Did Allah Say The Jews Did Not Kill Jesus?

Muslims deny that Christ died by crucifixion. They do so in spite of the historical proof of it, attested to by non Christians and atheists. A large portion of Muslims disbelieve this historical fact based upon some statements in the Quran which they interpret to mean that Christ was saved from crucifixion by Allah putting in his place a substitute so that he only "appeared" to have been the one crucified. If this is true, then Allah is the reason why Christians have been duped into believing that Christ was crucified from a false gospel record.

Furthermore, Allah, through Muhammad, told the Christians in his days to judge themselves by the gospel. But, if the gospel had been corrupted prior to the time of Muhammad, then ergo the Christians were being advised by Allah and Muhammad to abide by a false gospel. That is one of the dilemmas of Islam. So we read in the Quran:

"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious" (Quran 5:47). 

How could people of the Gospel judge by the Gospel if it had been corrupted and so much added to it? Also, since Allah promises to preserve his word, whether in the Torah, Gospels, or Quran, how can a Muslim say the Gospel has been altered and changed? The Gospel that was in existence in the days of Muhammad is the same Gospel we have today, and in it the crucifixion is testified to.

Here is the chief text in the Quran that Muslims think denies the crucifixion of Christ.

"They were condemned for breaking their covenant, rejecting Allah’s signs, killing the prophets unjustly, and for saying, “Our hearts are unreceptive!”—it is Allah Who has sealed their hearts for their disbelief, so they do not believe except for a few—and for their denial and outrageous accusation against Mary, and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise." (Surah 4:155-158; See here)

However, as we will see, this text is capable of being interpreted in a manner where the crucifixion of Christ is not denied. Many Christians who debate Muslims point these things out.

First of all, it seems that the above passage contradicts this passage in the same Quran.

"Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow thee [far] above those who are bent on denying the truth, unto the Day of Resurrection. In the end, unto Me you all must return, and I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were wont to differ." (Surah 3: 55; See here)

The apparent conflict arises from the various meanings of the Arabic word mutawaffika in Surah 3:55. This Web Page (here) gives the many different translations of that text. It seems clear to me that the word means just exactly as it is often translated by Muslims themselves, and means "I will cause thee to die."

Further, in the Quran we are given these words that were said to be spoken by Jesus:

"Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!” (Surah 19: 33)

So, the question is not whether Jesus died, but did he die by crucifixion, and if so, why? Christians believe that it was in order that Jesus might die as a sacrifice for sin, and to take the punishment due to sinners. In this way God is just, for transgression must be punished (though Muslims deny this), and also merciful and forgiving, based upon that sacrifice, so that those who receive the sacrifice, atonement, or propitiation, may be saved.

Other Interpretations of Surah 3: 55

Surah 3: 55 is capable of several interpretations and so is not a clear proof that Allah is denying that Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Also, if it means that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, then the Quran contradicts itself and denies what is an historical fact, as we have stated. Here are other possible interpretations:

1) When Allah says "but they (the Jews who boasted that they had killed Jesus and that this proved that he was not the Messiah per the context) neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that they did not kill him entirely, for only his body died and not his soul, even as the Quran teaches. Jesus also himself spoke of those who "kill the body but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. 10: 28).

2) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that it was really not the Jews who killed him, but God, for even texts in the Quran uphold this principle. In Surah 8: 17, in commenting upon Muslims who killed unbelievers in battle, Allah says "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them." So, when Surah 3: 55 says "they neither killed nor crucified him" it could mean that it was God who killed Jesus and that the Jews were merely his instruments. This would be what the Bible itself teaches. Further, as we have seen, Allah in the Quran says "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die."

3) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant just what Jesus meant when he said "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes 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 command I have received from My Father.” (John 10: 17-18 nkjv)

4) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that their boast was untrue, that their thinking that their killing Jesus proved that he was not the Messiah was untrue.

5) The text could also mean "they did not kill him" because Allah raised him from the dead, and this is what is meant when the text says "Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself." Raised him from what? Was it not from the dead, and then later from the earth via the ascension into heaven?

There are some good debates on YouTube between Muslims and Christians. The best debaters for Christians, in my opinion, are Sam Shamoun, David Wood, and James White. Here are some introductory videos that are good.

"The Quran DOESN'T Say What Muslims Think It Says!" by David Wood, a man who has had many debates with Muslims and is an expert on the Christian versus Muslim debate. (See here)

"What the Quran REALLY Says about the Gospel" by David Wood (here)

What The Quran Says About the Gospels

Wrote one source (See here)

"The crux of the argument is this: The Quran affirms the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the New Testament Gospels; yet the Quran also contradicts the Gospels on major theological and historical points. Therefore, the Quran cannot be reliable."

"He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." (Quran 3: 3)

Said the source in commentary upon such texts in the Quran:

"These Scriptures from God were available and trustworthy when the Qur’an was revealed in the 7th century A.D., and those who had access to them were repeatedly told to obey them, judge by them, submit to their teaching, and stand fast upon them."

Qur’an 5:47 says, “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

"Furthermore, Qur’an 5:68 states, “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord’” (see also 6:114; 3:3-4)."

Under "THE PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL" the same source says:

"If the Gospels were trustworthy in the 600s AD, then they are certainly trustworthy today because our extant manuscripts pre-date the Qur’an by centuries. Perhaps even more significant for Muslims is the Qur’an’s statement that no one can change the words of Allah.[3]"

Qur’an 6:115 says, “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing” (see also 18:27)."

The same source makes this commentary on these Quranic texts:

"If the Gospels are the words of God, and no one can change God’s words, then the Gospels must also have been perfectly preserved by God. Otherwise, the Qur’an is wrong."

"Here’s the dilemma for Muslims: If the Gospels are not trustworthy, then the Qur’an is false because it teaches that the Gospels are the inspired, perfectly preserved, authoritative words of God. But if the Gospels are trustworthy, then the Qur’an is false because it teaches contradictory, mutually exclusive facts about key issues. Either way, the Qur’an is false."

"While these verses and others (2:75; 4:46; 5:13; 3:187) do teach that people falsified the Scriptures for money and concealed the truth even though they knew it, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that teaches the Christian Scriptures have been permanently corrupted, with their message ultimately lost to history."

 

Spurgeon on the Ordo Salutis

The following is another proof that Charles Spurgeon did not believe, at least in his older and more mature years, that people were regenerated, or had spiritual life, before they believed. In his sermon "Life in Christ" (December 31, 1870; See here) he said:

"It is a distinguishing mark of a true follower of Jesus that he sees his Lord and Master when he is not to be seen by the bodily eye; he sees him intelligently and spiritually; he knows his Lord, discerns his character, apprehends him by faith, gazes upon him with admiration as our first sight of Christ brought us into spiritual life, for we looked unto him and were saved, so it is by the continuance of this spiritual sight of Christ that our spiritual life is consciously maintained. We lived by looking, we live still by looking. Faith is still the medium by which life comes to us from the life-giving Lord."

"As surely as I have this day eternal life by reason of faith in Christ Jesus, so surely shall I reach its fullness when Christ who is my life shall appear."

Many think that Calvinists all believe that regeneration precedes faith. But, this is an error. I have numerous articles in this blog and in the Baptist Gadfly blog which shows that many Calvinists as Spurgeon did not believe it, contending rather that sinners are born again, or obtain spiritual life, by faith. This was even the view of John Calvin.

 

A. H. Strong On Union With Christ

A.H. Strong

(1836 - 1921)

“that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”

(Ephesians 3: 17)

In "Union With Christ - The Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual Beginning" by Baptist theologian Dr. Augustus Hopkins Strong, we find the following worthy citations (emphasis mine). 

"Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion (embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only “in Christ” that man is “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) or is “justified” (Acts 13:39), union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him." (here)

This has been the ordo salutis I have contended for over the past many years. Union with Christ occurs before regeneration, conversion, and justification and union with Christ is by faith, so faith must precede regeneration just like justification. All follows faith union with Christ. All Arminians believe this and many Calvinists also, including John Calvin and those Particular Baptists who wrote the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. It is only the Hyper Calvinist, or Hyper leaning Calvinist that wants to say that union with Christ precedes faith and regeneration.

Strong says further:

"Regeneration will involve repentance and faith and justification and sanctification." 

That is true, but faith must take logical priority since it is the the thing that unites a person to Christ, and there can be no regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, etc., prior to being in Christ.

Strong says further:

"See A. A. Hodge, on the Ordo Salutis, in Princeton Rev., March, 1888:304–321. Union with Christ, says Dr. Hodge, “is effected by the Holy Ghost in effectual calling. Of this calling the parts are two: (a) the offering of Christ to the sinner, externally by the gospel, and internally by the illumination of the Holy Ghost; (b) the reception of Christ, which on our part is both passive and active. The passive reception is that whereby a spiritual principle is ingenerated into the human will, whence issues the active reception, which is an act of faith with which repentance is always conjoined. The communion of benefits which results from this union involves: (a) a change of state or relation, called justification; and (b) a change of subjective moral character, commenced in regeneration and completed through sanctification.” See also Dr. Hodge’s Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, 340, and Outlines of Theology, 333–429."

Dr. A.A. Hodge was a Calvinist theologian whom I have cited before as having insisted, as I do, that justification by faith must precede regeneration. (See here) Those Hyper Calvinists who say first regeneration, second faith, third justification and sanctification, have a problem with where to put union with Christ and of the adverse consequences of putting it anywhere but at the head. Some do this, such as the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists, but will say that union with Christ is not by means of faith, saying rather that union with Christ occurs apart from faith. They would say vital union with Christ precedes faith. Many Calvinists, along with Arminians, will say however that union with Christ is by faith (as the text at the head of this article says).

There must be a receiving of Christ by the sinner before there can be effects or fruits of that union, such as forgiveness, justification, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, etc. Communion follows union. 

Strong says further:

"H. B. Smith, however, in his System of Christian Theology, is more clear in the putting of Union with Christ before Regeneration. On page 502, he begins his treatment of the Application of Redemption with the title: “The Union between Christ and the individual believer as effected by the Holy Spirit. This embraces the subjects of Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification, with the underlying topic which comes first to be considered, Election.” He therefore treats Union with Christ (531–539) before Regeneration (553–569). He says Calvin defines regeneration as coming to us by participation in Christ, and apparently agrees with this view (559)."

Those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith must affirm that union with Christ follows regeneration and that union is not by faith, or say that regeneration does not result from union. Which horn of that dilemma do they want to take? Many Calvinists do not say that regeneration precedes faith and therefore those folks who say "Calvinism puts regeneration before faith" state what is not true of all Calvinists.

Strong says further:

“This union [with Christ] is at the ground of regeneration and justification” (534). “The great difference of theological systems comes out here. Since Christianity is redemption through Christ, our mode of conceiving that will determine the character of our whole theological system” (536)."

These words of the learned doctor are powerful and true. 

Strong says further:

"The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral influence,—a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the head."

So Strong believes, as a moderate Calvinist, that union with Christ precedes the reception of spiritual life. If one does not possess Christ (union), then he is not spiritually alive. The apostle John affirmed this important fundamental truth when he said "whoever has the Son has life, whoever does not have the Son does not have life." (I John 5: 12) How does one "have the Son"? Is it not by "receiving the Son" by faith? Is not "receiving" in the active voice? Jesus said that one must "come to him" (by faith) in order to have spiritual life. (John 5: 43) It is absurd for the Hardshells to teach that many born again folks who possess Christ know nothing about him, much less believe in him! 

Strong says further:

"Union with Christ is not union with a system of doctrine, nor with external religious influences, nor with an organized church, nor with an ideal man,—but rather, with a personal, risen, living, omnipresent Lord (J. W. A. Stewart). Dr. J. W. Alexander well calls this doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ “the central truth of all theology and of all religion.” Yet it receives little of formal recognition, either in dogmatic treatises or in common religious experience. Quenstedt, 886–912, has devoted a section to it; A. A. Hodge gives to it a chapter, in his Outlines of Theology, 369 sq., to which we are indebted for valuable suggestions; H. B. Smith treats of it, not however as a separate topic, but under the head of Justification (System, 531–539)."

Many Calvinists put faith before regeneration or the new birth.

Strong says further:

"The majority of printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no chapter or section on Union with Christ, and the majority of Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Savior outside of them, than as a Savior who dwells within. This comparative neglect of the doctrine is doubtless a reaction from the exaggerations of a false mysticism. But there is great need of rescuing the doctrine from neglect. For this we rely wholly upon Scripture. Doctrines which reason can neither discover nor prove need large support from the Bible. It is a mark of divine wisdom that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is so inwoven with the whole fabric of the New Testament, that the rejection of the former is the virtual rejection of the latter. The doctrine of Union with Christ, in like manner, is taught so variously and abundantly, that to deny it is to deny inspiration itself. See Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, 3:447–450."

I find that this is true. I find that those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith stumble over the issue of union with Christ and how it affects their views on the ordo salutis.

Strong says further:

"Direct statements. (a) The believer is said to be in Christ. 

 

Lest we should regard the figures mentioned above as merely Oriental metaphors, the fact of the believer’s union with Christ is asserted in the most direct and prosaic manner. John 14:20—“ye in me”; Rom. 6:11—“alive unto God in Christ Jesus”; 8:1—“no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus”; 2 Cor. 5:17—“if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature”; Eph. 1:4—“chose us in him before the foundation of the world”; 2:13—“now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.” Thus the believer is said to be “in Christ,” as the element or atmosphere which surrounds him with its perpetual presence and which constitutes his vital breath; in fact, this phrase “in Christ,” always meaning “in union with Christ,” is the very key to Paul’s epistles, and to the whole New Testament. The fact that the believer is in Christ is symbolized in baptism: we are “baptised into Christ” (Gal. 3:27)." 

I have written before on how the Bible shows that people "believe into Christ." See my posting on this (here). 

Strong says further:

"Only faith receives and retains Christ; and faith is the act of the soul grasping what is purely invisible and supersensible: not the act of the body, submitting to Baptism or partaking of the Supper."

That is my view and the view of the oldest Calvinists, such as those who wrote the 1689 London Confession of Faith. It is what the Bible plainly teaches.

Strong says further:

"Faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which, under the operation of God, Christ is received...Faith is the soul’s laying hold of Christ as its only source of life, pardon, and salvation."

Again, that is what the Bible clearly teaches I believe.

Strong says further:

"We append a few statements with regard to this union and its consequences, from noted names in theology and the church. Luther: “By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst say: ‘I am Christ,—that is, Christ’s righteousness, victory, etc., are mine; and Christ in turn can say: ‘I am that sinner,—that is, his sin, his death, etc., are mine, because he clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith into one flesh and bone.’ ” Calvin; “I attribute the highest importance to the connection between the head and the members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.” John Bunyan: “The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one, then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once—in heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life, though on earth by my body or person.” Edwards: “Faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to a union’s being established between two intelligent active beings, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another.” Andrew Fuller: “I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s sake, where there is no union or relation between.”

All these great Calvinists, with the exception of Fuller, did not put regeneration before faith. Fuller taught that regeneration was begun before faith but was not completed until a person believed. Many Calvinists of the past taught that there was a "strict" or "narrow" definition of "regeneration" and a more "broad" definition of it. Many of them confused God's pre-regeneration work with regeneration itself, putting regeneration too early in the process. This is what Fuller was apt to do and Alexander Campbell strongly objected to his doing so.