|
God (Matt. xxi. 43 explains ver. 41). Therefore they cannot be Muhammad and his disciples. Since
the stone is Christ, it cannot be Hagar, or the Black Stone in the wall of the Ka'bah, nor can it
be Muhammad. Opposition to Christ is therefore what the parable shows to be displeasing to God, and
in the end fatal and ruinous to all His enemies. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D.
70, about forty years after the Crucifixion of Christ, explained part of its meaning. Some Muslims
fancy that the "Lord of the Vineyard" who was to come (Matt. xxi. 40) was Muhammad. But
this cannot be maintained, for Christ (ver. 37) was the Son of the Lord of the Vineyard, and no one
imagines Him to be Muhammad's son. It is only by wresting words from their places and omitting to
consider the context and the explanations given in other parts of the Bible that an appearance of
plausibility can be given to the Muslim view regarding this parable.
5. Mark i. 7. Muslims often say, "The Injil contains the words of Jesus, and accordingly we
find that in Mark i. 7 He prophesied of Muhammad, saying, 'There cometh after Me he that is mightier
than I,' &c." This shows how hopelessly impossible it is for Muslims to find any prophecy
regarding Muhammad; for ver. 6 of this chapter tells us that these words were not spoken by Jesus,
but by John the Baptist. Moreover, we learn from John i. 26-34, that John spoke of Christ,
not of Muhammad. The context shows this clearly (see also Matt. iii. 11-14; Luke iii. 16, 17). If it
be said that Christ was already in the world, and that therefore He could not be said to come after
John, the answer is that He began to preach only after John had been cast into prison (Mark i. 14:
compare Matt. iv. 12, 17) and had thus ended his ministry, for he was soon after beheaded in prison
by Herod's command.
6. John i. 21. "Here," say some among the Muslims, "we have a clear mention of
Muhammad. The Jews mentioned three prophets in succession, Christ,
|
|
|
Elijah, and 'the Prophet', i.e. Muhammad, and John did not contradict them. 'The Prophet'
is Muhammad, who is foretold in Deut. xviii. 18. He cannot be Christ or Elijah, who are mentioned
quite separately." But we have already seen that Deut. xviii. 18 cannot refer to Muhammad, but
does refer to Christ. Hence "the Prophet" in this verse is Christ. The Jews were reckoning
backwards. They thought John the Baptist might be the promised Messiah. When he denied this, they
asked whether he was the Messiah's forerunner, Elijah (Mal. iv. 5; Matt. xvii. 10; Mark ix. 11).
John explained that he was not Elijah in person, nor had the latter returned to earth, as the Jews
thought he would (though John was the person to whom Mal. iv. 5 pointed; see Matt. xi. 14). Being
then unable to understand who he was, the Jews asked whether he was "the prophet",
referring to Deut. xviii. 18. With regard to the meaning of this latter prophecy there was at that
time some difference of opinion among the Jews. Many rightly understood that it indicated the
promised Messiah, as is clear from John vi. 14. But others did not think so, as we see from John
vii. 40, 41, supposing that the prophet mentioned in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, was another forerunner
of the promised Messiah. The whole passage (John i. 19-28) shows that the questioners wanted to
learn whether John the Baptist was the Messiah, or one of His forerunners. It would not have
been reasonable to ask whether John the Baptist was a supposed prophet coming hundreds of years after
the Messiah, when the Messiah Himself had not yet declared Himself such, and was not recognized by
them.
7. John iv. 21 is supposed by some to be a declaration that Jerusalem would be the Holy City and
the Qiblah no longer, but that its place would be taken by another city, which, the Muslims
say, must be Mecca. But in vers. 23, 24, Christ Himself explains the meaning of His own words, by
saying that true and acceptable worship does not depend upon the place where it is
|
|