All the Christians believe that Jesus after his
arrest through the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, Crucified -then Resurrected and -went to heaven, yet, from the Bible, it appears that this belief is altogether wrong. Matthew (12:40) says that just as Jonah was three
days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man shall be
three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth.
 |
| Jesus On Cross? |
The truth is, that as Jesus was a true prophet and as he knew that
God, whose beloved he was, would save him from an accursed death, he made a
prophecy in the form of a parable, revealed to him by God, in which he hinted
that he would not die on the Cross, nor would he give up the ghost on the
accursed Cross; on the contrary, like the prophet Jonah, he would only pass
through a state of swoon. In the parable he had also hinted that he would come
out of the bowels of the earth and would then join the people and, like Jonah,
would be honored by them. So this prophecy too was fulfilled.
Apart from this, it was necessary that he should escape death on the
cross, for it was stated in the Holy Book that whoever was hanged on the Cross was accursed. It is a cruel and an unjust blasphemy to attribute a curse to an
eminent person like Jesus, the Messiah, for, according to the agreed view of
all who know the language, la'nat, or curse, has reference to the state of
one's heart.
A man would be said to be accursed when his heart, having been
estranged from God, becomes really dark; when, deprived of divine mercy and of
divine love, devoid absolutely of His Knowledge, blinded like the devil, he
becomes filled with the poison of unbelief; when there remains not a ray of
divine love and knowledge in him; when the bond of loyalty is broken, and
between him and God there arises hatred and contempt and spite and hostility,
so much so that God and he become mutual enemies; and when God becomes weary of
him and he becomes weary of God; in short, when he becomes an heir to all the
attributes of the Devil -and that is why the Devil himself is called
accursed.
It is clear that the significance of the word accursed, is
so foul that it can never apply to any righteous person who entertains love of
God in his heart. Alas! Christians did not ponder over the significance of a
curse when they invented this belief; else, it was impossible for them to have
used such a bad word for a righteous man like Jesus. Can we say that Jesus'
heart was ever really estranged from God; that he had denied God that he hated
Him and had become His enemy? Can we ever think that Jesus had ever felt in his
heart that he was estranged from God, that he was an enemy of God, and that he
was immersed in the darkness of unbelief and denial?
If, then, Jesus had never been in such a state of mind, that his heart
was always full of love and the light of Divine Knowledge, is it for you, wise
people, to ponder whether we can ever say that, not one, but thousands of
curses from God had descended upon the heart of Jesus with all their evil
significance? Never. Then, how can we say that he was, God forbid, accursed?
Let it also be noticed that this not only detracts from the prophethood
and apostleship of Jesus but it is also derogatory to his claim to spiritual
eminence, holiness, love, and knowledge of God, to which he has repeatedly
given expression in the gospels. Just look through the Bible; therein Jesus
clearly claims that he is the Light of the world, that he is the Guide, and
that he stands in a relation of great love towards God; that he has been
honoured by a clean birth, and that he is the loved Son of God. How then, in
spite of these pure and holy relations, can a curse, with all its significance,
be attributed to Jesus? No, never.
Therefore, there is no doubt that Jesus was not crucified, i.e., he did
not die on the Cross, for his personality did not deserve the underlying
consequence of death on the Cross. Not having been crucified, he was spared the
impure implications of a curse, and no doubt it also proves that he did not go
to heaven, for going to heaven formed part of this whole scheme and was a
consequence of the idea of his having been crucified. Therefore, when it is
proved that he was neither accursed, nor did he go to hell for three days, nor
did he suffer death the other part of the scheme, namely, that he went to
heaven, is proved to be wrong. On this point the Bible has more evidence which
stated below.
There is the statement of Jesus: 'But after I am risen again, I will go
before you into Galilee' -(Matthew 26:32). This verse clearly shows that Jesus,
after he had come out of the tomb, went to Galilee and not to heaven. Jesus'
words 'After I am risen' do not mean his rising up alive after he was dead;
rather, as in the eyes of the Jews and the common people he had died on the
Cross, he used words beforehand consistent with what they were to think of him
in the future, and indeed, the man who was placed on the Cross, in whose hands
and feet nails had been driven till he had fainted from pain, had become as
good as dead; if such a man was saved from such a calamity and if he recovered
his senses it would not be an exaggeration on his part to say that he had come
to life again.
There is no doubt that after so much suffering, Jesus' escape from death
was a miracle; it was no ordinary event. But to think that he had died is
wrong. It is true that in the books of the New Testament words of this kind
occur, but this is a mistake of the writers of those books, just as they had
committed mistakes in recording several other historical events. Commentators
who have made researches into these books admit that the books of the New
Testament have two parts:
- The spiritual instruction received by the
disciples from Jesus which is the essence of the teachings of the Gospel;
- Historical events -like the genealogy of Jesus; his arrest and his being beaten; the existence in his time of a miraculous pond, etc. These, the writers recorded by themselves; they were not revealed; rather, they were set down in accordance with the writer's own ideas. In some places there are undue exaggerations, as where it is stated that if all the miracles and works of Jesus were recorded in books, the earth would not be able to accommodate these books. How exaggerated is this statement!
Apart from this, it is not against usages of speech to describe the great
calamity which had befallen Jesus as death. When a man, having passed through a
life and death experience, is ultimately saved from it, the common speech of
all peoples expresses the idea by the idiomatic expression -'he was given a
new life', and no people to whatever country they may belong would demur at
expressing that idea in this way.
After all that has been stated, it should be kept in mind that in the
gospel of Barnabas, it is stated that Jesus was not
crucified, not did he die on the Cross. Now we can very well say that though
this book is not included in the gospels and has been rejected summarily, yet
there is no doubt that it is an ancient book, and it belongs to the period in
which the other gospels were written. Is it not open to us to regard this
ancient book as a book of history of ancient times and to make use of it as a
book of history? Does it not follow from this book that at least at the time when
the event of the Cross took place, people were not unanimous as to Jesus' dying
on the Cross?
Again, apart from this, when in the four gospels themselves there are
such metaphors as the one about a dead person, that he is not dead but asleep,
it is not beyond reason to suppose that a state of swoon might be described as
a state of death. It should be noted that a prophet cannot lie. Jesus compared
his three days' stay in the tomb to the three days of Jonah in the belly of the
whale. This only shows that just as Jonah remained alive for three days in the
belly of the whale, so did Jesus remain alive for three days in the tomb. The
Jewish tombs of those days were not like the tombs of to-day; they were roomy
and had an opening on one side, which was covered with a big stone. And, Jesus
was placed there in a state of swoon.
In short, the verse quoted above shows that Jesus after coming out of the
tomb went to Galilee. The gospel of Mark says that after coming out of the tomb
he was seen going on the road to Galilee, and ultimately he met the eleven
disciples when they were at their meal; he showed them his hands and feet which
were wounded and they thought that he was perhaps a spirit. Then he said to
them:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me and see, for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have–(Luke 24:39) He took from
them boiled fish and a piece of honeycomb and ate them in their presence.-(Luke
24:42-43)
These verses show that coming out of the tomb, he went to Galilee; -like an ordinary man, in
normal clothes, with a human body. If he had been resurrected after death, how
was it that this body of spirit could still have borne the wounds inflicted
upon him on the Cross? What need had he to eat? And if he required food then,
he must be in need of food even now.
Readers should not be under any misconception of the crucifixion. The Cross of those days had no rope to be put round the neck of
the victim, nor was he subjected to a fall from a wooden plank and allowed to
keep hanging; rather, he was just put on the Cross, and his hands and feet were
nailed to it; and it was quite possible that if, after crucifying a person and
driving nails into him, it was decided -in a day or two -to forgive him and
spare his life, he was taken down alive before his bones had been broken, the
punishment already undergone being deemed sufficient for him.
If it was decided to kill him, he was kept on the Cross at least for
three days; water or bread was not allowed to come near him, and he was left in
this condition in the sun for three or more days, when his bones were broken
and ultimately as a result of this torture he died. But the grace of Almighty
God rescued Jesus from this torture which would have ended his life.
Gospel informs that Jesus did not remain on the
Cross for three days; he did not have to suffer hunger or thirst for three
days; nor were his bones broken. On the other hand, he remained on the Cross
only for two hours, and the grace and mercy of God managed to bring about the
crucifixion in the latter part of the day, which was a Friday, only a little
time before sunset, the next day being the Sabbath, the feast Fasah of the
Jews.
According to Jewish custom it was unlawful and a punishable crime to let
anyone remain on the Cross on the Sabbath day, or during the night previous to
it; Jews, like Muslims, observed the lunar calendar, sunset being regarded as
beginning the day. So, on the one hand, there was this circumstance which arose
out of earthly causes, and, on the other, Almighty God brought into existence
heavenly circumstances, namely, that when it was the sixth hour, there was a
severe dust-storm which darkened the earth for three hours. -(Mark 15:33)
This sixth hour was after twelve o'clock.
Now, the Jews were afraid in this utter darkness, lest the night of the Sabbath
should overtake them, and lest, having violated the sanctity of the Sabbath,
they should deserve to be punished. Therefore, in all haste they took Jesus and
the two thieves off their Crosses.
In addition to all this, there was another heavenly cause, namely, that
when Pilate presided at his court, his wife sent word to him not to have
anything to do with that righteous person (i.e., not to attempt to punish him
with death), for, she said, she had had a dream that night, which had troubled
her very much.-(Matthew 27:19)
So, this angel, whom the wife of Pilate saw in her dream, would assure us
and all fair-minded people, with certainty, that God had never intended that
Jesus should die on the Cross. From the day of the creation of this world,
never has it occurred that God should suggest to a person in a dream that a
particular thing would happen in a certain way, and still that thing should
fail to happen. For example, the gospel of Matthew says that an angel of the
Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Arise and take the young child and
the mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for
Herod will seek the young child to destroy him'. -(Matthew 2:13) Now, can anyone say that Jesus could be killed in Egypt?
Similarly the dream
which the wife of Pilate dreamt was a part of God's design, and it could never
be that this design should fail in its object; and just as the possibility of
Jesus being put to death during the Egyptian journey was against a specific
promise of God, so here it is unthinkable that the angel of Almighty God should
appear to the wife of Pilate and should direct her to say that if Jesus died on
the Cross it would not be a happy thing for her, and yet the angel's appearance
should go in vain, and Jesus should be allowed to suffer death on the Cross. Is
there any example of this in the world? None.
The pure conscience of all good men, when informed of the dream of
Pilate's wife, will no doubt testify that it was a fact that the purpose of
that dream was to lay the foundation for the rescue of Jesus. It is of course
open to everybody to deny an out-and-out truth; out of prejudice born of his
creed, he may refuse to accept it, but fairness would oblige us to believe that
the dream of Pilate's wife is a piece of weighty evidence in support of Jesus'
escape from the Cross. The first in rank among the gospels, i.e., Matthew, has
recorded this evidence.
Although, therefore, the powerful evidence which shall set out in this
article invalidates the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of Atonement, yet
honesty and love of fairness require us not to be partial to a communal or
customary creed on a question of fact. From the day of the creation of man up
till to-day the limited intellect of man has invested a thousand things with
Divinity and Godhead, so much so that even cats and snakes have been
worshipped; nevertheless wise people, through heaven's help, have continued to
be saved from the evil of such polytheistic beliefs.
Among the testimonies of the Bible in support of Jesus' escape from death
on the Cross is his journey to a far-off place, on which he started after
coming out of the tomb. On the morning of Sunday he first met Mary Magdalene,
who at once informed the disciples that Jesus was alive, but they did not
believe it. Then he was seen by two of the disciples when they were going out
to the countryside; and last of all he appeared to the eleven when they were at
their meal and censured them for their callousness and lack of faith.-(Mark
16:9-14)
When two disciples of Jesus were going towards the hamlet called Emmaus
which was at a distance of 3.75 miles from Jerusalem, Jesus met them; and when
they were near that hamlet, Jesus went forward to part company with them, but
they did not allow him to go, saying that that night they would be together. He
then dined with them, and all of them, along with Jesus, spent the night at the
village named Emmaus. -(Luke 24:13-31)
Now, to say that Jesus did all this with a spiritual body (which is
supposed to be the nature of the body after death), which only the physical
body was capable of doing, as, for example, eating and drinking, and sleeping,
and making a long journey to Galilee which was at a distance of seventy miles
from Jerusalem, is saying something impossible and quite against reason. In
spite of the fact that on account of individual bias the accounts of the
gospels have differed, the texts as they are, nevertheless, clearly show that
Jesus met his disciples in the ordinary mortal human body, and made a long
journey on foot to Galilee; showed his wounds to the disciples, dined with them
at night, and slept in their company.
Now, here one has to consider whether, after acquiring an eternal
spiritual body, i.e., after gaining that immortal body which entitled him,
having been freed from the necessity of eating and drinking, to sit on the
right hand of God and to be free of all wounds, and pain, and infirmities, it
still suffered from one defect, although it had the glory of the Eternal and
Ever-Existing God -the defect, namely, that his body had on it fresh wounds
of the Cross and the nails, which were bleeding and were very painful and for
which an ointment had been prepared, and even after acquiring a glorious and an
immortal body, eternally sound, faultless, perfect, and unchangeable, that same
body continued to suffer from defects of many kinds: Jesus himself showed to
his disciples the flesh and bones of his body, and again, not only this, but
there were also the pangs of hunger and thirst -necessities of the mortal
body; otherwise, where was the need for him during the journey to Galilee to do
such useless things as eating and drinking water, resting, and sleeping?
Undoubtedly, hunger and thirst, in this world, are painful for the mortal body,
which may even prove fatal if they become extreme. So there is no doubt that
Jesus did not die on the Cross, nor did he acquire a new spiritual body:
rather, he was in a state of death-like swoon when he was taken from the Cross.
Through the grace of God, it so happened that the tomb in which he was
placed was an airy apartment. In those days the custom of the Jews was to make
the tomb airy like a commodious chamber, leaving an opening in it. Such tombs
were kept ready; and as the occasion required, dead bodies were interred in
them. The gospels bear clear testimony to this: Luke says, 'Now upon the first
day of the week very early in the morning [i.e., when it was still dark] they
[i.e., the women] came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they had
prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away
from the sepulchre [just consider this!] and they entered in and found not the
body of the Lord Jesus'.-(Luke 24:1-3)
Now consider for a moment the words, 'They entered in.' It is evident
that a man can only enter a tomb which is like a room and has an opening. This
is a fine point which when pondered over will lead investigators in this field
to a great and important conclusion.
Among the testimonies of the gospels are the words of Pilate, recorded by
Mark: 'And now when the evening was come, because it was the preparation, that is
the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, who
also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and
craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead.' –(Mark
15:42-44).
This would show that at the time of the crucifixion itself a doubt had
been raised whether Jesus had in fact died and the doubt emanated from no less
a person than one who knew from experience how long it took a person to die on
the Cross.
Among the testimonies of the gospels is the verse, 'The Jews, therefore,
because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the
Cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and
that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers and broke the legs of the
first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to
Jesus and saw that he was dead already they broke not his legs: but one of the
soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and
water'. –(John 19:31-34).
These verses clearly show that in order to put an end to the life of a
crucified person it was the practice in those days to keep him on the Cross for
several days, and then to break his legs, but the legs of Jesus were purposely
not broken, and he was taken down alive from the Cross, like the two thieves.
That was the reason why there came out blood when his side was pierced. The
blood however, conceals after death. And, here, it appears also that all this
was the result of a conspiracy. Pilate was a God-fearing and a good-hearted
man; he could not openly show favour to Jesus for fear of the Caesar; for the
Jews had declared Jesus a rebel.
All the same, Pilate did not desire that Jesus should suffer crucifixion. The gospels point out
clearly that Pilate had several times resolved to let Jesus go, but the Jews
said that if he would let him go he would be disloyal to Caesar; they also said
that Jesus was a rebel who wished to be king. –(John 19:12).
And the dream which Pilate's wife had, further prompted the freeing of
Jesus; otherwise, Pilate and his wife themselves would have been exposed to
disaster. But, as the Jews were a mischievous people, ready even secretly to
inform the Caesar of Pilate's action, Pilate made use of a device to rescue
Jesus: first, he fixed Friday for the crucifixion, only a few hours before
sunset, and the night of the Great Sabbath was about to fall. Pilate knew very
well that the Jews, in accordance with the commandments of their law, could
keep Jesus on the Cross only till the evening, and after that it was unlawful
to keep anybody on the Cross.
Accordingly, it all happened in this very manner; and Jesus was taken
down from the Cross before it was evening. It is improbable that the thieves
who were crucified at the same time as Jesus should have remained alive, but
that Jesus should have died within two hours. It was an excuse made up to save
Jesus from the process of leg breaking. The fact that both the thieves were
taken down alive from the Cross is sufficient evidence for an intelligent
person: and taking down the victims alive from the Cross was the usual custom;
they died only when their bones were broken, or when they were allowed to
remain on the Cross without food or drink for some days.
But Jesus had none of these experiences -he neither remained for any
number of days on the Cross, nor were his bones broken; and by making it appear
that Jesus had died the Jews were made to forget the whole matter. The thieves,
however, were killed immediately -their bones were broken. It would have been
different if it had been said in regard to one of the thieves also that he was
dead and that there was no need to break his bones. And a man named Joseph -an honoured friend of Pilate and a notable person in the locality and a secret
disciple of Jesus -presented himself at the right time. May be he too was
called at Pilate's suggestion. And Jesus having been taken for dead, his body
was made over to him, for he was a big man with whom the Jews could have no
quarrel.
Arriving at the scene he carried away Jesus as if he were a corpse.
Actually he was in a state of swoon. There was a spacious house near by, built
according to the custom of the time like a tomb, with an opening in it, and
situated at a place with which the Jews had nothing to do. Jesus was placed in
this house at the suggestion of Pilate. These events happened in the fourteenth
century after the death of Moses; and, Jesus was the Restorer of the Israelite
law in the fourteenth century. Though the Jews were looking out in this
fourteenth century for the Promised Messiah, and the prophecies of the previous
prophets also pointed to this very time for his appearance, yet, alas! the
unworthy priests of the Jews did not recognize the time and the season, and
rejected the Promised Messiah as an impostor.
Not only this; they declared him an unbeliever, pronounced the decree of
death against him, and dragged him into court. This showed that God had
assembled in the fourteenth century the influences which made the people's
hearts callous, the priests worldly, blind, and enemies of truth.
Among the testimonies which show that Jesus was saved from the Cross is
the one narrated in Matthew (26:36-46), which relate that after getting
information, through revelation, of his impending arrest, Jesus prayed to God
all night, on his face, and in tears, and such prayer offered with such
humility, and for which Jesus had ample time, could not go unaccepted; for the
cry of an elect of God, addressed at a time of distress, is never turned down.
How was it then, that the prayer of Jesus which he had addressed all night with
a painful heart and in a state of distress was rejected?
Jesus had said: The Father who is in heaven listens to me. Therefore,
when his prayer addressed in such a state of distress was not heard, how can it
be said that God heard his prayers? The gospels also show that Jesus was
certain at heart that his prayer had been accepted; he had great confidence in
that prayer. That is why when he was arrested and put on the Cross, and when he
found the circumstances not according to his expectations, he involuntarily
cried 'Eli, Eli lama sabachthani', meaning, 'My God, my God why hast Thou
forsaken me.', i.e., he did not expect that it would come to this -that he
would die on the Cross. He believed that his prayer would be heard.
So, both these references to the gospel show that Jesus firmly believed
that his prayer would be heard and accepted, that his tearful supplications
addressed throughout the night would not be wasted, whereas he had himself
taught his disciples, on divine authority: When you pray, the prayer will be
accepted. Further, he had also narrated the parable of the judge who feared
neither man nor God. The purpose of this parable was that the disciples should
realize that God undoubtedly answered prayers.
Although Jesus knew from God that there was a great affliction in store
for him, yet, like all righteous persons, he prayed to God, believing that
there was nothing impossible for God and that God determined whether any events
would happen or not. Therefore, the rejection of Jesus' own prayer would have
shaken the faith of the disciples. Was it possible to place before the
disciples an example destructive of their faith? If they had seen with their
own eyes that the prayer of a great prophet like Jesus, addressed all night
with burning passion, was not accepted, the unfortunate example would have been
very trying for their faith. Therefore, the Merciful God could not but have
accepted this prayer. It is certain the prayer offered at Gethsemane was
accepted.
There is another point in this connection. Just as there was a conspiracy
to kill Jesus, and for this propose the chief priests and the scribes assembled
together at the palace of the high priest called Caiaphas to devise a plan to
kill Jesus, so there was a conspiracy to murder Moses. But the powerful God
saved both great prophets from evil designs.
The point in this is that God Almighty undoubtedly accepts prayers
especially when His trustful servants, go to His door oppressed; He attends to
their plaints, and helps them in strange ways. Why is it then that the prayer
of Jesus uttered in such agony was not accepted? No, it was accepted. God saved
him. God created circumstances on earth and in heaven to rescue him. John, the
prophet Yahya, had had no time to pray, for his end had arrived, but Jesus had
the whole night to pray, and he spent the whole night in prayer, standing and
in prostration before God, for God had willed that he should give expression to
his distress and should ask for his release from Him to Whom nothing was
impossible.
So the Lord, in accordance with His eternal practice, heard his
prayer. The Jews uttered a falsehood when, crucifying Jesus, they made the
taunt that he relied upon God: why did not God save him? For God nullified all
the designs of the Jews and saved His beloved Messiah from the Cross and the
curse involved in it. The Jews had failed.
Among the testimonies of the gospel which have reached us is the verse
from Matthew: 'That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of
Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto
you, all these things shall come upon this generation'-(Matthew 23:35-36)
Now, if you think over these verses you will find that Jesus clearly
states that the killing of prophets by the Jews ceased with the prophet
Zacharias, and that after that, the Jews would have no power to kill any
prophet. This is a great prophecy which clearly points out that Jesus was not
killed as the result of crucifixion; he was rather saved from the Cross. For if
Jesus was also to suffer death by murder like Zacharias, at the hands of the
Jews, he would have hinted in these verses at his own murder. If it is urged
that Jesus also was killed by the Jews but his being killed was not a sin on
the Jews' part, for Jesus' death was of the nature of an atonement, the
contention is hardly tenable, for in John (19:11), Jesus clearly says that the
Jews have been guilty of a great sin for having resolved to kill Jesus; and
likewise, in many other places there is the clear hint that as a penalty for
the crime of which they had been guilty against Jesus, they had deserved
punishment in the sight of God. -(Matthew 26:24)
And among the testimonies of the gospel which have reached us namely:
'Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'-(Matthew 16:28)
Likewise, 'Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he (John) tarry ( in Jerusalem)
till I come.'-(John 21:22)
This means: 'If I will, John will not die till I come again'. These
verses show with great clarity that Jesus had made a promise that some people
would continue to live till his return; among these he had named John. So the
fulfilment of this promise was inevitable. Accordingly, even Christians have admitted
that in order that the prophecy may be taken to have been fulfilled, Jesus'
coming at a time when some of the people of that age were still alive was
inevitable, so that the prophecy should have been fulfilled according to its
promise. This is the basis of the clergyman's declaration that Jesus, in
accordance with his promise, had come to Jerusalem at the time of its
destruction and that John had seen him, as he was alive at that time.
But let it be noted that Christians do not say that Jesus really came
down from heaven accompanied by appointed signs; they rather say that he
appeared to John as in a vision, that he might fulfil his prophecy contained in
Matthew (16:28). But its true that coming of this kind does not fulfil the
prophecy. That is a very weak interpretation which only avoids with difficulty
the criticism levelled against this position. This interpretation is patently
untenable and wrong, so much so, that there is no need to refute it, for if
Jesus had to appear to anyone in a dream or a vision, a prophecy of this kind
would be ridiculous.
In such manner Jesus had also appeared to Paul long before this. It
appears that the prophecy contained in Matthew (16:28) has caused a panic among
the padres and they have not been able to give it a rational meaning in
accordance with their own beliefs, for it was difficult for them to say that
Jesus at the time of the sacking of Jerusalem had descended from heaven in
glory, and that like the lightning that lights up all heaven and is seen by
everybody, all had seen him; and also it was not easy for them to ignore the
statement, namely: Some of those who were standing here will not taste death
till they have seen the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. Therefore, as a
result of a laboured interpretation they believed in the fulfilment of the
prophecy in the shape of a vision. But this is not true; righteous servants of
God always appear in visions to the elect and for a vision it is not even
necessary that they should appear only in a dream; nay, they can be seen even
in the waking state; many have experienced of such phenomena & that does
not fulfil the prophecy of Matthew (16:28).
So, what actually happened was that Jesus knew that he would be saved
from the Cross and would migrate to another land, that God would neither let
him die nor would take him away from this world, so long as he had not seen the
destruction of the Jews with his own eyes, and that he would not die so long as
the fruits of the Kingdom, which the spiritually eminent are given by heaven,
were not realized. Jesus made this prophecy so that he might give an assurance
to the disciples that, presently they would see the signs that those who had
raised the sword against him would be killed with the sword during his own
life-time and in his very presence. If, therefore, evidence is of any value there
is for Christians no evidence greater than this: that Jesus with his own tongue
makes the prophecy that some of them would still be alive when he would come
again.
It should be noticed that the gospels contain two kinds of prophecies
about the coming of Jesus:
1. The promise of his coming in the latter days; his
coming is of a spiritual character, and resembles the second coming of the
prophet Elijah, in the time of Jesus. So, like Elijah, he has already appeared
in this age; and it is I, the writer; a servant of humanity, who has come as
the Promised Messiah, in the name of Jesus. Jesus has given the news of my
coming in the gospels. Blessed is he who, out of respect for Jesus, ponders
with honesty and truth over my coming, and thus saves himself from stumbling.
2. The other kind of prophecies regarding the second
coming of Jesus mentioned in the gospels have, in reality, been mentioned as
evidence of the life which, by the grace of God, remained intact during the
experience of the Cross; God saved His eminent servant from death on the Cross,
as the prophecy just now mentioned implies-Christians are in error in mixing
up these two contexts: because of this, they are confused and have to face many
difficulties. In short, the verse in chapter 16 of Matthew is a very important
piece of evidence in support of Jesus' escape from the Cross.
Among the testimonies of the gospels that reached us, is- 'And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then
shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.' (Matthew 24:30).
That is, Jesus says that a time will come when, from heaven, viz. as a
result of the power of divine intervention, there would come into being
knowledge, arguments and evidence which will invalidate the beliefs of Jesus'
divinity, his death on the Cross and his going up into heaven and coming again;
and that heaven will bear witness against the lies of those who denied his being
a true prophet, for example, the Jews; and who, on the other hand, regarded
him, because of his crucifixion, as a man accursed, for the fact of his not
having suffered death on the Cross and therefore of his not being accursed
would be clearly established; that then all the nations of the earth, who had
exaggerated or detracted from his true status would become greatly ashamed of
their error; that, in the same age, when this fact would be established, people
would see Jesus' metaphorical descent to the earth, i.e., in those very days
the Promised Messiah, who would come in the power and spirit of Jesus, would
appear with all the lustrous signs, and heavenly support and with the power and
glory which would be recognised.
The verse -further explained -means that God's destiny has made the
personality of Jesus and fashioned the events of his life so as to cause some
people to exaggerate, and others to minimize his status, i.e., there are people
who have taken him out of the category of human beings, so much so that they
say that he has not yet died and is sitting alive in heaven. The people who
have outrun these are those who say that, having died on the Cross and come to
life again, he has gone up to heaven and become invested with all the powers of
divinity; nay, he is God Himself.
The other people are the Jews, who say that he was killed on the Cross
and therefore he is accursed for all time; he is doomed to be the object of
perpetual wrath; God is displeased with him, and looks upon him as a hated
enemy; that he is a liar and an impostor and a rank unbeliever; that he is not
from God. This exaggeration and detraction were so unjust that it could not but
be that God should clear His true prophet of these charges.
The verse of the gospel mentioned before points to this fact. The
statement that all the tribes of the earth would mourn, suggests that all those
tribes to whom the description underlying the word 'nation' applies would mourn
on that day; they would beat their breasts and cry, and great would be their
mourning. Here Christians should follow the verse in question with some
attention; they should consider that when the verse contains the prophecy that
all the nations would beat their breasts, how is it that they should have
nothing to do with this mourning? Are they not a nation? When, in accordance
with this verse, they are included among those who are the beaters of breasts,
why do they not attend to their salvation?
The verse clearly says that when the sign of Jesus would appear in heaven
all the nations inhabiting the earth would mourn. So the man who says that his
tribe would not mourn denies Jesus. The people, however, who are yet small in
number cannot have been the people hinted at in the prophecy; they are not fit
to be described as a 'nation'; and that, people or tribe are we; nay, ours is
the only community which is outside the meaning and scope of this prophecy, for
this community has yet only a few adherents to whom the word 'nation' or
'tribe' cannot be applied.
Jesus, on the authority of divine inspiration, says that when a sign
appears in the heavens all the people of the world who, on account of their
numbers, would deserve to be described as a 'tribe' or 'nation' would beat
their breasts; there would be no exception but a people small in number to whom
the word 'nation' would not apply. Neither Christians, nor Muslims, nor Jews,
not yet any other denier, can keep out of this prophecy.
The word of a prophet can never fail. When the words contain the clear
hint that every nation inhabiting the world would mourn, which of these people
can claim to be outside their scope? Jesus admits of no exception in this
verse. The group, however, which has not yet attained the size of a 'tribe' or
a 'nation' is in any case an exception'. This prophecy has been clearly
fulfilled in this age, for the truth which has now been discovered regarding
Jesus is undoubtedly the cause of the mourning of all these tribes, for it has
exposed the errors of all. The hue and cry of Christians over the divinity of Jesus
changes into sighs of grief; the insistence of Muslims- day and night -that
Jesus has gone up to the skies alive, changes into weeping and wailing; and as
for the Jews, they lose everything.
Here it is necessary to mention that in the statement contained in the
said verse, namely, that at that time all the nations of the earth would beat
their breasts, 'earth' means the Balad-i-Sham [Palestine and Syria] with which
these three peoples are connected -Jews, because that is their place of
origin and their place of worship; Christians, because Jesus appeared in that
place, and the first community of the Christian religion rose from that
country; Muslims, because they are to be heirs to this land to the Last Day. If
the word 'earth' is taken to embrace all countries, even then there is no
difficulty, for when the truth is laid bare, all deniers would be ashamed.
Among the testimonies which have reached us through the gospels, is the
statement set out below from the gospel of Matthew: 'And the graves were opened,
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves
after his (viz. Jesus') resurrection and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.’-( Matthew 27:52)
There is not the slightest doubt that the story mentioned in the gospel,
namely, that after the resurrection of Jesus the saints came out of the graves
and appeared alive to many, is not based on historical fact; for, if it had
been so, the Judgment Day would have been enacted in this very world, and that
which had been kept secret as a test of faith and sincerity would have been
made manifest to all; faith would not have been faith, and, in the sight of
every believer and denier, the nature of the next world would have become an
evident and a patent fact, just as the existence of the moon, the sun, and the
alternation of day and night is an evident fact. In that case, faith would not
have been a valued and a valuable thing such as could have merited any kind of
reward.
If the people and past prophets of Israel whose number is millions, had
really been brought to life at the time of the Crucifixion and had come to the
city alive, and if this miracle -that hundreds of prophets, and many hundred
thousand of saints, were all brought to life at the same time -was really shown
in proof of the truth and divinity of Jesus, the Jews had an excellent
opportunity to inquire of the prophets brought back to life, and of the other
saints, as well as their own deceased ancestors, whether Jesus who claimed to
be God was really God or whether he had only lied.
They probably did not lose this opportunity. They must have inquired
about Jesus, for they were very keen to inquire from the dead if they could be
restored to life. When, therefore, hundreds of thousands of the dead were
restored to life, and came to the city, and thousands of them repaired to each
quarter thereof, how could the Jews let go an opportunity like this? They must
have inquired, not from one or two, but from thousands; and when the dead
entered their respective houses there must have been great excitement in every
house, for many hundred thousand of them had been restored to the world. In
every house there must have been great talk, and everybody must have been
questioning the dead as to whether they knew that the man who called himself
Jesus, the Messiah, was really God. But, because the Jews did not believe in
Jesus, as could be expected, nor did their hearts soften, rather did they
become confirmed in their hard-heartedness, it appears probably that the dead
did not speak a favourable word for him. They must have given without
hesitation the reply that this man was making a false claim to Godhood, and was
uttering a lie against God.
That was why the Jews did not desist from mischief, in spite of hundreds
of thousands of prophets and apostles being restored to life. Having 'killed'
Jesus, they attempted to kill others. How can one believe that hundreds of
thousands of saints who, from the time of Adam up to the time of John the
Baptist, had been lying in their graves in that blessed earth, should all be
brought back to life? -that they should all come to the city to preach, and
everyone of them should stand up and bear witness before thousands of people
that Jesus, the Messiah, was really the Son of God -no, God Himself; that
only he should be worshipped; that the people should renounce their former
beliefs; otherwise, they would go to hell, which these saints had themselves
witnessed! and yet notwithstanding such excellent evidence and such eye-witness
accounts which proceeded from the mouths of hundreds of thousands of dead
saints the Jews should not desist from their denial!
No one not prepared to believe this. Therefore, if hundreds of thousands
of saints and prophets and apostles, etc., who were dead, had really come to
life and had come to the city to give evidence, they must undoubtedly have
given unfavourable evidence; they could never have borne witness to the
divinity of Jesus. This seems to be the reason why the Jews, having listened to
the evidence of the dead, became confirmed in their unbelief. Jesus wanted to
get them to believe in his divinity, but they, as a result of this evidence,
denied that he was even a prophet.
In short, such beliefs have a highly injurious and evil effect -the
beliefs, namely, that one should say that these hundreds of thousands of dead
persons, or any dead person before that time, had been brought back to life by
Jesus; for the restoration to life of those dead did not serve any useful
purpose. A person who has visited a far-off country and who comes to his
home-town after several years or absence, is naturally keen to tell the people
of his strange experiences, and to relate to them the wonderful stories of the
land he has visited; he will not keep mum or be tongue-tied when he meets his
people after a long period of separation.
No, at such a time, others also are keen to hasten to him and to question
him about that land; and if, perchance, there comes to these people some poor
and lowly person, humble in appearance, and who yet claims to be the king of
the country, of which the principal town had been seen by these people and who
says that he is superior in his kingly rank even to such and such other king,
the people always question such itinerants as to whether such and such a man,
going about at that time in their country, is really the king of that land; and
then, those travellers, according as they may have observed, make replies to
such questions. This being so, the bringing of the dead to life by Jesus was,
as stated before, worthy of being believed in, in case the evidence on which
the dead must have been questioned -which questioning was natural -had led
to some useful result. But here it is not so.
Therefore, along with the supposition that the dead were brought back to
life, one is compelled also to suppose that the dead did not give evidence
favourable to Jesus, such as could lead one to believe in his truth; they
rather gave evidence which added to the confusion. Would that instead of truly
human beings brought to life, some animal had been declared to have been
restored to life! It would then have solved many difficulties. For example, if
it had been said that Jesus had brought back to life several thousand bullocks,
it would have been 'reasonable' enough, and, if in this case there had been
raised the objection as to what the evidence of these dead animals had led to,
one could have immediately answered that they were bullocks -they had no
tongue to give favourable or unfavourable evidence!
The dead, however, which Jesus brought back to life were human beings.
Suppose some of the Hindus were asked to-day whether, if ten or twenty of their
dead ancestors were restored to life and brought back to this world, and if
they were to state that such and such a religion was the true religion, they
would still have any doubt regarding the truth of that religion. They would
never say so.
Therefore, take it for certain that there is no man in the whole world
who would persist in his unbelief and denial after a disclosure of this kind.
For the case in framing such stories the Indian Sikhs have fared better than
Christians. The Sikhs have given proof of their astuteness in the art of
inventing stories; for they state that their Guru, Bawa Nanak, once restored a
dead elephant to life. Now this is a 'miracle' which is not open to the above
objection. For the Sikhs can say: the elephant had no tongue to speak with that
he should have borne witness in favour of or against Bawa Nanak.
In short, ordinary people, endowed with little intellect, are pleased
with such 'miracles' but the wise become the target of other people's criticism
and are thus worried over it. They are put to shame before those to whom such
silly stories are being related.
Therefore, let it be clearly understood that accounts like these are of
the nature of a vision seen after the Crucifixion by some holy persons -that
the dead saints had been brought back to life and had come to the city where
they paid visits to the people. Just as dreams have their interpretation
mentioned even in the Holy Book of God -for example, Joseph's dream had had
an interpretation -this vision also had to have an interpretation of its own;
and this interpretation was that Jesus had not died on the Cross; that God had
rescued him from death on the Cross.-(See Kitab T'atirul-Anam fi T'abirul-Manam
by Qutbuz-Zaman Shaikh Abdul Ghani Al-Nablisi, page 289) ie if anyone sees a
dream or a vision, that the dead have come out of the
graves and have made for their homes, the interpretation is that a prisoner
would be released from his bondage, and that he would be rescued from the hands
of his persecutors. The context shows that this prisoner would be a great and a
high personage. Now, it would be noticed how this interpretation applies with
reason to Jesus. One can readily understand that the dead saints having been
brought to life appeared to be making for the city to point out this fact, so
that the wise might know that Jesus had been saved from death on the Cross. Likewise, many more references in the gospels clearly point out that
Jesus did not die on the Cross; he was saved from it.
It is possible some may be entertaining in their hearts the objection
that the gospels repeatedly say that Jesus died on the Cross, and then having
been brought back to life, went up to heaven. This kind of objection already
briefly answered, but it may say again that Jesus' meeting the disciples after
his Crucifixion; his travelling up to Galilee; eating bread and meat; his
display of wounds on his body: staying a night with the disciples at Emmaus;
fleeing secretly from Pilate's jurisdiction; emigrating from that place, as was
the practice of prophets; and travelling under the shadow of fear -all these
events are conclusive that he did not die on the Cross; that his body retained
its mortal character; and that it had undergone no change.
There is no evidence in the gospels that anyone saw Jesus ascend to
heaven; and even if there had been such evidence, it would have been unworthy
of credence, for making mountains out of mole-hills and magnifying small things
into big seems to be a habit with the gospel writers. For example, if one
happens to say that Jesus is the Son of God, another sets about making him into
a full-fledged God, the third invests him with power over the whole universe,
and the fourth bluntly says that he is everything, and that there is no other
God besides him. In short, exaggerations carry them very far away.
If one considers the vision in which the dead were seen to come out of
their graves and to make for the city, one would notice that this vision had
been given its outer and apparent interpretation, so far as to say, that the
dead had literally risen out of their graves and come to the city of Jerusalem,
where they had paid visits to their people. Now, just see, how a 'feather' has
been made into a 'crow'; and, then it is no longer one crow, but many million.
When things are so exaggerated, we have no means of finding out the truth.
It is further worth considering that these gospels, called the Books of
God, contain preposterous claims, such as that, if all the works of Jesus had
been reduced to writing, these could not have been accommodated in the whole
world! Is such exaggeration the way of honesty and truth? If the works of Jesus
were so unlimited, and if they could not be circumscribed, how is it that they
were confined to a period of three years?
Another difficulty about these gospels is that they give wrong references
to some of the earlier books; they do not state accurately even the genealogy
of Jesus. From the gospels it appears that these persons were dull of
understanding, so much that some of them took Jesus for a ghost. These gospels
from the earliest times have been open to the charge that they have not
preserved the purity of their texts, and there being many other books called
gospels, there is no sound reason why all the statements of these other books
should be rejected, and why all that is contained in the gospels generally so
called should be admitted as true.
No one can say that the other gospels contain such unfounded
exaggerations as are to be found in these four gospels. It is surprising that
while on the one hand they say that Jesus was a righteous person and that his
character was without blemish, on the other hand there are brought against him
charges unworthy of any righteous person. For example, the Israelite prophets,
in accordance with the teaching of the Torah, undoubtedly had hundreds of wives
at one time in order that they might thereby multiply a generation of righteous
persons, but you will never have heard that any prophet had ever set such an
example of freedom that he should allow an impure and an adulterous woman, a
noted sinner of the city, to touch his body with her hands, to let her rub oil
into his head -art of her immoral gains -and to rub her hair on his feet;
that he should allow all this to be done by an unchaste young woman, and should
not say to her 'Don't'.
One is saved from giving way to suspicion which naturally arises on
seeing such a thing -only by trusting the goodness of Jesus. Nevertheless,
the example is not good for others. In short, these gospels contain many things
which show that they have not preserved their original form, or that their
writers were some other persons- not the disciples. For example, can the
statement of the gospel according to Matthew: 'And this is well known among the
Jews till to-day', be properly ascribed to Matthew? Does it not show that the
writer of the gospel of Matthew was some other person who lived at a time when
Matthew had already died? Then, the same gospel of Matthew (28:12-13) says: And
they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large
money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night and stole
him away while we slept'.
It would be noticed how unconvincing and irrational such statements are.
If the meaning of this statement is that the Jews wanted to conceal the rising
of Jesus from the dead, and that they had bribed the soldiers in order that
this great miracle should not become generally known, why was it that Jesus,
whose duty it was to proclaim this miracle among the Jews, kept it a secret;
nay, he forbade even others to disclose it? If it is urged that he was afraid
of being caught, I would say, that when the decree of God had descended upon
him, and he had, after suffering death, come to life again, assuming a
spiritual and a glorious body, what fear did he now have of the Jews -surely
the Jews now had no power over him; he was now beyond and above mortal
existence? One observes with regret that while, on the one hand, it is said
that he was made to live again and assume a spiritual body, that he met the
disciples and went to Galilee and thence went to heaven, he is nevertheless
afraid of the Jews for quite trivial things and, in spite of his glorious body,
he fled secretly from the country, lest the Jews discover him; he made a
journey of seventy miles to Galilee in order to save his life and time and
again asked the people not to mention this to others. Are these the signs and
ways of a glorious body?
No, the truth is that it was not a new and a glorious body -it was the
same body, with wounds on it, which had been saved from death; and, as there
was still the fear of the Jews, Jesus, making use of all precautions, left the
land. All talk of anything contrary to this is absurd -as the one about the
Jews having bribed the soldiers in order to make them say that the disciples
had stolen the corpse while they (the soldiers) were asleep. If the soldiers
were asleep they could be very well asked how they came to know in their sleep
that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen away.
From the mere fact of Jesus not being in the tomb, can anybody in reason
believe that he had gone up to heaven? May there not be other causes as a
result of which tombs might remain empty. At the time of going up to heaven, it
was up to Jesus to meet a few hundred Jews, and also Pilate. Whom was he afraid
of in his glorious body. He did not care to furnish his opponents with the
slightest proof.
On the contrary, he took fright and fled to Galilee. That is why we
positively believe that though it is true that he left the tomb, a chamber with
an opening, and though it is true that he secretly met the disciples, yet it is
not true that he was given any new and glorious body; it was the same body, and
the same wounds, and there was the same fear in his heart lest the accursed
Jews arrest him again. Just read attentively Matthew (28:7-10). These verses
clearly say that the women who were told by someone that Jesus was alive and
was going to Galilee, and who were also told quietly that they should inform
the disciples, were no doubt pleased to hear this, but they went with a
terrified heart, -they were still afraid lest Jesus might still be caught by
some wicked Jew.
The ninth verse says, that while these women were on their way to inform
the disciples, Jesus met and saluted them. The tenth verse says that Jesus
asked them not to be afraid, i.e. of his being caught; he asked them to inform
his brethren that they should all go to Galilee; that they would see him there,
i.e., he could not stay there for fear of the enemy.
In short, if Jesus had really come to life after his death and had
assumed a glorious body, it was up to him to furnish proof of such life to the
Jews. But we know that he did not do this. It is absurd, therefore, to accuse
the Jews of trying to render negatory the proof of Jesus' coming to life again.
No, Jesus himself has not given the slightest proof of his restoration to life;
rather, by his secret flight, by the fact of his taking food, and sleep, and
exhibiting his wounds, he himself proved that he did not die on the Cross.
The End.
Not Yet Verified
Not Yet Verified
Source:
Jesus in India by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed
Jesus in India by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
No comments:
Post a Comment