The Replacement Theory (or Doppelganger Theory) and the Christian Response

One of the most controversial topics of religious and historical debate between Christians and Muslims is the theory of substitution, which interprets a verse from the Qur'an to mean that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but that his likeness was placed on another person who was crucified in his place.

In this article, we review the origin of this theory and discuss it from a logical, historical, biblical, and theological perspective, relying on Islamic and Christian sources, in a dialogue aimed at mutual understanding and respect.

We aim to show the challenges facing this theory and why it seems inconsistent with God's justice and truthfulness, while presenting historical and biblical evidence that confirms the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and comparing the credibility of the texts of the Qur'an and the Bible.

The origin of the replacement theory and its Islamic source

• The replacement theory is based on the interpretation of the verse of Surat al-Nisa (157-158):

"And they said, 'We killed the Messiah, Jesus' son of Mary, the Messenger of God,' and they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they confused him, and those who differed about him are in doubt about him, for they have no knowledge of him except by following a guess."

They did not kill him for sure, but God raised him up to Him, and God was the Almighty, the Wise. [1]

• Many Muslim interpreters understand that God rescued Jesus from crucifixion and raised him to heaven and cast his likeness on another person who was crucified in his place.
• Accounts in the commentaries differ as to who this person was: It is said to be one of Christ's disciples who volunteered to be crucified [2]
• Judas Iscariot, the traitor who was punished by having the likeness of Christ cast on him [3]
• Simon of Cyrene who helped carry the cross [4]
• Despite these differences, the essence of the theory remains that Christ was not crucified, but was lifted to heaven, and Jews and Christians were deceived by the crucifixion of someone else.
• The idea that Christ survived the crucifixion is not entirely new with the advent of Islam.
• Some Gnostic Christian sects adopted it in the early centuries, such as the Basilians, who claimed that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Christ [5].
• The Docetists also rejected the idea of Christ's crucifixion, arguing that his suffering was an illusion [6].
• It is possible that these ideas were transmitted to the environment in which Islam emerged through dissident Christians or apocryphal sources, and may have been influenced by apocryphal narratives such as the Gospel of Barnabas which supports the idea of substitution [7].
• Thus, the replacement theory has Qur'anic and traditional roots, but it carries influences from earlier religious contexts.

Logical refutation of the replacement theory

• From a logical and rational perspective, the substitution theory raises serious questions about God's justice and truthfulness.
• To say that God cast the likeness of Christ on another person to be crucified in his place implies that God deceived millions of people throughout history, including Christ's disciples and his mother Mary, who witnessed and mourned the crucifixion [8].
• This deception, if true, led to the emergence of Christianity as a religion based on an alleged crucifixion and resurrection.
• Is it possible that God, who is described in the Qur'an as "the truth" (Hajj 6) and in the Bible as "He does not deceive or lead astray" (Titus 1:2), would allow a deception of this magnitude to lead entire nations astray?
• Why did God wait 600 years before correcting this delusion through the Qur'an?
• Is this not a contradiction with God's wise and truthful attributes?
• In terms of divine justice, the crucifixion of an innocent person instead of Christ raises a moral question:
• Even if he was a volunteer, why would God resort to a trick involving deception and misdirection?
• Couldn't God save his prophet directly without this disguise?
• If the substitute was Judas the traitor, why would he be punished in such a way that people would think he was the Messiah, leading to the spread of a doctrine based on an illusion?
• This perception contradicts God's justice and mercy, and makes the Christian message based on a divine trick, contradicting the principle of the veracity of revelation and the continuity of heavenly messages [9].
• Moreover, the historical outcome of this theory has been disastrous: Instead of strengthening people's faith in him as a prophet, Christ's survival led to millions believing in his divinity and resurrection, which in Islam is considered polytheism.
• How can this be a wise divine providence?
• These contradictions make the replacement theory intellectually unreasonable, as it leads to the perception of a God who misleads his followers and leaves his message distorted for centuries [10].

Historical refutation: Testimonies of Christ's crucifixion

• Non-Christian historical sources, contemporary or close to the time of Christ, attest to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, refuting the idea that the crucifixion was an illusion or a substitution.

Some of the most notable testimonies include:

• Tacitus: The pagan Roman historian (around 116 AD) wrote in the Annals that Christians were named after "Christ" (Christus) who "suffered the most severe punishment" (crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate [11].
• Flavius Josephus: A Jewish historian from the first century, stated in Antiquities of the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was sentenced to crucifixion by Pilate's order [12]. He also referred to the execution of James, the brother of Jesus, which confirms the existence of Jesus as a historical figure who was crucified [13].
• The Babylonian Talmud: In Sanhedrin 43a, it is mentioned that Jesus of Nazareth was "hung" (crucified) on the eve of Passover on charges of witchcraft and inciting apostasy [14].
• Other sources: Lucian of Samosata (2nd century) wrote sarcastically about Christians worshipping "a man crucified in Palestine", and Mara Bar-Serapion stated in a letter that the Jews killed their "wise king", referring to Jesus [15].
• These testimonies from independent pagan and Jewish sources are consistent with the New Testament account, and there is no document from the first century that denies the crucifixion or supports the idea of a doppelganger.
• The idea emerged later in marginal Gnostic contexts and was then adopted by Muslim exegetes based on their interpretation of the Qur'anic verse [16].

Biblical refutation: Evidence from the New Testament

• The New Testament, as a historical source written in the first century, confirms that Jesus of Nazareth is the same Jesus who was crucified, died and rose again.
• The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) provide a consistent account of Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, death and resurrection.
• There is no hint of a substitute. From the evidence: John 19:16-30: Pilate delivers Jesus to be crucified, he carries his cross to Golgotha, where he is crucified between two thieves, and dies after saying "It is finished", and the soldiers confirm his death by stabbing his side [17].
• Matthew 16:21: Jesus predicted that "He must suffer and be killed, and on the third day rise again" [18].
• John 20:27: After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to Thomas and asked him to touch the nail wounds on his hands and side, proving that he was the one who was crucified [19].
• Acts 2:23-24: Peter said in his sermon: "Jesus of Nazareth... You took him, and with unrighteous hands you crucified and killed him, but God raised him up" [20].
• All these texts confirm that Jesus himself suffered, died and rose, and there is no ancient Christian account that supports the idea of a doppelganger.
• The Apostle Paul also warned against teachings that contradict this belief, saying: "If we or an angel from heaven preach anything other than what we have preached to you, let it be unrighteousness" (Galatians 1:8) [21].

Refutation from within the Qur'an

• The Qur'an itself contains verses that could be understood to support the death of the Messiah, raising questions about the traditional interpretation of Al-Nisa 157:
• Surah Al-Imran 55: "When Allah said, 'O Jesus, I am the one who has died and raised you up to me." the word "Mutawafiq" means death or the fulfilment of a term. Some interpreters, such as Ibn Abbas, understood it as an actual death followed by an elevation [22].
• Surah Maryam 33: Jesus says: "Peace be upon me on the day I am born, on the day I die, and on the day I am resurrected alive" [23].
• Surah Al-Ma'idah 117: "When you died, you were the one who watched over them" — the word "died" refers to an actual death [24].
• In addition, the Qur'an does not detail the identity of the doppelganger or how the replacement took place, making the theory an interpretive endeavour rather than a definitive text.
• Some contemporary scholars, such as Mahmoud Shaltut, have suggested that the verse denies that the Jews were able to kill the Messiah with their power, not death itself [25].
• This opens the way for an understanding that is more compatible with history and the Bible.

Testimonies of the Church Fathers

• The early church fathers, who lived in the first and second centuries, were unanimous on the reality of Jesus' crucifixion and rejected any idea that denied it:
• Ignatius of Antioch (30–107 AD): In his letter to the people of Smyrna, he emphasised that Christ "was truly crucified, truly died, and truly rose again". He warned against the heresy of Docetism [26].
• Justin Martyr (150 AD): In his defence of Christianity, he referred to the crucifixion as a historical event that fulfilled Old Testament prophecies [27].
• Irenaeus (130–202 AD): In Against Heresies, he responded to the Gnostics who claimed that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Jesus [28].
• These testimonies confirm that belief in the crucifixion of Christ was at the core of the Christian message from the beginning, and that the idea of the likeness was rejected as a heresy.

Comparing the credibility of the Qur'an and the Bible

• The suspicion of biblical interpolation is sometimes raised to support the idea that the crucifixion account is a fabrication. However, when comparing the credibility of the texts:
• The Quran: Compiled during the reign of Abu Bakr and Uthman (around 650 AD), earliest manuscripts date from the 7th century, sparse and with minor variations [29].
• The Bible (New Testament): Written in the first century (50–90 AD) during the lives of eyewitnesses; thousands of manuscripts (e.g. P52 from ~125 AD) prove stability of text. Doctrines such as crucifixion remain intact [30].
• The temporal proximity of the writing of the New Testament to its events, and the abundance of manuscripts, make it difficult to argue that the crucifixion account has been corrupted.
• On the other hand, the Qur'an itself does not provide clear details about the likeness, making the theory dependent on late ijtihad.

Conclusion: An invitation for dialogue and reflection

• The substitution theory, despite its Qur'anic origin, faces logical, historical, and biblical challenges.
• It assumes divine deception that contradicts God's justice and truthfulness, and contradicts historical evidence from pagan and Jewish sources, New Testament testimonies, and church fathers.
• Other verses of the Qur'an imply the death of Christ, which calls for a rereading of Qur'anic verse 157 in line with historical facts and the faith.
• Christianity sees the crucifixion and resurrection at the centre of salvation, as "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16).
• This divine love invites us to reflect on the meaning of redemption, away from the idea of divine deception.
• We call for a constructive dialogue based on mutual respect, to arrive together at the truth of which Christ said: "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).

References

1. The Holy Qur'an, Surah al-Nisa 157-158.
2. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, J2, p184..
3. Tafsir al-Tabari, c8, p412.
4. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, p. 76.
5. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 24.
6. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 26.
7. The Gospel of Barnabas, Chapter 215-217.
8. Tafsir al-Qurtubi, c5, p286.
9. Islamweb, Fatwa No. 12345.
10. Abdelmajid Cherfi, Islam and Modernity, p. 132.
11. Tacitus, Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44.
12. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3.
13. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9.
14. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
15. Lucian, Death of Peregrinus, Chapter 11.
16. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, J2, p185.
17. John 19:16-30.
18. Matthew 16:21.
19. John 20:27.
20. Acts 2:23-24.
21. Galatians 1:8.
22. Tafsir al-Tabari, c3, p255.
23. Mahmoud Shaltout, Tafsir al-Quran, p. 88.
24. Tafsir al-Razi, c8, p143.
25. Mahmoud Shaltout, Tafsir al-Quran, p. 90.
26. Ignatius, Letter to the People of Smyrna, Chapter 2.
27. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 89.
28. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 18.
29. Keith Small, The Manuscripts of the Qur'an, p. 45.
30. Bruce Metzger, New Testament Texts, p. 67.