Surah 4:157 (Part I)

So how do I reconcile the cross with this Surah from the Qur'an? In reality, it's not possible. The Qur'an categorically denies that Jesus died on the cross; thus there is no resurrection.

However, the curious thing about this is that resurrection, prior to Christianity, at the latest, and perhaps during the time in which Daniel was written (accepting the belief that at least part of Daniel was written during the Hasmonean period) at the earliest, there was no belief in the resurrection in Judaism. Perhaps it existed in other religious traditions in some form or other but that did not become manifest, and this differently, until around the time of, and explicitly after, Jesus.

So if in fact this was the message of all those who came before Muhammad, it makes me wonder how it is that the resurrection has always been taught yet is completely absent from the earliest layers of Judaism. And does this mean the Qur'an validates other religious traditions that had a similr belief, such as that of Zoroastrianism and even Buddhism with its belief in reincarnation (arguably, on this premise, a distorted version of the idea of resurrection)?

Anyhow, back to the question at hand. Christian polemicists see in verse 157 a historical account of the events at the cross. It is implying that, no matter how skewed from the main body of Christian belief (i.e. a 'Docetic' gnosticism), the Qur'an actually validates Christian belief, on some level.

This isn't to deny the influence of a 'gnostic' type of Christianity on the Qur'an's view of Jesus (there can be no doubting that whatever Christianity was present in the Hijaz region, Jesus giving life to the birds is found in the Qur'an and in the gnostic writings). But verse 157 is not giving a historical account of what happened.

And Muslim commentators have fallen prey to the same thing, thus their elaborate explanations as to what happened to Jesus. There are many views of what happened to him, the most commonly promoted one being that Judas was placed on the cross in his stead which thus makes Judas a type of hero, a martyr, willingly laying down his life for Jesus.

But this is false also. The influence of Christianity really shows in the commentaries. It is through the commentaries that the idea of Judas being substituted enters in. It is not inherent in the Qur'anic text itself. It is read into the verse and is almost impossible to extract a different meaning once this view is held.

But look at the context of the passage. Beginning in verse 153, it is the Jews about whom the Qur'an speaks. It is not addressed to the Jews (as the Qur'an is for the hearers of Muhammad) but is speaking about the Jews. This continues to verse 162. Verse 157 falls right in the middle of this. It is speaking of wrong views and actions of the Jews; it does not speak of Christian belief. In other words, it simply says they (i.e. the Jews) did not kill Jesus though they brag that they did so, killing him as they had killed other Messengers before. This is the claim the Qur'an refutes.

What "appeared to them" was the event that Jesus was crucified. The Qur'an is silent on what actually happened. When verse 158 says God raised Jesus to himself, this is not a physical raising. That idea is more absurd than the Christian claim as Jesus would physically be alive somewhere in space. This is not the new "glorified" body of which Christians speak but a flesh and bones, earthly Jesus physically residing somewhere in the universe.

And even if, as some claim, the raising was of his soul, that would mean his body died which begins to sound like the Christian claim that his body died on the cross and he was raised alive. It radiates the influence of Christian theology and thus the Muslim scholars' attempted response to these claims.

Surah 19:57 uses the same phrase in regards to Idris (believed to be Elijah). So if Jesus was raised bodily (or even soulically) to heaven, so too was Idris. This, of cousre, is not believed. So why is it believed this is what happened to Jesus? Christian influence.

And of course this opens the door to all the other traditions that are derived from this idea, from the second coming of Jesus (coincidence?), the Dajjal, Gog and Magog, and Jesus dying after a certain period of time when re comes again. That would mean he is 2,000 years old.