My God is so great that He died?! Jesus’ death on the cross

Jesus’ death on the cross for sin

Good Friday is the remembrance of Jesus’ death on the cross for the sins of His people.

One of the issues Muslims confuse about Christianity is the difference between history and doctrine:

• Jesus’ death on the cross is history.
• Jesus’ death on the cross for sin is doctrine.

For Christianity, history and doctrine are related; in fact, Christian doctrine flows from God’s work in history.  Christian doctrine could be wrong, but this would not change what happened in history.  As we will see below, the distinction between history and doctrine is of the utmost importance for Christian and Muslim dialogue.

Agreement between orthodox Muslims and orthodox Christians.

One important historical fact Orthodox Muslims and Christians agree about is that Jesus’ physical body is no longer on the earth, but in heaven. ¹Muslims scholars differ about whether Jesus’ body is dead or alive and the nature of the life He now lives.  However, they do agree that His physical body is not on the earth.

The late Sheikh Jadul-Haq `Ali Jadul-Haq, former Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt, said,

A sound belief of every Muslim should be that Jesus was taken up and saved from killing and crucifixion. Anyone who believes in the idea that Jesus was killed and crucified can no longer be called a Muslim.

 

As for Jesus’ being taken up, whether dead or alive and the nature of the life he is now leading, scholars hold different views in this regard, as this is not decisively established in the Qur’an. The majority of scholars adopt the view that Jesus is still alive in the heavens and leading a life the nature of which we do not really know.

Allah Almighty has mentioned to us that Jesus was taken up to the heavens and said: (Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself (bal Rafa`ahu Allahu ilayhi); and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.)(An-Nisa’ 4:158) He mentioned not that he has come back to the earth. Those who claim that he has come back to earth are asked to offer evidence for their claims. If they are not able to bring about any evidence, they are to know that their claims are groundless. ²Both Citations are from Islam Online 

If only Sheik M.S. Al-Munajjid applied these last two sentences to the Muslim rejection of Jesus’ death on the cross!

Muslims and Christians agree on the historical fact of Jesus’ ascension into heaven; however, a major departure between Christianity and Islam concerns Jesus’ death on the cross.  Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross.  This leads to a historical problem: The 1st century Christians who testified to Jesus’ ascension into heaven also testified to His death on the cross and the burial of His dead body. ³Muslims insist that they honor Jesus as a great Prophet.  It would therefore be most fascinating to see how an orthodox Muslim argued for their historical belief that the body of Jesus is now in heaven.  Source: IslamOnline

Is it rational to reject the historic event of Jesus’ death on the cross?  Are Muslims consistent in accepting the 1st century testimony concerning Jesus’ ascension into heaven but rejecting the same testimony to Jesus’ death on the cross?

The death of Jesus on the cross is an historical event.

There is substantial evidence for the historic event of Jesus’ death on the cross:

• The Old Testament prophets testified to Jesus’ death.  
• Jesus testified to His death on multiple occasions. 
• Eyewitnesses testified to the death of Jesus on the cross.
• Even non-Christian sources wrote that Jesus died:

Josephus (Jewish historian born around 37 AD and died 100 AD) refers to Jesus’ death (Antiquities 18.3.3).   

Tacitus (AD 55-120), a renowned historian of ancient Rome wrote around 115 A.D. that Christ was “executed” by Pilate (Annals15.44). ⁴Cornelius Tacitus [is] generally considered the greatest Roman historian. The Annals is Tacitus’s last (and unfinished) work. Dating from around 116, it treats events during the years 14-68 (from the death of Augustus through Nero) in either sixteen or eighteen books. It also survives only in parts, with only Books 1-4 and 12-15 intact. The Annals is Tacitus’s finest work and generally acknowledged by modern historians as our best source of information about this period.

Chapters 38 through 45 of Annals describe the great fire in Rome and its aftermath in the year 64, an issue that entails introducing Christians and Christ to his readers. Tacitus begins Chapter 44 with purposeful ambiguity. He first lists the official acts to cope with the aftermath of the fire, presumably carried out under Nero’s direction. The Roman gods were appeased by special ceremonies. The Sibylline books of prophecy were consulted, resulting in further prayers to Vulcan, Ceres, Proserpine, and Juno. Ritual dinners and all-night vigils were held by married women. Then Tacitus reveals the reason for these measures:

But neither human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.

Of all Roman authors, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ. But what he explicitly says about Christ is confined to the beginning of one sentence in 15.44.3: “The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” His most likely source of information about Christ is his own dealing with Christians, directly or indirectly. Yet in his sparse but accurate detail, Tacitus gives the strongest evidence outside the New Testament for the death of Jesus. His brief mention of Christ may fairly be claimed to corroborate some key elements of the New Testament account. (Robert E. Van Voorst).

The death of Jesus on the cross is accepted by religious and non-religious historians.

“No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria” (Craig A. Evans, “The Shout of Death”, in Troy A. Miller, Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009, p. 3).

“…although they cannot be demonstrated by mathematical calculations, repeated scientific experiments, or philosophical logic, historical truths can certainly be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Mathematical calculations cannot demonstrate the existence and career of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC. But, the converging historical evidence would make it absurd to deny that he lived to change the political and cultural face of the Middle East. We cannot ‘run the film backwards’ to regain contact with the past by literally reconstructing and repeating the assassination of Julius Caesar in the first century BC or the crucifixion of Jesus almost a hundred years later. Such historical events cannot be re-enacted in the way we can endlessly repeat scientific experiments in a laboratory. But, once again only the lunatic fringe would cast doubt on these two violent deaths. A priori logic cannot demonstrate the existence of St Augustine of Hippo (354–430). But, to deny his existence and massive impact on subsequent European thought and culture would be to exclude yourself from normal academic discussion about the history of Western ideas. The available data let us know a great deal that went on in the past, including the distant past, even if—from the nature of the case—we cannot (and, in fact, should not try to) demonstrate our conclusions along the lines appropriate to mathematics, the natural sciences, and philosophy. There are very many historically certain truths from which we can argue and draw conclusions” (Gerald O’Collins, Easter Faith: Believing in the Risen Jesus, 34).

The Quran’s denial of Jesus’ death on the cross is irrational.

Muhammad’s claim that Jesus did not die on the cross came 600 years after the event and hundreds of miles away.

Muhammad’s claim about the crucifixion is confusing – even to Muslims as it does not give clarity to who was crucified:

• Some Muslims believe Jesus was crucified but did not die on the cross.
• Some Muslims believe Jesus was not put on the cross at all, but was taken up to heaven.  Somebody else was crucified in Jesus’ place; although, there are differences of opinion about who this other somebody was.
• Some Muslims believe Jesus was crucified on the cross, was placed in a tomb, revived, and died in India at the age of 120.

Four Muslim responses to Islam’s irrational rejection of history:

1. Some Muslims make up history by appealing to the Gospel of Barnabas.

The Gospel of Barnabas appears to have been written in the 16th century AD.  Appeal to the Gospel of Barnabas is common to Ahmadiyya Muslims (see Gospel of Barnabas).

2. Muslims have tried to undermine the reliability of the Bible by using the arguments of critical scholarship.

Critical scholarship of the Bible does not reject Jesus’ death on the cross; in fact, one of the most critical scholars of the New Testament, Robert Funk, admitted the crucifixion and death of Jesus is an “indisputable fact”. ⁵Quoted in William Lane Craig, “Is Uncertainty a Sound Foundation for Religious Tolerance”; Religious Tolerance Through Humility, 24

Using the arguments of critical scholarship is a double edged sword for at least three reasons: 1. Critical scholarship accepts the historicity of Jesus’ death on the cross; 2. Critical scholarship rejects the Jesus’ Virgin Birth and miracles – something both Christians and Muslims believe; 3. Critical scholarship has not been favorable to Islamic revelation (e.g. John Wansbrough).

3. Muslims have tried undermining the reliability of the Bible by pointing to variants in the manuscript tradition.

This is  a red herring argument.

It is true that the Bible has a textual tradition and that not all manuscripts are in agreement.  However, not even the most critical textual scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, would argue from manuscript variants that Jesus never died on the cross.  

If Muslims are going to appeal to the manuscript tradition of the Bible, then they need manuscript evidence denying Jesus’ death on the cross.  Just because manuscripts differ does not mean that the history of Jesus’ death on the cross never happened.

Muslims need to answer the following types of questions:

1. Who changed the Biblical teaching about the crucifixion and death of Jesus?
2. When did the change occur and why?
3. What manuscript evidence do you have for such a change?

The New Testament manuscript tradition affirms the historical event of Jesus’ death on the cross.

Muslim views of the manuscript history of the Christian Scriptures may be overlooking the history of the Quran.  Although it is very controversial, the Quran has a history which is evidenced in it’s compilation after Muhammad’s death and may be evidenced by manuscripts discovered in Yemen. ⁶On Saudi Muslim scholar wrote concerning the possible variants in Quranic manuscripts, “Only the writings of a practicing Muslim are worthy of our attention….Muslim views on the Holy Book must remain firm: It is the Word of Allah, constant, immaculate, unalterable and inimitable.”

This refusal to consider history and hard evidence is irrational.

4. Muslims have argued that the Christian position doesn’t make sense.

Muslims sometimes argue against the historicity of Jesus’ death on the cross with doctrinal arguments:

• It is illogical for somebody to be punished for something they did not do.
• How can God have a Son?
• How could God die?

This kind of argumentation confuses history and doctrine. ⁷J. Gresham Machen wrote,

“The primitive Church was concerned not merely with what Jesus had said, but also, and primarily, with what Jesus had done. The world was to be redeemed through the proclamation of an event. And with the event went the meaning of the event; and the setting forth of the event with the meaning of the event was doctrine. These two elements are always combined in the Christian message. The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. “Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried”–that is history. “He loved me and gave Himself for me”–that is doctrine. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church” (Christianity and Liberalism, 29).

It doesn’t follow that just because Christian doctrine doesn’t make sense to Muslims that therefore the historical event never took place.  Christian doctrine could be wrong but the historical event would still be true.

Furthermore, Christians believe in God’s greatness.  God works in history, God reveals the meaning of what He has done, and just because I cannot fully explain or understand God’s work does not mean it never happened (Romans 11:33-36).

Answering a doctrinal objection Muslims have about Christian doctrine

I don’t have a problem answering doctrinal questions and objections.  However, doctrine should not obscure history.  Having established the distinction between history and doctrine, let’s look at a doctrinal question Jesus’ death on the cross raises.

Christians believe:  

• Jesus is truly God and man.
• Jesus died on the cross.

This leads to the following doctrinal question theologians have wrestled with for centuries:  

Did God die on the cross?  Can God die?    

Over the centuries, different answers have been give to the question, “How can God die on the cross.”  John Calvin’s classical statement is the soundest and most succinct I am aware of,

In short, since neither as God alone could he feel death, nor as man alone could he overcome it, he coupled human nature with divine that to atone for sin he might submit the weakness of the one to death; and that, wrestling with death by the power of the other nature, he might win victory for us (Institutes of the Christian Religion II,xii,3).  

In conclusion, rejecting history because of doctrine or some alleged revelation is irrational.  Islam faces an additional doctrinal burden because its revelation contradicts previous revelation from God.

You May Also Be Interested In:

The New Testament was revealed from heaven after Jesus died on the cross, was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. The Qur’anic Injeel has never existed (Quran 5:46-47)

Did God Die on the Cross?