Claims and Teachings - Ahmad The Promised Messiah and Mahdi — Page 31
31 were not? And yet both Christians and Muhammadans hold them to be guilty in rejecting Jesus. Nay, Jesus himself declared them, to be guilty in the sight of God. for rejecting him. What was their fault? If it was simply a difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of the prophecies which might be construed both ways, the Jews, though in error, did not deserve to be con- demned thus outright. Unless they manifestly took a wrong course and insisted upon it, notwithstanding having reason tq believe it to be erroneus, their fault would be very slight and they would be excusable in the sight of God. Their grestest objection against Jesus was that Elijah had not appeared. If his own appearence was permissible according to the Divine Laws, their objection was valid, because a promise of his return had been given to them in clear words; but if his personal appea- rance was not permissible, their insistence deserved to be punished. Hence, people who condemn the Jews for rejecting Jesus, whether Christians or Muslims, shall have to admit that the personal second advent oi Elijah, and for that reason of any person, whatever, was not allowed in the Divine Law though a promise to that effect might be found in the Word of God. But had the Jews reason to believe that such an advent could not take place ? It cannot be denied that at the advent of Jesus, the Jews were anxiously waiting for the appearance of the Messiah. According to their best calculations the time had come when the deliverer should have appeared. The time of advent being esta- blished, it was their duty to refrain from demanding a literal fulfilment of the words of prophecies. But their materialistic spirit could not yield to the spiritual explanations given by Jesus. They were bent low upon worldliness and hence they expected everything to be fulfilled literally arid materially. The coming of Elijah the. prophet could have been easily under-