And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny. And because of their saying: “We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s Messenger.” They slew him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge of it except the pursuit of a conjecture; [but] certainly they slew him not. But Allah raised him up to Himself. Allah is August, Wise.[1] – Surah 4:156-158

 

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is one of the most well-established facts of His life. According to atheist New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan, “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[2] Yet, many Muslims believe the passage in Surah 4 denies the death of Christ by crucifixion. Thus, this passage seems to put Islam at odds with known history. And if the Quran denies a well-established historical fact, it casts doubt about the accuracy and divine inspiration of Islam’s holy book.

It has been a common argument for Christian apologists to claim that the Quran denies the death of Christ, and thereby it cannot be the words of God. But is this the case? Does Surah 4 deny Christ’s death upon the cross? This paper will examine four different ways Muslims have interpreted Surah 4:156-158, how Chrisitan apologists should respond to each of these interpretations, and if Christian apologists should claim that the Quran is unreliable when it comes to Christ’s death.

Substitution Theory

The most common view held among Muslims throughout the centuries has been the Substitutionary view.[3] According to this theory, Allah made someone appear to look like Jesus. This look-a-like was then taken and crucified on the cross in place of Jesus, while Jesus ascended to heaven to wait until the time of his return. Thus, this theory explains why Surah 4:157 says that the Jews “neither killed nor crucified” Jesus but “it was only made to appear so.”

Due to its popularity, various views on the identity of the substitute have been proposed.  The earliest substitution theory is found in the writings of the Gnostics. According to the second century church father Irenaeus, Basilides, a Gnostic teacher, believed that Jesus was not crucified, but instead, Simon of Cyrene was “transfigured” to appear like Jesus. Simon was then crucified while Jesus ascended to heaven.[4] This substitutionary view also persisted in other Gnostic writings.[5] It is important to note that the substitution theory was first proposed by Gnostics and could have potentially played a role in the later substitution theories proposed by Muslims.[6]

While many Gnostics claimed Simon of Cyrene as the substitute, Muslims have identified several different characters as the substitute. In one tradition, Judas Iscariot is portrayed as the substitute and is put to death in Christ’s place.[7] In another tradition, Christ’s enemies send a man, named Titanus, to kill Jesus. Jesus ascends to heaven before Titanus arrives and Allah casts the image of Jesus onto Titanus who is subsequently put to death.[8] The view that Christ’s image was cast upon one of his enemies who were then killed in his stead is known as punishment substitutionism.[9] While punishment substitutionism was popular among some Muslim groups, various other traditions held that one of Christ’s followers either willingly or unwillingly became Christ’s substitute. In one such tradition, Jesus was with seventeen of his disciples in a room. The Jews came to take Jesus, but Allah cast the image of Jesus onto all seventeen of the disciples so that the Jews did not know which was the true Jesus. They decided to take one of them and kill him, but it was not the real Jesus. Thus, it only appeared that they had killed Jesus, fulfilling Surah 4:157.[10] Another similar tradition holds that one of the disciples volunteered to go in Christ’s place. According to this tradition, Jesus was fearful of his death and “offered a place with him in Paradise to the one who would bear his likeness and die in his stead.”[11] The disciple Sergus volunteers and is made to look like Jesus while Jesus ascended to heaven. Thus, Sergus was put to death on the cross.[12]

The strength of the substitution theory is that it is compatible with the passage in Surah 4. In fact, according to Muslim Apologist Shabir Ally, even though he does not agree with this view, he does agree that this is the most straightforward reading of the verse.[13] Yet, if the substitution interpretation is correct, it leads to a multitude of problems.

First, the substitution view was first proposed by Gnostics. The reason for this was not historical, but theological. Gnostics believed that the material world was evil and the spiritual world good.[14] Based on this understanding, Gnostics denied the humanity of Christ, believing that he only “appeared” human.[15] Thus, by following in the Gnostics’ footsteps, Muslims have taken hold of a theology that not only contradicts history, but also contradicts their own theological beliefs about the goodness of the material world (i.e. Allah’s creation).[16]

A second problem with the substitution theory is that Allah allowed an innocent man to suffer in the place of another.[17] Would this not make Allah unjust? It seems so. For this reason, it appears Muslims proposed Judas Iscariot or a willing disciple as the substitute. To punish Judas Iscariot in Christ’s place would not be unjust since Judas’s wicked plot would have been turned on himself. A willing disciple would also remove Allah from guilt of punishing an innocent person since the disciple would have died willingly. According to Ayoub, this became the predominant view because of the theological implications.[18]

However, this still leads to a third issue. Ayoub points out that if Allah can change a person’s identity in this way, it makes historical testimony of no value and makes it impossible to ensure the identity of anyone.[19] How could any court system ever be certain that Allah has not transfigured the condemned person? Additionally, it makes Allah a deceiver.[20] As Ayoub notes, “the substitutionist theory… makes a mockery of divine justice….”[21]

A fourth problem, and perhaps the most major, is that Christ’s death by crucifixion is widely attested and agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars. To reject Christ’s death by crucifixion puts the Quran at odds with well-known history. A multitude of sources, both Christian and non-Christian, attest to Christ’s death.[22] Thus, if the substitution interpretation of Surah 4 is correct, it contradicts what is known of history.

A fifth problem is that the Quran does not mention anything about a substitute for Jesus.[23] Therefore, the substitution interpretation, while compatible with Surah 4:156-158, is not given in the ‘divine revelation’ of Allah. Instead, the interpretation comes from later commentators attempting to make sense of the passage. Moreover, it appears these commentators have used Gnostic and pseudepigraphical works, such as the Gospel of Barnabas,[24] as sources for their commentaries. Thus, the substitution interpretation has been borrowed from unreliable sources.

Swoon Theory

The Swoon theory, also known as the apparent death theory, is not popular among scholars. However, some of the most well-known Muslim apologists have held this theory including Ahmed Deedat and Shabir Ally. According to this theory, Jesus did not die on the cross but only appeared to die. According to Deedat, “immobility, fatigue, and the unnatural stance on the cross must have slowed down the blood circulation” causing Jesus to enter an unconscious state.[25] Having fallen unconscious, the Romans mistakenly believed that Jesus was dead and allowed His body to be taken down from the cross. As Shabir Ally claims, “they presumed him to be dead, but nobody checked to see if he actually was dead.”[26] While preparing Christ’s body for burial, those preparing His body discovered that He was still alive.[27] With this knowledge, Christ was placed in the tomb temporarily until they could come back and get Him. Deedat claims that the tomb would have been big enough for Jesus to live in and he also notes how Christ’s legs were not broken, which would make it easier for Him to escape.[28] While Deedat and Ally disagree on some of the details, they both strongly agree that one of the key aspects to Jesus’ escape from the tomb is the fact that the Jews did not set the guard at the tomb until the next day.[29] Therefore, by the time the guards arrived at the tomb, Jesus had already escaped.

According to Ally, “When the Quran says that they did not crucify Jesus, it simply means that they did not succeed in their plan of killing Jesus by this method of execution. They thought they had finished the job, but in fact they had not.”[30] Therefore, Ally claims that, in a sense, Jesus was crucified since he was physically placed on the cross. But in another sense, he was not crucified since he did not die.[31] Thus, it depends on what Surah 4 means when it claims the Jews had not “crucified him.” Ally takes it to mean that Jesus had been placed on the cross but did not succumb to his death on the cross and therefore was not crucified in this sense.

While this interpretation is consistent with the passage in Surah 4, it has numerous problems. First, both Deedat and Ally use the stories found in the Gospels when they believe it helps their theory, but then ignore the aspects of the Gospels that go against their theory. For example, both Deedat and Ally ignore the fact that the Gospel of John makes it clear the Romans ensured Christ’s death by piercing him in the side.[32] But Deedat accepts that Jesus appeared to Mary in the garden near His tomb.[33] Both events are found in the Gospel of John. Yet, Deedat arbitrarily accepts the portion of the Gospel he feels best helps his theory.

Second, the wounds Jesus suffered would make it untenable for him to have survived. In 1986, the Journal of the American Medical Association performed an investigation of Christ’s crucifixion and concluded that “interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[34] The loss of blood Jesus would have suffered from the scourging and being nailed to a cross, along with the piercing in his side, presses one beyond the point of reason to believe he survived. As Christian Apologist Norman Geisler notes, “The weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted.[35]

Third, the Swoon theory cannot account for the early resurrection proclamation of the Christian church. In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona ask their readers to imagine if Jesus had survived the cross.[36] Jesus would have appeared to his disciples bloody and half conscious. This would not have resulted in the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead, but rather that God had miraculously preserved Jesus. But the early Christian proclamation was not that Jesus survived the cross. Rather, it was that Jesus had died and been raised from the dead.[37] Thus, the Swoon theory cannot account for the early proclamation of resurrection.

Lastly, as with the Substitution theory, the Swoon theory is at odds with the well-established fact that Jesus died on the cross. Thus, if this interpretation is true, it puts the Quran at odds with history.

Overall, the Swoon theory requires one to reject historical and medical evidence and arbitrarily accept and reject pieces of the Gospel narratives. While numerous other problems exist, the above four reasons show why most scholars do not hold this position.

Legend Theory

A third way Surah 4:156-158 has been interpreted is to claim that the story of the crucifixion came about through legend. According to Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad, “the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus.”[38] Asad rejects the substitutionary view held by most Muslims because it is not found in the Quran.[39] Instead, he proposes that “long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the ‘original sin’ with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it.”[40] Asad comes to this conclusion based on the Quranic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which he renders as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so."[41] Moreover, Asad argues that this expression is similar to “in my mind” or “it seemed to me.”[42] Thus, Christians later invented the legend of Christ’s crucifixion because ‘it seemed so’ to them and this belief became entrenched into Christianity.

This interpretation has several problems. First, Asad provides no evidence to show how the legend of Christ’s crucifixion arose. He only mentions a possible influence of Mithraism but fails to show how this has any connection to believing that Jesus had been crucified. The connection to Mithraism seems to be aimed at explaining why Christians invented the atonement. Even if true, this would not undermine the death of Jesus by crucifixion. It would only show that the understanding of Christ’s atoning work was a later legend, but not the crucifixion itself.

Second, Asad does not address the fact that several of Christ’s followers were present at the crucifixion, which included women and the disciple John. It seems Asad presupposes that the Gospels are pure fiction and therefore there is no need to address the idea that eyewitnesses were present at the crucifixion. In light of the evidence for the reliability of the Gospels, this presupposition appears to be unwarranted.[43]

Third, Asad claims that the legend of Christ’s crucifixion came about “long after the time of Jesus.”[44] But how long? Asad never says. The vast majority of scholars agree that Christ was crucified around AD 30 or 33.[45] Our earliest sources of Christ’s crucifixion come from the Gospels of the New Testament, the letters of Paul, and Acts. Many scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel to have been written,[46] and it is typically dated to around AD 70,[47] although good arguments exist that it may have been earlier.[48] Even if one holds to the AD 70 date, this leaves only forty years for a legend surrounding Christ’s death to have arisen. But the problem for Asad gets worse. Paul mentions Christ’s death by crucifixion in a multitude of passages (1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 2:8; Gal. 6:14; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 3:13). Paul wrote these letters in the late AD 40s to 50s,[49] putting us within a decade or two of Christ’s death. Lastly, the book of Acts provides the earliest sermons Christians were preaching. Acts 2 records the Day of Pentecost in which Christians were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. Due to the mocking of Jews, Peter stands up and gives an explanation of what was occurring. In his explanation, Peter mentions how the Jews had put Jesus to death by crucifixion (Acts 2:23). This scene in Acts 2 takes place only fifty days after Christ’s death. To assume that a legend could arise so soon, while a multitude of eyewitnesses were still living, presses one beyond the point of reason. Thus, while Asad makes the claim that the story of the crucifixion did not arise until “long after the time of Jesus,” the evidence strongly contradicts his assertion.

Lastly, as with the previous two interpretations, to deny Christ’s death puts one at odds with well-established history. If this interpretation is correct, the Quran is at odds with the historical fact of Christ’s death.

Physical Death

The rejection of Christ’s death by crucifixion seems to be for theological rather than historical reasons. This can be seen in Abdalati’s question: “Does the [Christian] belief of crucifixion and blood sacrifice appear in any religion apart from pagan creeds or the early Greeks, Romans, Indians, Persians, and the like?”[50] Because Muslims reject the Christian belief in Christ’s atonement on the cross, it leaves many Muslims feeling they must reject the death on the cross entirely. But Ayoub does not believe this is the case.[51] One can accept Christ’s death on the cross without accepting that his death was offered as an atonement for man’s sin. Thus, a final way to interpret Surah 4 is to accept the death of Jesus on the cross as described in the Gospels. Several Muslim scholars hold this view including Mahmoud Ayoub, Khalil Andani, and Gabriel Reynolds. These scholars believe the key to interpreting the passage correctly is understanding the context.

Before one can understand this interpretation, some important background information is required. The two major branches of Islam are Sunni and Shi’ite. Within the Shi’ite branch is a subgroup known as Ismaili Islam. According to this branch, Jesus died physically on the cross, but not spiritually.[52] Ismaili teaches that the first creation of Allah was the Universal Intellect.[53] Each of Allah’s prophets have two natures, “a created human nature and an eternal divine nature.”[54] This eternal divine nature is the Universal Intellect. In other words, each prophet of Allah “is the locus of manifestation of the Universal Intellect.”[55] Christians should be careful not to confuse this with the incarnation found in Christian theology. Ismaili philosophy rejects the incarnation.[56] The Ismaili view is much more closely related to the Christian heresy known as Nestorianism, which proclaimed that Christ not only had two natures but was also two distinct persons. Ismaili Islam teaches that each prophet had two distinct natures, one being the human nature and the other being the Universal Intellect.[57] Based on the Ismaili understanding, Jesus truly did die on the cross, but it was only his physical body that died and not the Universal Intellect, or as Ayoub would call it, “The divine Word.”[58] Thus, the statement it “appeared to them” in Surah 4:157 is taken to refer to Christ’s physical body, while “they killed him not, nor did they crucify him” is taken to refer to the inward manifestation of the Universal Intellect.[59]

Another aspect of Surah 4, according to this interpretation, is a rebuke of the Jews boasting that they had killed Jesus. The Jews incorrectly thought that they had outsmarted Allah by killing his prophet. But it was Allah’s plan all along for Jesus to die and be raised to him. Only Allah has the power to give and take life. Thus, while it appeared to the Jews that they were the ones who had taken Jesus’ life, Allah had outsmarted them by allowing them to play right into his plans.[60] As Khalil Andani states,

The Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion must be understood in its proper context: the Qur’an is only denying that the People of the Book crucified Jesus – and this appears to be in response to their boasting to have done so. A neutral reader may easily conclude that the Qur’an intends to say that the death of Jesus was ultimately due to God’s will and not the desires of those who may have actually killed him.[61]

Ayoub adds, “Thus the denial of the killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of men to vanquish and destroy the divine Word, which is forever victorious.”[62]

The strength of this view is that it seeks to be consistent with the context of Surah 4 and well-established history, namely Christ’s death by crucifixion. However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars reject this interpretation. The entire foundation of this view is built on the Gnostic-like philosophy of Ismaili teaching, which most Muslims reject. Thus, while this interpretation would allow one to be consistent with history, it seems it would cause conflicts in other areas of Islamic understanding.

Additionally, this reading seems to reject the plain reading of the text and require one to spiritualize the passage. As Ayoub states, Surah 4:156-158 “belongs not to history but to theology in the broadest sense.”[63] If this interpretation is correct, it means the overwhelming majority of Muslims down through the centuries have misinterpreted Surah 4. But is this a tenable position? Why would Allah provide revelation so ambiguously as to allow the vast majority of Muslims to be misled for centuries regarding one of the most well-established facts of one of his prophets? Or perhaps the traditional understanding held by the majority of Muslims is correct and the Ismaili interpretation is a small minority for a reason.

Conclusion

Should Christian apologists claim that the Quran denies Christ’s death by crucifixion, and is therefore historically inaccurate? While the vast majority of Muslims believe the Quran rejects the crucifixion of Jesus, Christian apologists should be careful not to overstate the case. The Ismaili interpretation of Surah 4:156-158 is consistent with the historical fact of Christ’s death by crucifixion. Therefore, it could be that the Quran is consistent with history on this issue. However, since the vast majority of Muslims believe the passage rejects Christ’s death, it could also very well be that the Quran is in contradiction to known history. Whether Surah 4 is at odds with history depends on which interpretation is correct. Since the proper interpretation is uncertain, Christian apologists should not claim that ‘the Quran denies Christ’s death by crucifixion.’ Instead, Christian apologists should understand the view of the audience they are speaking to. If the audience holds to the substitution, swoon, or legend interpretations, the Christian apologist is well within his rights to proclaim that ‘if their understanding is correct, then the Quran is historically inaccurate.’ Yet, if the audience holds to some form of the Ismaili interpretation, the Christian apologist should not claim that the Quran is historically inaccurate regarding Christ’s death. Therefore, due to the ambiguity of Surah 4, the Christian apologist must carefully distinguish between an interpretation of the Quran and what the Quran actually teaches.

[1] James White, What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2013), 137.

[2] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.

[3] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2015), 3014.

[4] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, chapter 24, section 4.

[5] See Second Treatise of the Great Seth and The Apocalypse of Peter.

[6] Mahmoud M. Ayoub, “Towards an Islamic Christology, II: The Death of Jesus, Reality or Delusion,” The Muslim World, Vol. LXX No. 2 (April 1980): 95, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1980.tb03405.x.

[7] Ibid, 113.

[8] Ibid, 98.

[9] Ibid, 98.

[10] Ibid, 96.

[11] Ibid, 98.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Let the Quran Speak, “The Crucifixion of Jesus,” March 19, 2013, YouTube video, 12:14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT_iz61US-g.

[14] Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 5th Ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 72.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Surah 32:7.

[17] Ayoub, “Islamic Christology,” 96.

[18] Ibid, 97.

[19] Ibid, 96.

[20] Cameron Bertuzzi, “Was Jesus Crucified? Christian vs. Muslim Debate,” Capturing Christianity, April 5, 2023, YouTube video, 2:04:04. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-KHv55Qro&t=20s.

[21] Ayoub, “Islamic Christology,” 104.

[22] Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd Ed (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 2002), 287-288. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 48-49.

[23] Nasr, The Study Quran, 3014. 

[24] The Gospel of Barnabas provides the view that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus.

[25] Ahmed Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction (Tafheem, 2022), 414, Kindle.

[26] Let the Quran Speak, “The Crucifixion of Jesus.”

[27] Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction, 449, Kindle.

[28] Ibid, 449, Kindle.

[29] Ibid, 459, Kindle; Let the Quran Speak, “The Crucifixion of Jesus”; Matthew 27:62-64.

[30] Let the Quran Speak, “The Crucifixion of Jesus.”

[31] Ibid.

[32] John 19:34.

[33] Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction, 505, Kindle.

[34] William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 255 No. 11 (March 1986): 1463, http:// doi:10.1001/jama.1986.03370110077025.

[35] Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 281.

[36] Habermas and Licona, Resurrection, 102.

[37] 1 Corinthians 15:3.

[38] Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an (London, UK: The Book Foundation, 2008), 199.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid, 199-200.

[43] For a defense of the reliability of the Gospels, see Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016).

[44] Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, 199.

[45] Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (New York, NY: Crown Publishing, 2016), 84.

[46] Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2016), 17-18.

[47] Pitre, The Case for Jesus, 85.

[48] Ibid, 84-101.

[49] Jack W. Hayford, New Spirit Filled Life Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002).

[50] Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam, 290.

[51] Ayoub, “Islamic Christology,” 116.

[52] Khalil Andani, “They Killed Him Not: The Crucifixion in Shi’a Isma’ili Islam,” (2011): 6.

[53] Ibid, 5.

[54] Ibid, 6.

[55] Ibid, 5.

[56] Ibid, 8.

[57] Ibid, 7.

[58] Ibid, 8; Ayoub, “Islamic Christology,” 16.

[59] Andani, “Crucifixion in Shi’a Isma’ili Islam,” 10.

[60] Gabriel Said Reynolds, “The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 72 No. 2 (January 2009): 252-256, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40379003.

[61] Andani, “Crucifixion in Shi’a Isma’ili Islam,” 2.

[62] Ayoub, “Islamic Christology,” 117.

[63] Ibid, 116.