Tafsir of Ya seen 36:14

(When We sent to them two) — based on the view that this was a command from God, Almighty and Exalted, to complete the parable and perfect the consolation. Ibn Abbas and Ka’b said: They were messengers of God, Almighty and Exalted. Some of the eminent scholars chose this view, asserting that God sent them as supporters for Jesus, peace be upon him, confirming his law, just as Aaron was to Moses, peace be upon them both. They supported this with the literal meaning of "When We sent to them two," and the statement of those to whom they were sent, "You are but humans like us," since humanity—in their view—negates messengership from God, though not from others, Glory be to Him. Some used the manifestation of miracles at their hands, such as healing the blind and the leper and raising the dead—as mentioned in some traditions—as evidence for this, and a miracle is exclusive to a prophet, as established in the discourse. Those who held the first view responded to the first point with what you have heard, and to the second by arguing that either they [the people] called out to them in a manner from which they understood they were conveying from God without an intermediary, or they equated the messengers with their Sender, addressing them in a way that negates their messengership, treating Him as present as a form of generalization. Regarding the third point, they responded that if the tradition is authentic, what appeared at their hands was a karamah (miracle of a saint) for them, in the sense of being a miracle for Jesus, peace be upon him; it does not necessarily constitute a miracle for them unless they claimed messengership from God without an intermediary, which is the very core of the issue.

"When" (idh) is a substitute for the first "when." As for the two, it is said they were John and Paul; Muqatil said Tuman and Paul; Shu’ayb al-Jaba’i said Simon and John; and Wahb and Ka’b said Sadiq and Saduq. It is also said: Nazus and Marus.

It is said "We sent to them" (ilayhim) rather than "to it" (ilayha)—referring to the town—to correspond with "When it came to it" (idh ja'aha), because sending is, in reality, to them, not to the town, unlike coming. Furthermore, the sequence with His saying, "So they denied both of them," is clearer here, being analogous to the sequence in His saying, "So We said, 'Strike with your staff the stone,' and there gushed forth..." This fa is called the fasihah (eloquent), as it clarifies an omitted verb. The people of the town were, at that time, idolaters.

"So We strengthened" (fa-‘azzazna)—meaning We fortified and reinforced them, as Mujahid and Ibn Qutaybah stated. It is said, "The camel’s meat became 'azzaz," if it became firm. Others said: It is said, "The rain 'azzaza the earth," if it packed and hardened it, and hard ground is called al-'azaz, from which comes al-'izz (might) in its known meaning. The object of the verb is omitted, meaning "So We strengthened them."

"With a third"—due to the implication of what preceded it, and because the intent is to mention the one with whom they were strengthened.

He is, according to what is narrated from Ibn Abbas, Simon Peter, also called Simeon. Wahb and Ka’b said: Shallum. According to Shu’ayb al-Jaba’i: Paul (with a sad), though some narrate it with a sin. Al-Hasan, Abu Haywah, Abu Bakr, al-Mufaddal, and Aban read "fa-‘azzazna" with a light za, while the heavy za [in the common reading] are two linguistic variants, like shiddah and shaddadahu; the meaning is the same. Abu Ali said the light form is from 'azza if he overcame, from which comes the saying, "Whoever is 'aziz (mighty/overcomer) will take by force." Thus, the meaning is: We overcame them with the argument of a third. Abdullah read "by the third."

"And they said"—a conjunction to "so they denied both" and "so We strengthened." The fa indicates sequence, meaning the three said after the denial of the two and the strengthening with a third: "Indeed, we are messengers to you." It does not invalidate the attribution of the statement to the three that some were silent, for consensus is sufficient; rather, they said that the mode of speaking in the plural when a message is delivered by one is that the speaker is one and the others are in agreement with him.