Mohammed Hijab’s defence of Tawheed

David Wood Mohammed Hijab debate

If any of our readers would like to join us for an online apologetics class to discuss these topics in more depth, please do get in touch with us at [email protected]

Mohammed Hijab (MH) didn’t defend Tawheed, he destroyed it, but better than that, he let the Qur’an and Islamic tradition do it for him. As a result of which more Muslims all over the world will leave this false cult and, we pray, repent and find salvation in Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. Glory to YHWH, the Triune God, who is forever praised, amen! Praise God too, for David Wood for his faithful service to the LORD and to Muslims by speaking truth to them, and for keeping his cool in the face of all that bombast and bravado.

Let’s pick up on three points MH made (or failed to respond to) by which he destroyed his own religion, all of which he has already been repeatedly trounced for on the Internet, by Arabic speakers. This is important as all MH’s objections against David Wood were based on the fact he didn’t know Arabic. We look forward to MH’s debate with Arabic-speaker Christian Prince, which MH is on record as agreeing to. Four weeks later it still hasn’t happened, but we understand MH is still on holiday.

  1. “Allah prays…. I knew this was gonna happen! It doesn’t say “pray TO”, it says “pray FOR!”

Thank you for your honesty Mohammed Hijab. At last, an honest Muslim who admits what Sura 33:56 actually says i.e. pray, not bless or show mercy:

Verily, God and His angels PRAY (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! PRAY for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer.

Who cares if it’s pray to or pray for? The point is, according to Allah’s eternal speech, the Qur’an, Allah is praying. What is prayer? “To address a prayer to God or another deity” according to the Oxford Dictionary. So who is Allah is praying to? Himself? Or another deity? We’ve been asking this question for four weeks now at Speaker’s Corner. The only response has been “it doesn’t really mean pray” from non-Arabic speakers, although the Arabic speakers disagree! Perhaps Mohammed Hijab can give the Dawah team some free Arabic lessons when he gets back. A god that prays to himself or another deity is not pure montheism.

2. “Your recitation of the Qur’an, not the Qur’an, comes to life and intercedes for you on the Day of Judgement”

MH was referring to this Hadith:

Abu Umamah reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, “Read the Qur’an, for it will come as an intercessor for its reciters on the Day of Resurrection” (Sahih Muslim 1757)

This contradicts how the Islamic commentaries interpret it, which is that the Qur’an itself, not the recitation,  will be ‘endowed with the power of speech’; but there are other hadith (not mentioned by MH) which make this clear. For example:

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr:

Allah’s Messenger said, “Fasting and the Qur’an intercede for a man. Fasting says, ‘O my Lord, I have kept him away from his food and his passions by day, so accept my intercession for him.’ The Qur’an SAYS, ‘I HAVE KEPT HIM AWAY from sleep by night, so accept my intercession for him.’ Then their intercession is accepted.” Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 1963

Note, the Qur’an, not the reciter’s recitation of it, is talking and interceding. So according to this hadith the Qur’an, Allah’s eternal speech is a separate conscious agent from Allah, but must be morally and ontologically superior to human beings in order to plead the case of believers before Allah himself. Allah’s separate, conscious, eternal speech is interceding before Allah. How is that pure monotheism?

But even if MH’s interpretation were correct (and Islamic tradition confirms it’s not)- your recitation intercedes for you? That makes recitation a separate conscious agent,  again morally and ontologically superior to the reciter in order to qualify as intercessor. Really? That sounds more like pantheism than monotheism.

3. Muslims worship a black stone?

MH failed to respond to DW’s objection that the black stone, which Muslims touch and kiss as part of the hajj,  is deified alongside Allah. In the Qur’an, Allah rebukes the Meccans for their idolatry, which included worship of stones:

“And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.” Say: “Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?” Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him!” S. 10:18

And yet there is a stone that does apparently profit Muslims, according to Muhammad:

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said concerning the Stone: “By Allah, Allah will bring it forth on the Day of Resurrection, and it will have two eyes with which it will see and a tongue with which it will speak, and it will testify in favour of those who touched it in sincerity.” (Tirmidhi, 961; Ibn Maajah, 2944, hasan by al-Tirmidhi, and as qawiy by al-Haafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari, 3/462)

A black stone comes to life, with eyes and a tongue, to testify to Allah on behalf of the believers on the Day of Judgment! So a once-inanimate object is morally and ontologically superior to the believers in order to testify for them? The stone is involved in judging believers. But isn’t Allah supposed to be the only judge (Sura 6:114)? Why does he need help from a stone? Even Muhammad’s companions had doubts about all this.

Narrated ‘Abis bin Rabia:
‘Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said “No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah’s Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 667; *)

We could discuss more about the deification of Muhammad, Allah’s perishable parts, whether his attributes are part of Allah or not, if Tahwheed means ‘unification’ what exactly is being unified etc, but we’ll leave those for another day. For now we hope Mohammed Hijab is enjoying his break from Speaker’s Corner; we have a few things to chat to him about when he comes back, and our prayer is – as always – that he and the other SC missionaries stop trying to defend the indefensible, repent and believe in the LORD Jesus Christ for salvation. Praise His Name forever more.

With thanks to Sam Shamoun

Find us on Twitter @DCCIministries and Facebook


Author: DCCI Ministries

Defend Christ Critique Islam (DCCI) Ministries seeks to preach the Gospel to Muslims using apologetics and polemics.

15 thoughts on “Mohammed Hijab’s defence of Tawheed”

  1. Some Moslems insist on a particular thinking that Qur’an is basically Allah’s attribute of eternal speech, thus it is also eternal, uncreated.
    But, we need to be objective, with clear mind and good heart to deal with this issue, there are facts showing that apparently the Hadith doesn’t teach such a way of thinking:
    .Qur’an was recited by Allah “after” some thousand years before the world began, not from everlasting pastime.
    .Allah’s verbatim sayings in Qudsi Hadith do not become Qur’anc verses.
    .Qur’an is put in Lauh Mahfuz.
    .Qur’an will become a pale man in Afterlife.
    .Qur’an (not one’s personal recitation) will drive off the infidels who never “recite” it:
    Imam Ahmad, p. 155, Tabarani, Mu‘jam al-Kabir number 8655.
    From Ibn Mas‘ud who said: The Qur’an will come on the Day of Resurrection and will intercede for its companion, and it will lead him to Paradise, or it will testify against (a person) and will drive him to Hell. The Qur’an is an intercessor whose intercession will be accepted and an opponent whose testimony will be accepted. Whoever puts it in front of him, it will lead him to Paradise, and whoever puts it behind his back, it will drive him to Hell.

  2. Is Jesus originally the Lord?

    The answer is No.
    The title “Lord” is made and given to Jesus by God. In other words, Jesus is not inherently the Lord.
    Thus, the Lord (Kurious) must be not Jehovah.
    Acts 2:36
    Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

    Actually, the best Unitarian answer for refusing the eternal Lordship of Jesus is, the Lord is dead, not immortal.
    Thus, the Lord (Kurious) must be not Jehovah.
    1Cor 6:14
    And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

    Similarly, the Lord must be not God since the Lord has the archangel voice.
    Thus, the Lord (Kurious) must be not Jehovah.
    1Th 4:16
    For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

    The rank of “Lord” is always below “God”. Thus, the Lord (Kurious) must be not Jehovah.
    Dt 10:17
    For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

  3. What is funny is, the Trinitarians use the “twisted” stories of humans, not Jehovah, in the Old Testament such as Jonah in the belly of whale and the Suffering Servant to argue “desperately” for Jesus’ death. But, Jehovah does not die.

    Why don’t the Trinitarians find or use the story of Jehovah in the Old Testament to argue for crucifixion? They cannot do so because Jehovah cannot be slain. It means that by nature Jesus is not Jehovah.

    Now, take a look at Zech 13:7, how Jehovah (not Jesus) orchestrated a deadly punishment (smiting, using sword, scattering) to pierce a body of his “fellow”, not on “himself”:
    Zech 13:7
    Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

    The Trinitarians confuse the phrase “my fellow” (someone else) with “myself”. Jehovah kills, not gets killed.

  4. The Jews and Unitarians refer to some prominent Jewish debaters on the invalidity of Trinitarian claim upon Isaiah 53.

    Uri Yosef, Jewish Answers to Christian Missionaries, p.35,
    VII. Additional Issues Regarding the Christian Interpretation of “Isaiah 53”
    According to the accounts in the Gospels, the disciples never anticipated a dying
    Messiah. Peter acknowledges that Jesus was the Messiah:
    Matthew 16:16(KJV) – And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of
    the living God.
    Yet, when Jesus informs his disciples that he will be going to Jerusalem where he
    will be killed (Matthew 16:21), this is Peter’s response:
    Matthew 16:22(KJV) – Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from
    thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
    Peter did not appear to have had the expectation that Jesus, as the Messiah, was
    to fulfill “Isaiah 53”. In fact, Jesus taught his disciples about what is to happen to

    Mark 9:31 (KJV) – For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is
    delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall
    rise the third day.
    The following account in the New Testament describes their reaction:
    Mark 9:32(KJV) – But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

    These accounts leave no doubt that the disciples did not expect Jesus to fulfill
    “Isaiah 53” according to the common Christian interpretation of it as the scenario for
    his suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection. Rather, it appears that the common
    Christian interpretation of “Isaiah 53” is a later invention by the Church.

    Moshe Shulman, The question of Isaiah 53 and what it means.
    But even more than that, it can be shown that in the time of JESUS they NEVER associated this with a dying Messiah. How do I know. Look at Matthew 16:16-20 where we see that according to the NT, Peter correctly understood that JESUS was the Messiah, and he is told not to reveal it. But let’s see Matthew 16:21-22 (right after that) “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (22) Then Peter took him and began to REBUKE him saying, ‘BE IT FAR FROM THEE, LORD: THIS SHALL NOT BE UNTO THEE!’” What’s going on here? If it was true that the Jews knew that Is 53 referred to the Messiah, Peter should have said ‘Yes Lord we understand, that is what it says in Is 53, the Messiah has to suffer and die.’ But what does he do? He REBUKES JESUS and tells him, are you crazy? The Messiah is not supposed to die. Peter never knew, and the Jews never knew, because it never meant the Messiah. In the time of JESUS nobody attached Is. 53 to the Messiah.

  5. Moreover, in despair the Trinitarians use one of the most silliest arguments I have ever seen and cheapest play of word “Sheresh of Jesse” in Isaiah 11 to fin in Isaiah 53. They just misread two contradictory verses:
    – Isaiah 11:10 talks about a *Glory resting” of the root of Jesse,
    – whereas Isaiah 53 talks contrarily as *Despised and rejected root crushed by God* in a bad inglorious sense.
    Isa 11:10
    And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
    Isa 53:2
    For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

  6. Moreover, Isaiah 53: 10 is the utter refutation of both Jesus’ divinity and alleged connection to Isaiah 9:6.
    Isa 53:10
    Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his *seed*, he shall *prolong* his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

    – Hebrew word “Zerah” (seed) in Isaiah 53:10 can mean either the biological offspring, or the spiritual sons, but Jesus is just a “Bridegroom” (husband) for Christian Brides, not a father for his own brides (which is sin of incest).
    Jesus is not a father of his own wife.

    Rev 21:9
    And talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.

    – The Hebrew word “Yaarik” (prolong) has a limitation, so Jesus cannot be the “Everlasting” Father.
    Word yaarik has 5 occurrences (Deut 17:20, Prov 28:2, Prov 28:16, Ecc 8:13, Isaiah 53:10) and it refers to a limited longevity but not immortality.

  7. There are very negative and dark references to Nazareth and Galilee in Gospel of John (Jn 1:46 by Nathanael, Jn 7:41, Jn 7:52), the Hebrew word “Nezer” is designated for the accursed Lucifer in Isaiah 14:19 (as abominable branch) as well as the evil figure of anti-Messiah (Daniel 11:47).
    That’s why the ancient Jews did not ever connect the town’s Name to any good prophecy whatsoever.

    Once Nathanael heard the word “Jesus of Nazareth” from Philip, immediately his first response of that is so *guiltless* concerning the bad reputation of Nazareth and Galilee. The Jews consider there’s no good thing that may come from Nazareth.
    Jn 1
    45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
    Jn 7:52
    They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
    Jn 7:41
    Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

    Bauckham, Jude, Jude, Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, pp. 64–65.
    By means of this pun, Jesus’ otherwise distinctly unmessianic home town (cf. John 1:46, 7:41-42) was given messianic prophetic significance (Matt 2:23). Probably also the term Nazarenes as a designation of the Jewish Christians (Acts 24:5) was accepted because it was associated with this messianic pun and so later became the standard term for the non-Ebionite Jewish Christians.

    Worse, the Hebrew word “Nezer” is designated for Lucifer in Isaiah 14:19, whereas for the Suffering Servant Isaiah 53:2 uses the Hebrew word “Sheresh”.
    Isa 14
    12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning, how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch (Hebrew: Nezer), and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

    Isa 53:2
    For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root (Hebrew: Sheresh) out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

  8. On Nazarene:
    All four Gospels and the epistles of the NT Bible agree that Jesus was a former pupil of John the Baptist who happened to have founded a Nezer (watcher, keeper) sect, known generally as Nasorean and Mandaeanism. Interestingly, Epiphanius agrees with the main Mandean’s claim that they come from the earlier sect of pre-Christian origin that migrated from Israel.
    Those few who are initiated into the secrets of the Mandaean religion are called NaSuraiia or Nasoraeans. The Mandaeans claim to have fled Jerusalem before its fall (70 AD) due to persecution by the Jews. The word NaSuraiia may come from the root n-S-r meaning “to keep” since although they reject the law they consider themselves to be keepers of Gnosis.
    Epiphanius mentions a group called Nasaraeans (Part 19 of the Panarion), distinguished from the “Nazoraioi” (Part 29).
    “…The Nasaraeans – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordon…They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nasaraeans and the others…” – Epiphanius’ Panarion 1:18
    The Nasaraeans may be the same as the Mandaeans of today.
    Epiphanius says (29:6) that they existed before Christ. That is questioned by some, but others accept the pre-Christian origin of this group.[25]
    The Mandaeans of Iraq use the term “Nasorean” in their history, the Haran Gawaitha, to describe their origins in, and migration from Jerusalem: “And sixty thousand Nasoreans abandoned the Sign of the Seven and entered the Median Hills, a place where we were free from domination by all other races.”…[90]
    Theories on the origins of the Mandaeans have varied widely. During the 19th century Wilhelm Bousset, Richard Reitzenstein and Rudolf Bultmann argued that the Mandaeans were pre-Christian, as a parallel of Bultmann’s theory that Gnosticism predated the Gospel of John.[91] Hans Lietzmann (1930) countered with the argument that all extant texts could be explained by a 7th-century exposure to, and conversion to, an oriental form of Christianity, taking on such Christian rituals as a Sunday Sabbath.
    Scholars of Mandaeans considered them to be of pre-Christian origin; however, no evidence for this is found prior to the 2nd century.[92] They claim John the Baptist as a member (and onetime leader) of their sect; the River Jordan is a central feature of their doctrine of baptism.[93]

  9. I ever came across a debate between a Jew and Trinitarians some time in the past. There’s a funny exchange but bears the truth, concerning the stoning of Stephen.
    Trinitarians claim proudly that Stephen sees Jesus standing “exalted” beside Jehovah, and they claim this as fulfillment of David’s Psalms 110:1 and Isaiah 53:2.
    Now here is a comedy:
    A Jew says calmly which remarks his response: if exaltation of Jesus were true, it is quite nasty how Jesus just watches Jehovah’s worshiper (Jews) to stone his devotee (Stephen) under his nose, whereas David in Psalms 110 assures to make his enemies a footstool. In fact, it is upside-down, it is his devotee (Stephen) who gets crushed down by the zealous followers of the One (Jehovah) who stands at his Left hand. And you know what, Jesus just stands over there, like a dumb statue, being silent, seein’ no evil, hearin’ no evil, sayin’ no evil, apparently approving and enjoying the stoning of Stephen.

    So, what is benefit to believe for the Trinitarians if Jesus was really (apparently not) standing over there? nothing.

  10. Then a Jew says, if Jesus were counted as a standing “mediator” or the (alleged) Counselor (Isaiah 9:6) for the One Jehovah who sits just next to him, Jesus must have been the most loser ever, a very failed incompetent priest, a lousy callous intercessor, one who cannot get his job done.

    Jesus just silently watches the worshipers of Jehovah stone and lynch Stephen altogether with no reaction whatsoever.

    Why do the Trinitarians still respect that callous inglorious figure?

  11. Story of stoning of Stephen does utterly destroy all theological arguments for Jesus’ exaltation, mediator, and lordship.
    What the Jews (followers of Jehovah who sits just next to Jesus) do against Stephen shows a direct justification of the Jewish faith, undermines Jesus’ christology, and questions Jesus’ callous character as well as his silent incompetence for being alleged Counselor.

  12. It is quite ironic and so painful for the Trinitarians to proceed the debate with such a Jew because his counter-argument just comes from the NT Bible itself (in Acts 7). What they can do about that?

    To add insult to injury, a Jew further contrasted what Jehovah does by immediately sending down his angel to kill Herod immediately due to his pagan attraction. It shows how Jehovah does judge the sinful men in this world, he doesn’t wait the moment to delegate the judgments to Jesus in the future.

    Acts 12
    21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

  13. Trinitarians have a similarity principle or syllogism when equating Jesus with Jehovah: that is, if it sounds like duck, walks like duck, behaves like duck, then it is duck.

    But, if the principle of syllogism is really applied consistently, the Trinitarians have three big unsolved obstacles (that would force them to accept the 4th person for godhead: Angel).

    – The Angel of the Lord in Acts 12:34 does the action precisely like that of the Angel of the Lord in 2Ki 19:35, they both exactly smote their enemies, Assyrian army and Herod. So, if the Angel of the Lord in 2Ki 19:35 is Jesus’ christophany, does in Acts 12:23 he descend down once again transforming to be a same Angel of the Lord?
    If not, Trinitarian’s similarity principle cannot be used.
    It means, at least the Angel of the Lord must be the 4th member of godhead.
    Acts 12:23
    And immediately the Angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
    2Ki 19:35
    And it came to pass that night, that the Angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

    – Triumvirate of Jehovah, Jesus, alongside the “Holy” Angels will descend to judge the world in Final Judgment. But, Where’s Holy Spirit anyway? Is Jesus mistaken “Holy” Spirit with “Holy” Angels?
    Why do the “Holy” Angels precisely act, behave, descend down, and authorise judgment, just exactly like two persons do?
    It means the group of “Holy” Angels must be the 4th member of godhead.
    Lk 9:26
    For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the Holy Angels.

    – Coincidentally, there’s one archangel named “Michael” whose titles and works are precisely like that of Jesus, so by principle of similarity Michael must be 4th member of godhead.
    Syllogism: Jesus is called “Lord”, and Michael the archangel refers to himself as “Lord” (Kurios), hence Jesus is Michael.
    Jude 1:9 “Michael the archangel,…said, The Lord rebuke thee”.
    Zech 3:2 “the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan”.

    His angels.
    Syllogism: The phrase “Michael with his angels”, it is strikingly similar with phrase “Son of Man with his angels”.
    Mt 13:41 “The Son of man shall send forth his angels”.
    Rev 12:7 “Michael and his angels fought against the dragon”.

    Syllogism: the same voice of Son and the voice of archangel both are able to awaken the dead ones, hence the Son of God is the archangel.
    1Th 4:16 “with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first”.
    John 5:25 “voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live”.

    Syllogism: Jesus is called Prince of the kings, and Michael is the Prince, hence Jesus is Michael.
    Dan 10:21 “in these things, but Michael your Prince”.
    Rev 1:5 “Jesus Christ, who is… the Prince of the kings of the earth”.

    Punisher of Satan.
    Syllogism: Jesus casts Satan down from Heaven, and Michael defeats Satan, hence Jesus is Michael.
    Lk 10:18 “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”.
    Rev 12:7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon,…9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan”.

  14. Fourth syllogism:
    – Angelic assembly is the heavenly group with whom Jehovah discusses the judgment on the earth, even they are called “gods”. It means, at least the Angel of the Lord must be the 4th member of godhead.
    Ps 82
    1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

    2Chr 18
    18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

  15. Another Psalmic reasons why Jews and Unitarians do not worship the Messiah: Abraham’s left seat is more higher.

    Is the right hand of Jehovah (Psalms 110:1) the divine seat? No.

    The answer in Judaist interpretation is “No”, in fact Abraham’s seat is more “higher” the Messiah’s, and interestingly it is also correlating with a crucial verse Psalms 110:5 where Jehovah is described as “The LORD (Adonay) at thy (Abraham’s) right hand”, in a very “sentimental” story how Jehovah consoles Abraham, as in Midrash on Psalms, Tehillim.
    Midrash Tehillim.
    R. Yudan said in the name of R. Hama: In the time-to-come, when the Holy One, blessed be He, seats the lord Messiah at His right hand, as is said: The LORD (Adonay) saith unto my lord (adoni): Sit thou at My right hand (Ps. 110:1), and seats Abraham at His LEFT, Abraham’s face will pale, and he will say to the Lord: My son’s son sits at the right, and I at the LEFT. Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, will comfort Abraham, saying: Thy son’s son is at My right, but I, in a manner of speaking, am at thy right: The LORD (Adonay) is at thy (Abraham’s) right hand (Ps. 110:5).

    Also in Yalqut Shimoni, Jehovah assures Abraham that Abraham’s seat at the left hand of Jehovah is more higher than the seat at his right hand:
    Yalqut Shimoni Ps. 110, Nedarim 32b and Sanhedrin 108b.
    Rabbi Yodan says in Rabbi Bar Haninan’s name that: The Holy One will set the coming Messiah-King at his RIGHT hand and Abraham at his LEFT, and so Abraham’s face will become white with envy, and he will say: The son of my son sits on your right and I must sit on your LEFT? Then the Holy One will appease him by saying, Your son is on your right and I am on your right.

    Other Midrash has Ephraim instead of Messiah at the right hand:
    Midrash Alpha Betot, 2:438-425
    God says: Ephraim, My firstborn, you sit on My right untul I subdue the army of the hosts of God and Magog, your enemies, under your footstool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *