first 100 years after Jesus, we have a Christian report, we have a Jewish report, and we have a Roman report that Jesus died by crucifixion. And importantly, we have we do not have a single report that Jesus did not die by crucifixion. Not one single report from ancient times. So now let's look at the Islamic objections to the death of Jesus. The Islamic objections are mainly based off of this one verse in Surah 4, 157, and this is what it says. And they're saying, Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa, son of Mariam, the apostle of Allah, and they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. But it appeared to them like so. And more surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it, they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they kill him not for sure. Now there are two things mentioned here about the crucifixion. They say the first part of it says, and they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. And the second part is, but it appeared to them so. Now, based on those two parts, there are two objections that Muslims say about the death of Christ, depending on which one you focus on. The first objection is that Jesus was placed on the cross but was not killed. Jesus was placed on the cross but was not killed. This is a minority view, and it is called the theistic swoon theory. Now, this is in opposition to the atheistic swoon theory or the naturalistic soon theory, which says that Jesus survived the crucifixion. So that's the atheistic or the naturalistic soon theory that says Jesus survived the crucifixion. He was crucified, but he survived it. The atheistic or the Islamic version of the soon theory says that Jesus was survived the crucifixion. He was not killed because a miracle happened, because Allah protected him from death and healed him. Although Jesus might have died under normal circumstances on the cross because of the brutality of the crucifixion, because Allah saved, because Allah miraculously preserved him, Jesus did not die. And the evidence that they give, there are several threads of evidence, and you will see how strong these evidences are as I read them. None of them are explicit. They are all implicit and oblique and tangential. These are the several things that they say to make their case. Pilate did not want to kill Jesus because of his wife's dream. He wanted to release Jesus. Thus, he could have colluded with the centurion to make sure that Jesus didn't die. Joseph of Arimathea could have colluded with Pilate. The women could have brought aloes and myrrh for medicinal purposes, not for embalming the body. Jesus was disguised as a gardener to escape the guards. The holes in his hands show that he did not die and rise again. Jesus didn't want to die, as we see in the Garden of Eden, the prayer of the Garden of Eden. And then they point to this verse in Hebrews chapter 5, verse 7, which says, In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. And they say, Because Jesus prayed, Allah protected him from death on a cross. Now, how do we respond to the theistic swoon theory that Jesus was placed on the cross but he was not killed? I want to give you four lines of responses. One is the question: what is the most likely explanation? What is the most likely explanation? Islam claims that this miracle occurred, and other than Islam, there is no other writing from antiquity that says that Jesus did not die by crucifixion. Is it likely that a miracle occurred such that Jesus did not die when we have three separate reports from the Christians? Sure, we can understand that they could be biased. How about the Romans who did the crucifixion? How about Josephus and the Jews who were part of the crucifixion, of making sure that Jesus died? What dog did they have in the fight to claim that Jesus died by crucifixion? They were not in favor of, they were not in favor of Jesus at all. A second response is the obscure verses. Now, all of these references that they mention, none of them are direct, none of them are explicit. They are all implicit, oblique lines that could have colluded, the Pilate could have colluded, or the centurion could have colluded. It's all just speculation rather than certainty. And we know from biblical hermeneutics or interpretation of any document that you interpret the obscure verses or the obscure passages by using the clear passages. And there are plenty of clear passages in the Bible that show that Jesus was crucified. So you interpret the obscure verses using the clear verses. And then we have the historical concerns. Pilate is seeing as colluding with the Jews when the opposite is true. Pilate was ruthless and he did not care about the Jews. If you read history, Pilate did not care about the Jews at all. He was responsible for maintaining peace in the Far East as far as the Roman Empire was concerned. And the emperor did not want an uprising there. And he wanted to suppress anything that was remotely, that would remotely raise red flags up in Rome. And so historical facts contradict the claims that are made by the Muslim accusation. And fourth is the origin of the church. As we know, if the disciples were part of the deception, how could they preach that Jesus was resurrected? The significant body of evidence shows that the early church fully believed, and they were not just covering up, they fully believed that Jesus died and rose again and was seen by many of them. Later on, actually, this summer in Thailand, that'll be one of the topics that we'll be looking at. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and we'll go through several different lines. So I'm going to leave that part of it for there. So the first accusation was that Jesus was on the cross, but he did not actually die because Allah saved him. A second accusation, objection, is that Jesus' death was made to appear so. Jesus' death was made to appear so. And it is a belief from the Muslim world that Jesus' face was placed on someone else. And this was either Simon of Cyrene, who we know carried the cross of Jesus, or it was Judas's chariot who deserved to die. So the Muslim claim is that one of these two people, their Jesus' face was placed on them, and therefore Allah made it appear as if Jesus died, but he did not. Now there are three different responses. This is called the substitution theory, where on the cross somebody else was substituted for Jesus. So for everybody, it looked like Jesus died, but he actually did not. So I'm gonna give you three responses to this. One is again the question: what is the most likely explanation? If you are an objective searcher, if you are searching for the truth and you're objective about it, other than the Muslim claim like this, the early valid writings claim that Jesus was crucified. The basis for the Islamic belief is simply that the Quran states it, and so they believe it. Does it match up with what is historical data? A second response that I want to give, actually, I added this, but it's not there. Let me just add it right now. I added another one, and that is why would Allah cause this deception? Why would Allah cause this deception? I added that last night and it didn't save, it didn't sync with my software. But the second one is why would Allah cause this deception? What is the benefit? What is the benefit from a Muslim standpoint for Allah to cause this deception? So he didn't die, but the people thought he did, and he shows up three days later claiming he did. So this deception allowed Jesus to be resurrected, isn't it? So why would Allah do it? If Allah let him die, he would have died, according to Islam. But Allah switched the faces, and now Jesus is up and about walking, and three days later he comes and claims to be resurrected. Now, if Allah let this happen, it resulted in the claim of Jesus being resurrected, and therefore it resulted in the beginning of the church. So this deception by Allah, where he fooled people into believing that Jesus died, actually works against Islam. So why would Allah do this? The third response that I want to give is what authority does the Quran have to make claims about Jesus? What authority does the Quran have to make claims about Jesus? Is it possible that the Quran knows something that the Bible doesn't? The Quran was 600 miles away and 600 years away, isn't it? From where this happened. Again, that's not my own phrase. I got that phrase from somebody. That would have been cool if I came up with it on my own. They were 600 miles away and 600 years away. So how could the Bio the Quran claim that the Bible is wrong when the Bible was written, when the Gospels were written in the lifetime of Jesus? And the details of Jesus in the Quran, the only way that the claim by the Quran about the death of Jesus can be valid is if the if you can trace the source from where the Quran got this to a time earlier than the gospel writings. One is in Quran Surah 5, 110. I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but here it says that Jesus made clay birds and gave them life. He miraculously gave life to clay birds, and the Quran declares this as if it is historical truth. Where did this come from? Obviously, it's not from the Gospels. Where did it come from? This came from the infancy gospel of Thomas. In the infancy gospel of Thomas, Jesus was a mischievous five-year-old, and he was playing with clay birds. He did a lot of other stuff with his playmates as a mischievous divine five-year-old. But he was playing with clay birds, and a particular Jew happened to see it, and he went to Joseph to accuse Jesus of what he was doing. It was unlawful. But Jesus, to overcome the problem of playing on the Sabbath, he animated the clay birds, made them alive, and now he was just setting these birds free. And so the Quran gets this from the infancy gospel of Thomas. Let's look at another one. I'm not going to read this, but in this section in Surah 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30, Jesus in the cradle speaks. Where did the Quran get this story? He was lying in his cradle and he speaks to him. So in 29, 1929, Mary points to him and said, saying that he's the one who informed him. And they said, How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle? And Jesus himself speaks up from the cradle. Surely I'm a prophet of Allah. He has given me the book and made me a prophet. Now, where did the Quran get this information from? Because this is not there. Jesus speaking in the cradle is not there in the Gospels. They got it from the Arabic infancy gospel. Which brings us to our the point at hand. Where did the Quran get the crucifixion story from? Where did the Quran get the crucifixion story from? And the Quran got the crucifixion story from the gospel according to the Basilidus. And he was a Gnostic teacher. Whose school of thought lasted for centuries afterward. And according to Gnosticism, there's a they have a secret knowledge. And so they don't believe that Jesus could have a physical body. And so they believe that Jesus could not have died. And so this gospel makes the story, and Ireneus talks about it and reports this gospel where he says, He himself did not suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead, so that this latter being transfigured by him that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon and standing by laughed at them. So the Quranic teaching is from a second-century Gnostic source. Not five years, so the earliest source we have is in Philippians chapter 2, the hymn that Paul wrote, which talks about the incarnation, the death, the resurrection, and the future reign of Christ, dated by scholars within five years. If there needs to be another claim that needs to supersede this claim, it needs to be earlier than that. And the claim that the Quran has from this Gnostic source is from the second century AD, and so it should be rejected because the Gospels have an earlier account. And the interesting thing is this in each of these spurious gospels, the stories of Jesus make sense. Why claybirds in the Thomas Gospel of infancy? Why claybirds? And there are other stories about how he was doing mischievous things as a five-year-old. And so, in that story, in that gospel, it makes sense in context. Why did Jesus speak as an infant in the Arabic gospel of infancy? Because he was the eternal word of God according to that gospel, and so they showed Jesus as speaking in his infancy. Why was he substituted in the Gnostic Gospel? Because they don't believe that Jesus had a material body. He didn't have a material body. So in that context, it made sense for them to say that Jesus' face was switched with Simon of Serene. But when you come to the Quran that has accumulated all these stories from all over the place, without context, it makes no sense. It is just a collection of random stories from here and there that do not connect together at all. So for both of these Islamic views about the death of Christ, if a person is a genuine seeker, we can counter the objections with the truth. Thank you.