|
6.13: The rejected
stone
From the promise in Genesis 21:13-18, Jesus (pbuh) spoke
of the kingdom of God being taken away from the Jews and
given to the rejected stone of
"Hear another parable: There was a certain
householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round
about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and
let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And
when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants
to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and
killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other
servants more than the first: and they did unto them
likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying,
They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the
son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let
us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they
caught him, and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and
slew [him]. When the lord therefore of the vineyard
cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto
him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will
let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which
shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith
unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone
which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of
the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in
our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall
be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall
be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind
him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had
heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the
multitude, because they took him for a prophet."
Matthew 21:33-46
Indeed, prophethood was transferred from the nation of
the Jews to the Jews' rejected stone, the nation of the
Arabs (Ishmael's nation, the nation of Muhammad pbuh). Some
have misunderstood this verse to refer to Jesus (pbuh) as
the rejected stone. This can be seen to be a
misinterpretation by simply reading the above verse
carefully. Jesus (pbuh), in this parable is obviously
drawing a parallel between the actions of the Jews and their
killing and stoning of previous prophets, or "servants" in
this verse.
"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye
are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye
up then the measure of your fathers"
Matthew 23:31-32
In other words, Jesus (pbuh) is speaking to the Jews as a
racial entity. The men standing before him did not kill,
beat, and stone the previous prophets, rather their
forefathers did. But as a nation, they are all responsible.
They are following in their forefathers footsteps. What is
Jesus (pbuh) telling the Jews? He is telling them that they,
as a nation, have abused their position, and therefore, God
Almighty will take His kingdom from the Jews and give it to
a different "NATION."
How will we know which nation God's prophethood will be
transferred to? The verse states that it will be given to
the nation of the "rejected stone." Jesus (pbuh) was indeed
rejected by the Jews, but he is not the one intended. Why?
Because Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were also Jews. Jesus
(pbuh) himself even said quite clearly:
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Matthew 15:24
We also read
"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it
that thou (Jesus), being a Jew, askest drink of me,
which am a woman of Samaria?"
John 4:9
He even told his own twelve apostles:
"Go not into the way of the Gentiles (non-Jews), and
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go,
preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand"
Matthew 10:5-7
To further emphasize this Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as
saying:
"But he (Jesus) answered and said, It is not meet to
take the children's (Jews) bread, and to cast [it]
to dogs (Gentiles)."
Matthew 15:26
Is the kingdom of God going to be taken from the
Jews and given to the Jews?
It is important to notice that the verses wherein Jesus
(pbuh) is alleged to have commanded his followers to preach
to the whole world (such as Mark 16:15) are either now
considered later "insertions" because they are nowhere to be
found in the most ancient manuscripts available today (those
of the fourth century) such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the
Vatican #1209, and the Armenian version, or refer only to
preaching to "all nations" (such as Luke 24:47) which, in
order to not conflict with the above verses must be
understood to refer to the twelve nations of Israel. This is
exactly what the Qur'an says. An example of a reference to
the tribes of Isaac as "nations" can be seen in Genesis
17:16. There are other examples, such as the referral to the
twelve tribes of Ishmael as twelve "nations" in Genesis
25:16, the referral to the tribes of Ham in Genesis 10:20,
the tribes of Shem in Genesis 10:31, the tribes of Noah in
Genesis 10:32, and the tribes of Abraham in Genesis 17:5
...etc.
Well, what do Christian scholars have to say about the
word "all" in "all nations"? If we go back to
one of their foremost references, Strong's concordance, and
look up this word and it's meaning we will find that the
original Greek word is "pas" {pas}. The following
description is given for this word:
"...'The whole world has gone after him' Did the
whole world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were
baptized of him in the Jordan'. Was all Judea or all
Jerusalem baptized in the Jordan? 'ye are of God little
children', 'and the whole world lieth in the wicked one',
Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words 'world'
and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in the
Scripture, and it is very rarely the 'all' means all
persons, taken individually..."
Strong's Concordance, C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on
Particular Redemption.
Mr. Tom Harpur, says:
"Most of Jesus' ministry took place in the Northern
district of Israel, the Galilee, and it is clear he thought
of his mission as directed to the Jews, not to the world at
large"
For Christ's Sake, Tom Harpur, p. 35.
In the tenth year1 of Muhammad's (pbuh)
prophethood, Allah Almighty sent Gabriel with a beast called
Al-Buraq in order to take prophet Muhammad (pbuh) from the
"Inviolable Mosque" in Makkah to the "Furthest Mosque" in
Palestine (currently known as Israel). He was then taken up
into the heavens where he saw many of the signs of the
Almighty and then he returned to Makkah. All of this
happened in one night which was later named the night of
"Israa and Miraj" (Travel by night and
ascension)*. After this deed was accomplished,
Allah revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) the first verses of the
chapter of Al-Israa(17). Scholars of the Qur'an from long
ago noticed that while the first verse speaks about this
occurrence explicitly, the following verses suddenly begin
to speak about the children of Israel, the scripture that
was sent to them by Allah, and how they shall bring
corruption into the earth. These scholars concluded that the
verses were revealed in order to confirm the transfer of
Allah's covenant from the children of Israel to the Islamic
nation and to reveal the reason for this decree.
Please read in this regard the parting words of prophet
Moses in the Old Testament when he spoke to the children of
Israel on his deathbed:
"And it came to pass, when moses had made an end of
writing the words of this law in a book, until they were
finished, That Moses commanded the Levites(Jews), which bare
the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book
of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the
covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a
witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy
stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day,
ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more
after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your
tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in
their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against
them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt
[yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I
have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter
days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to
provoke him to anger through the work of your hands."
Deuteronomy 31:25-29
On pages 24-25 of "The five Gospels," written over six
years by 24 Christian scholars from a number of Western
universities, we read
"Christian conviction eventually overwhelms Jesus: He
is made to confess what Christians had come to believe...The
charge to announce the good news to the whole world (Mark
13:10 and Matthew 28:18-20) was developed by Paul, Mark and
others in the early days of the new movement."
This book has already demonstrated in chapter one how
"Saint Paul" was the one primarily responsible for the
corruption of the message of Jesus (pbuh).
Logic too verifies the Christian recognition that "the
great commission" of the above verses was a later insertion
of the church and not the words of Jesus (pbuh). This claim
can be demonstrated to be supported by logic by observing
that had Jesus (pbuh) indeed commissioned his apostles to
preach to the whole world, as claimed in the above verses,
then obviously they would not differ on this matter
later on. However, the Bible tells us that long
after this alleged commission, "St. Paul" decided to preach
to the Gentiles (non-Jews). We are told in Galatians 2:13-15
that this resulted in a fierce debate and a great difference
of opinion between the apostles and Paul (the apostles Peter
the Rock, James the son of thunder, and Barnabas on one
side, and Paul on the other). This would not have been the
case if Jesus (pbuh) had explicitly commanded his apostles
to preach to the gentiles and this verse was not a later
insertion.
We also notice that Paul only refers to his own
philosophy and opinion in his charge of "hypocrisy" against
the apostles, never does he quote the alleged command of
Jesus (pbuh) wherein he is claimed to have publicly
commanded the twelve disciples to preach to the Gentiles. If
this verse was not a later insertion, then St. Paul could
have very simply defended his point of view by simply
quoting Jesus (pbuh). There would be no need for him to say
anything more. Thus, these verses are recognized by
Christian theologians as later insertions of the Church and
not the words of Jesus (pbuh). Since this topic would take
up too much time and space to get into here I will suffice
with this sampling for now (see section 1.2.2.1 for more on
this topic).
However, there is another problem which prevents Jesus
(pbuh) from being the one intended. If Jesus (pbuh) was
indeed the one intended by this verse then we must apply the
rest of it to him also. We read...
"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the
scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same
is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes?.. And whosoever shall fall
on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall
fall, it will grind him to powder"
Matthew 21:42
This rejected stone of the Jews, the nation of Ishmael,
would indeed come to be victorious against all comers. The
Islamic nation, through the guidance of Allah, and which
fought in His name, grew till it stretched from China to
Spain and was victorious against all pagan superpowers
(including the Persians and the Romans) of it's time. It
then went on to raise science to new heights. There was not
a single nation that was able to stand in the way of the
Muslims who fought in the name of God and died in His cause.
Both the Jews and the Christians were either subjugated by
the Roman pagans or took them as allies. Jesus (pbuh), could
not be this "rejected stone" because he did not fall on the
Jews or the Romans and "grind them to powder," nor did they
fall on him and become "broken." Quite the contrary, the
Bible alleges that Jesus (pbuh) was arrested, beaten, spat
on, whipped, kicked, mocked, cut, laughed at, crucified, and
then sent to hell for three days. In the mean time, the
Romans and Jews went back to business as usual.
There is a distinct difference between saying that Jesus
(pbuh) died for someone's sin and between saying he fell on
nations and ground them to powder, and nations fell on him
and were broken. This is the profile of a military leader
and not a meek sacrificial lamb of God who tells his
followers:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye
resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue
thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have
[thy] cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to
go a mile, go with him twain"
Matthew 5:38-41
and also "Then saith he (Jesus) unto them, Render
therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and
unto God the things that are God's."
Matthew 22:21
Whilem on the other hand, the Qur'an taught Muhammad
(pbuh) and his followers:
"And fight against them until persecution is no more
and religion is for God alone. But if they desist then let
there be no hostility except against wrongdoers"
Al-Bakarah(2):194.
Many Christians will object "No, Jesus (pbuh) was the one
intended." They will explain that the verse is not meant to
be taken literally but in an abstract sense. Jesus
was prophesying himself. Thus, Jesus did indeed fall on the
sinners and grind them to powder and they did fall on him
and become broken. In other words, matters of FAITH
and not WAR are intended. This is a valid theory, so let us
test it:
Those who make these claims will themselves readily
acknowledge that the "son of the householder" is Jesus
(pbuh) but then they go on to tell you that "the rejected
stone" is also Jesus (pbuh). So:
- If Jesus (pbuh) is both the "son of the householder"
and also "the rejected stone," then one would expect
there to be some sort of hint in the text associating one
with the other. For example, the text could have combined
the two terms into "the rejected son." We notice that
this is not the case.
- If the "rejected stone" is an alias for a character
previously mentioned in the text, and not a completely
new character, then what arguments from the
Biblical text can we present that can not just as
easily be applied to the other servants (prophets) who
were chased away or killed, or even the "householder"
(God) himself? In other words, any arguments which are
presented from the text will be equally valid for
any of the many other prophets who were beaten, stoned,
and killed by this nation.
- In this parable, the first servant (prophet) was
beaten and was taken out of the picture. The second was
killed and was also taken out of the picture. The third
was then stoned and taken out of the picture. Then the
son was killed and taken out of the picture. Where does
the text indicate that the "son of the householder" has
come back to life while the other "servants" remain dead
or chased away? Where does the text state the "son" shall
come back to life but the other dead servants shall
not?
- The goal of a parable is always to describe a matter
in "real-life" terms which can be seen in our every day
lives so that we can better understand the point being
made. IN REAL LIFE, would we expect a dead son of a
householder to come back to life and "miserably
destroy" all the husbandmen who killed him, or would
we expect the householder to send an army to wipe out the
husbandmen who killed his son and servants?
- The "Householder" in this parable refers to a
non-abstract God. The "servants" refer to physical
prophets. The "Son of the Householder" refers to a
physical Jesus (pbuh), the beating, killing, and stoning
of the servants refer to a physical beating, killing, and
stoning of the prophets, even the vineyard refers to a
physical kingdom of God. But now, in order to make this
rejected stone refer to Jesus (pbuh) we must claim that
the "grinding and breaking" refer to an ABSTRACT
grinding and breaking, thus Jesus (pbuh) is the one
intended. Notice how the verse is made to conform to our
preconceived concepts and not the other way around?
- If the "grinding and breaking" referred only to an
other-worldly reward for all who do not believe and not
an earthly defeat (followed by one in the hereafter),
then why did Jesus (pbuh) use the words: "whosoever shall
FALL on this stone" and not "whosoever shall REJECT this
stone." This would more accurately describe acts of
BELIEF and not WAR. Also, if acts of BELIEF were meant
and not acts of WAR then there would be no need for "on
whomever it shall FALL" otherwise it would be implied
that Jesus was forcing people to disbelieve.
For example, if a Jew did not believe in Moses (pbuh),
would it be more accurate to say: "He REJECTED Moses" or to
say "He FELL upon Moses"? If Pharaoh sent an army to kill
Moses (pbuh) and the Jews, would it be more accurate to say
"Pharaoh FELL upon Moses" or "Pharaoh REJECTED Moses"? These
verbs were carefully chosen for a reason. Indeed, if we were
to go back to the Bible itself, we would find that the term
"fall on" is in fact used to convey the general meaning of
"fight", or "to wage war". For example, in Judges we
read:
"And they said unto him, We are come down to bind
thee, that we may deliver thee into the hand of the
Philistines. And Samson said unto them, Swear unto me, that
ye will not fall upon me yourselves."
Judges 15:12
And "And the men were afraid, because they were
brought into Joseph's house; and they said, Because of the
money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are
we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and
fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our
asses."
Genesis 43:18
And "And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met
with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey
into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest
he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the
sword."
Exodus 5:3
And "Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Rise thou, and fall
upon us: for as the man is, so is his strength. And Gideon
arose, and slew Zebah and Zalmunna, and took away the
ornaments that were on their camels' necks."
Judges 8:21
There are countless other examples, however, these should
suffice. Thus, we see that the prophesy is for one who will
wage war against those who killed and persecuted the
prophets of God. This war against the "killers of the
prophets" by this messenger of God would result in
"miserably destroying" these transgressors. This prophesy
was fulfilled by Muhammad (pbuh) who began by signing pacts
and treaties with the Jews. However, after they reneged on
their pacts and broke their promises, he fought against
them, utterly destroyed them, and finally expelled them from
Arabia for all time (see Chapter
10).
Next Page
|