Did Jesus Die on A Cross?

Islam, one of the fastest growing religions in the world, does not believe Jesus died on a cross. As a matter of fact, Islam disagrees with the New Testament teaching that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. In Sura (chapter) 4:157-158, the Qur’an clearly denies the crucifixion:

      That they said, “We killed Christ Jesus the son    

      of Mary, the Apostle of God” – 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 knowledge, But only
      conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed
      him not: - Nay, God raised him up Unto
      Himself; and God Is exalted in power, wise.

Muslim scholar Sulaiman Mufasir, summarized the heart of the Islamic view when he said: “Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but God saved him from their plot” (A Prophet of Islam. Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1980, page 5).

 
At this point, the issue is not if Jesus died for our sins – it is, did Jesus die as the New Testament said He did? It is an issue of historical accuracy, not theological interpretation. As a matter of fact, if Jesus did not die on the cross as stated in the New Testament then our theological conclusions about the cross are false.
 
Many Muslims cite The Gospel of Barnabas in defense of their anti-cross teaching. For instance, Suzanne Haneef, in commenting on The Gospel of Barnabas says, “Within it one finds the living Jesus portrayed far more vividly and in character with the mission with which he was entrusted than any other of the four New Testament Gospels has been able to portray him” (What Everyone Should Know about Islam and Muslims. Chicago: Kazi Pub., 1979, page 186).
 
A key idea in The Gospel of Barnabas is that Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus. Muslims embrace this since they believe that someone else, other than Jesus died on the cross. But this view is outrageous. In the first place, The Gospel of Barnabas is totally discredited among credible scholars. Actually, some Muslim scholars confuse The Gospel of Barnabas with The Epistle of Barnabas. The late first century Epistle of Barnabas was even cited as Scripture by some Christians. The Gospel of Barnabas is a totally different document, written more than 1,000 years later.

To assume that Jesus did not die on a cross is tantamount to challenging the credibility of the New Testament. In order to remain focused I would simply say that to date, the New Testament is by far the most highly documented book from the ancient world. Furthermore, as an ancient document, the New Testament is the most accurately copied book in the world. Even if one were to ignore the teachings of the New Testament, there is enough non-biblical sources to confirm Jesus’ crucifixion.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote in his “Antiquities of the Jews”, “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross” (Josepheus: Complete Works. Kregal Publications, 1963, page 379).

 

Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, wrote: “a wise man who was called Jesus…Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die” (Annals, 15:44). Similar quotations can cited from first century historian Thallus, second century Greek writer, Lucian and even the Jewish Talmud.

 
The Old Testament and numerous non-Christian sources confirm that Jesus died as described in the New Testament. In addition, the causes of His death have also been verified among historians. As recent as in March 1986, The Journal of the American Medical Association published an extensive article entitled, On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ (Volume 255. Number 11). In the closing paragraph, the authors concluded: “Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted…interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”
 
As we reflect on the death of Jesus this Easter, we should never lose sight of the fact that His death was not indicative of defeat. It was while on the cross Jesus shouted, “IT IS FINISHED” (John 19:30). Based on a Greek interpretation of the exclamation, Jesus was basically saying, “It has been finished and remains finished forever.” This statement was a declaration of triumph. The statement is also used to mean accomplished.
 
For Christians, the death of Jesus on the cross means no one else needs to die for the sins of the people. His mission was accomplished. Hence, our victory is based on the fact of His death and not on the wishful thinking of believers.

Evidence of Jesus WRITTEN ON STONE

On Wednesday morning (March 14), Judge Aharon Farkash acquitted two defendants of forgery charges in the so-called “forgery case of the century.” Some seven years ago the Israel Antiquities Authority contended that the defendants forged an inscription reading “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” written on a first-century bone box (ossuary).

According to Professor Ben Witherington III, (The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family, p.93) “The discovery of the ossuary may well be the most significant biblical archaeological find of our time and the first-ever physical link to the historical Jesus of the New Testament.” The New York Times believes “this could well be the earliest artifact ever found relating to the existence of Jesus.”

Almost ten years ago I read the story of James’ ossuary in Biblical Archaeology Review (biblicalarchaeology.org [November/December 2002]). Following the article by Epigrapher André Lemaire, I closely followed the charges brought by the Israel Antiquities Authority, alleging that the inscription was forged.

Because the ossuary was purchased from an unauthorized source, and not found in its original setting, some scholars question its authenticity. For this reason, the antiquities dealer who bought the item was accused of forgery. However, after more than five years, 138 witnesses and thousands of pages of testimony, the judge ruled that the writing on the artifact was not forged.

WHAT ARE OSSUARIES?

Ossuaries are bone boxes made of limestone. Following death and entombment, the bones of the deceased were taken and placed in a bone box or ossuary. The ossuary was inscribed with the name of the deceased. This process would take place sometime after one year of entombment. Ossuaries would then be stored in a crypt (vault) like books are stored in a library. Of the roughly 900 catalogued ossuaries from the first century, 250 bear inscriptions.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

To date, we have much papyrus or manuscript evidence of Jesus. The absence of artifactual (objects) evidence has given some scholars reason to question the historicity of Jesus. Like Professor Craig Evans (Jesus and the Ossuaries, p.122), I believe we are in possession of a truly significant artifact that confirms and clarifies several important aspects of the life and impact of James, an important leader in the early church.

Agreed, the ossuary may not convey any new information for Christians, but it does seem to provide further confirmation that the Bible often is speaking of real historical figures and real historical events. Ben Witherington III was correct in concluding that “the ossuary evidently provides us with the earliest physical evidence that Jesus, James and Joseph all existed, and lived as devout early Jews tied to the Holy Land, practicing Jewish burial customs and sharing Aramaic, the spoken language of Jews of that locale.”

Apart from the historical significance of the ossuary, one cannot ignore the fact that it was found in our age of visual and tactile learners. Christians can now submit, a physical artifact, not only manuscripts for discussion.

The fact that James’ ossuary, prepared so long after the death of Jesus, should mention the name of Jesus as the deceased's brother, clearly confirms the increasing interest in the Jesus story. This point is consistent with the findings of credible historians - within 30 years the Christian message had spread to all of the major cities of the Mediterranean.

Here we are, almost 2,000 years later, and the interest in the same Jesus, has not lessened. Leaders who lived during the time of Jesus would have been lost in the pages of history. Our interest in their lives is primarily because they interacted with Jesus.

With Easter approaching, it might be appropriate to ask the question, why has no one found Jesus’ ossuary? Christians contend that would never happen in that Jesus was not in the tomb one year later. By the third day following His death, He was resurrected. An ossuary was never necessary and attempts to find same have proven to be worthless.

In one of his letters, Paul argued, “if Christ (Jesus) has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is [y]our faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). In essence, if anyone ever finds an ossuary belonging to Jesus, Christianity can be considered to be of no use.

The story of Christianity is not information about a dead guru – it is a message of hope about a resurrected Savior. Whereas the message from ossuaries were written on limestone, the message of the resurrected Jesus can be found in credible manuscripts and in the lives of billions of His followers around the world and throughout history.

IS IT TIME FOR…American Sharia Law?

When Muneer Awad challenged the State of Oklahoma on Sharia (Shariah) Law he won the case. He contended that the law discriminated against his religion. For Awad, Sharia Law is a vital part of his religious practice as a Muslim.

Honestly though, what is Sharia Law? Sharia Law, also known as Islamic Law, is the entire body of laws that guides the Muslim believer in this life. The Arabic word SHARIAH, literally means a straight path or an endless supply of water (Quran 45:18). It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle ordained for Muslims. In more practical terms, Sharia includes all the do’s and don’ts of Islam (Shariah: The Threat to America; p. 57).

Muslims believe Sharia Law is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of life, regardless of where one lives. It is a complete way of life from the cradle to the grave. According to Frank Griffel, Professor of Islamic Studies at Yale University, “Sharia…extends to matters con-cerning proprieties of clothing, conduct between spouses, filial piety, behavior at funerals and other questions that Westerners would treat…as moral issues or mere etiquette”.

AUTHORITY OF SHARIA LAW

Sharia Law comes from four sources. The Quran, which is viewed as direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic Law. The second most authoritative source for Sharia is the Sunna – commonly understood to be the actions and sayings of the Prophet Mohammed. Other sources include the Ijma (consensus of the scholars) and the Qiyas (analytical deduction)

As a religion, Islam is not unique in having special laws as a way of life for believers. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and many other religions have specific laws for their followers. If that is so, then why the conflict with Sharia Law? The truth is other religions expect their own followers to observe their own laws within their own religious communities. In addition, other religions recognize the need to function within secular spheres.

Michael Malloy was correct when he argued that most modern industrialized countries expect laws to reflect a kind of civilized minimum, something that all citizens can be expected to accept and obey in their public life. These laws are framed for diverse populations and are deliberately secular in nature. In industrialized countries, secular and religious laws generally exist somewhat apart.

According to Malloy, “Islam does not separate religious and secular spheres”. Traditional Islam is theocratic, seeking the rule of God in all aspects of everyday life. For Muslims, nature is orderly because it follows the laws of God. Similarly, in Islamic thought, God presents human beings with laws of human order. “There cannot be different sets of laws for different human beings; otherwise, chaos would ensue. The laws of God must be obeyed not only because they are his commands but also because they lead to human fulfillment”. For some Muslims, “human fulfillment” would seem more likely in a theocratic form of government.

THEOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

Traditional Islam is theocratic in that it seeks “the rule of God” in all aspects of everyday life, for in its view there is one God and one correct religion. Although every Muslim would not subscribe to this view, the theology provides fuel for radical Islam. Muslims who subscribe to radicalism often embrace Jihadist theology, a worldview that entertains the idea of holy war on dissenters. The impact of their radical ideology is evident in almost every country in the world.

Americans resent all forms of radicalism in Islam and see Shariah Law as one expression of Islamic radicalism. Americans observe what’s happening in non-Muslim countries in Europe where Sharia is being practiced and resent the lifestyle. The security statistics are frightening.

IS SHARIA A THREAT TO AMERICA?

Some religious scholars believe America can develop its own brand of Sharia Law - laws that include guidelines on marriage, worship, property, funerals and other more culturally related issues. The results of a recent study by The Center for Security Policy disagree. The study was designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate opinion of the official characterization and assessments of this Islamic practice. The massive study contended, “although Shariah certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a religious code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political” (Shariah: The Threat to America; p. 2).

Sharia Law in America requires much civil dialog before any attempt at implementation. This is much more than a matter for the courts.             

A THREAT OF Shariah Law IN AMERICA?

A few days ago District Judge Mark Martin threw out an assault case brought against a Muslim who attacked an atheist. The incident occurred last October at the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Halloween parade. Atheist Ernie Perce was attacked by Muslim Talaag Elbayomy, because he was offended that Perce was dressed in a costume portraying the Prophet Mohammed.

 

According to the Harrisburg Patriot-News, Perce, a member of the “Parading Atheists of Central PA,” filed a complaint with police alleging that Elbayomy attacked him during the parade and inflicted bodily harm. Perce further told ABC 27 News, “he grabbed me, choked from the back, spun me around to try to get (my sign: ‘Muhammed of Islam’) off that was wrapped around my neck.”

Judge Martin threw out video evidence of the assault and dismissed the testimony of an eyewitness police officer. Citing a lack of admissible evidence, the Cumberland County judge dismissed the charges that were brought against the Muslim immigrant. The judge contended that the case represented one man’s word against the other and that the video was inadmissible.

Before dismissing the charges, the judge went on to scold Perce, the victim who was attacked and lectured him about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture. The judged alleged in court that the Muslim was obligated to attack the victim because of his culture and religion. According to a transcribed audio recording of Martin’s remarks posted on YouTube by the victim, which was later re-transcribed for clarity by the National Review Online,  the judge told the victim that “what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They (Muslims) find it very, very, very offensive.”

Brigitte Gabriel, author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, says the exonerated Muslim attacker was particularly pleased with the judge’s decision. According to Gabriel, “he was so proud; he said ‘I am setting a precedent because I want to teach my son a lesson that when you see something like this, you set the record straight and you behave violently’.” (One News Now – 03/01/2012.)

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, believes the judge’s “legal views seem grotesquely out of place.” Turley contends that this is an issue of “free speech…the touchstone of our culture.”

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel believes the judge’s decision is an indication of what may be coming to America if Sharia Law is used in our court systems. According to Staver, “this particular judge actually had the audacity to rule in favor of the attacker, saying that the attacker was compelled to attack this individual because it was an insult to Islam and the Prophet Muhammed.”

Staver’s fear was at the core of an amendment before Oklahoma voters in 2010. This amendment: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.” At the ballots in November 2010, some 70% of Oklahomans voted in favor of the amendment. The law was challenged by Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. He argued that the law violated his First Amendment rights – he won.

 

Oklahoma was attempting to be pro-active because of an earlier case in New Jersey where a woman was denied a restraining order from her husband. Following the testimony of an Imam regarding Islamic law, the judge refused to grant the order, because the woman’s husband’s behavior was consistent with their culture and religion. Early last year, in another case, a Florida judge ruled, “this case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law (Shariah Law), pursuant to the Qur’an.” In an upcoming commentary I will provide an in-depth answer to the question, what is Shariah Law?

For now we need to revisit the issue of appropriate ways to handle those who oppose our worldview. Nowhere in the New Testament is violence considered an option as we face opposition. It was Jesus who said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:44). Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians clearly states, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).

Interestingly, it should be noted that next to the atheist portraying the Prophet Mohammed, was another atheist, portraying the Pope. Although very offensive to Christians, the display did not warrant an abusive attack – a passion for civility and the advice of Jesus in the face of opposition prompted a more desirable response.