Muslims think that the following Lukan text is in error and even
proves that Jesus wasn’t killed:
“Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next
day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.” Luke
13:33
These polemicists assume that the foregoing text clearly
contradicts the fact that Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem. As we shall
see, the problem doesn’t lie with Luke but with this gross misreading of Luke
by these Muhammadans.
In the first place, Jesus clearly says that he will be killed
outside of Jerusalem:
“And he began to tell the people this parable: ‘A man planted a
vineyard, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country for a long
while. When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, that they should
give him some of the fruit of the vineyard; but the tenants beat him, and sent
him away empty-handed. And he sent another servant; him also they beat and
treated shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And he sent yet a third;
this one they wounded and cast out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, “What
shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will respect him.” But
when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, “This is the heir; let us
kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” And they cast him out
of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the
vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants, and give the
vineyard to others.’ When they heard this, they said, ‘God forbid!’” Luke
20:9-16
The tenants refer to the Jewish leaders and the vineyard refers
to Jerusalem. In this parable, Jesus says that he, as the beloved Son, will be
thrown out of the vineyard and then be killed. To put it another way, Jesus was
saying that the Jewish leaders would have him killed outside of Jerusalem.
Now we anticipate that the Muslims will say that this doesn’t
resolve the problem and will wish to say that this only contradicts what Jesus
said in Luke 13:33. Does it? Let us read the immediate context and see:
“Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go
away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.’ And He said to them, ‘Go and
tell that fox, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and
tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.” Nevertheless I
must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a
prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How
often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her
brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Behold, your house is left to
you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when
you say, “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!”’” Luke 13:31-35
We can glean from the immediate context that Jesus was
addressing the Jews who warned him about Herod’s threat. Jesus responds by
basically saying that Herod can’t do anything against him since he has a goal
to reach Jerusalem, and once there he will die.
Now from this context we can see that Jerusalem stands for the
Jewish leaders, in contrast to Herod, who will kill Jesus just as they killed
the other prophets. Obviously, Jerusalem didn’t literally kill the prophets but
its leaders and people did. This serves to affirm that Jesus’ point was that
Herod wouldn’t be the one to condemn him to death, but the members of the
Sanhedrin who were in Jerusalem. This is reiterated in the Matthaean parallel:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For
you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the
righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not
have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you
witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered
the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents,
you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I
send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom YOU will kill
and crucify, and some YOU will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town
to town, so that ON YOU may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from
the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom
YOU murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all
these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How
often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood
under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate.
For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who
comes in the name of the Lord.’” Matthew 23:29-39
What Jesus was basically saying is that he could not be
condemned to death by anyone other than the Jewish leaders. Jesus was obviously
using Jerusalem as a metaphor for its leaders, personifying the city and
blaming it for the bloodshed caused by its people, since the city is being
identified with its people, specifically the Sanhedrin. As noted Bible
expositor John Gill stated:
for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem;
because the great sanhedrim only sat at Jerusalem, to whom it belonged to try
and judge a prophet; and if found false, to condemn him, and put him to death;
the rule is this;
“they do not judge, neither a tribe, nor a false prophet, nor an
high priest, but by the sanhedrim of seventy and one.”
Not but that prophets sometimes perished elsewhere, as John the
Baptist in Galilee; but not according to a judicial process, in which way
Christ the prophet was to be cut off, nor was it common; instances of this kind
were rare, and always in a violent way; and even such as were sentenced to
death by the lesser sanhedrim, were brought to Jerusalem, and publicly executed
there, whose crimes were of another sort; for so runs the canon;
“they do not put any one to death by the sanhedrim, which is in
his city, nor by the sanhedrim in Jabneh; but they bring him to the great,
sanhedrim in Jerusalem, and keep him till the feast, and put him to death on a
feast day, as it is said (Deuteronomy 17:13) “and all the people shall hear and
fear.””
And since Jerusalem was the place where the prophets were
usually put to death, …
FOOTNOTES:
F5 Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 1. sect. 5. & T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 2.
F6 Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 4. (John
Gill’s Exposition of the Bible https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-13/)
Jesus’ comments regarding a prophet not perishing outside of
Jerusalem refers to the judiciary process which was necessary for an execution
to be carried out lawfully. Christ was simply reiterating a known fact that
those invested with authority are to make decisions regarding the death
penalty, that there must be a judicial decision on the part of Jerusalem’s
leaders before one can be rightly condemned. The reference to Herod proves this
point. Since Jesus was in Herod’s district the latter had the judicial
authority to kill Jesus. Now obviously, the Jerusalem council wrongly condemned
Jesus to death, even though they thought that they were correct to kill him on
the basis that they viewed him as a blasphemer. Jesus’ resurrection vindicated
him of these charges and supernaturally confirmed that he was no blasphemer,
but actually was who he claimed to be – the divine, unique Son of God.
Jesus essentially affirmed this very fact, namely, that the
Sanhedrin would condemn him to death, elsewhere in Luke’s Gospel:
“But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to
anyone, saying, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be
rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and
be raised up on the third day.’” Luke 9:21-22
“Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are
going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets
about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be HANDED
OVER TO the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon,
and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will
rise again.’” Luke 18:31-33
The Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to the Gentile rulers who then
mocked, mistreated, spat, scourged and killed him by crucifixion. Note the
process that takes place. The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus as worthy of death, but
since they couldn’t kill him themselves they proceeded to hand him over to
those who had the authority to do so.
It is therefore obvious from the preceding that there is no
contradiction in the words of Jesus, but only the Muslim gross misunderstanding
of what Jesus meant when he referred to not perishing outside of Jerusalem.
Jesus wasn’t using Jerusalem to refer to the city, but to its people,
specifically to its leaders who condemned him to die.
But even if we were to assume that Jesus was referring to the
city, and not to its leadership, these Muhammadans would still have no case. As
we noted, Jesus’ statements are made in a particular context, standing in
Galilee, being informed by others about Herod’s intention of killing him, and
says he must first go to Jerusalem. That is his purpose, and not even Herod
will keep him from getting to Jerusalem and being put on trial there. Jesus
isn’t talking about his exact execution place. From the
perspective of standing in Galilee, in a different province, several days
journey away from Jerusalem, just outside the city wall was still Jerusalem.
Moreover, every city always has some land around it that belongs to the city.
The walls are for protection of the people and their houses, but they still
would have land for agriculture that belonged to the city, but which would be
outside the walls themselves.
Finally, that a text such as Luke 13:33 remains intact within
the Holy Bible is an argument for the Scriptures’ veracity. It shows that
Christian scribes, for the most part, tried to preserve the Scriptures as best
as they could, no matter what difficulties a text may have posed to their
theology and understanding.
Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/26/a-contradiction-in-luke/
IHS
No comments:
Post a Comment