http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=88
Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible?
Islamic
apologists have attempted to bolster the credibility of their beliefs
by claiming that the Bible, itself, makes reference to the coming of the
prophet Muhammad. Ironically, this claim comes even in the face of the
prevailing Islamic contention that the Bible has been corrupted, and
thus cannot be relied upon as an accurate record of God’s Word.
Nevertheless, the reader is urged to weigh these claims in light of the
exegetical evidence for five of these passages.
Isaiah 29:12
First, Muslims appeal to Isaiah 29:12—“Then the book is delivered to
one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Read this, please’; and he says, ‘I am
not literate.’” Muslims insist that the book referred to in this verse
is the Quran, that the one to whom the book was delivered is Muhammad,
and that the one who ordered Muhammad to read the book is Gabriel. They
claim that Muhammad fits the description of this individual, since
Muhammad was illiterate when the angel Gabriel revealed the words of
Allah to him.
To understand the context of the verse, one must remember that Isaiah,
who lived in the 8th century B.C., is known as the “Messianic prophet”
because he prophesied so many details about
Jesus—not Muhammad. Isaiah 29 is in a context in which God pronounced woes on Judah for her sins
at that time,
i.e., 702 B.C. The context indicates that within a year, the great
Assyrian king Sennacherib would lay siege to Jerusalem in 701 B.C. (vs.
3). Jerusalem (called “Ariel”) would be attacked by her enemies and
punished for her crimes against God, and then those enemies would,
themselves, also receive their just desserts (vss. 4-8). God’s people
were in the throes of deliberate spiritual blindness, and Judah’s false
prophets/seers were not helping the situation (vss. 9-10). Notice that
Isaiah then described the unwillingness of the people of his day to heed
the truth by comparing them to a
literate person who
is told to read something, but refuses, excusing himself by saying the
document is sealed (vs. 11). It then is delivered to an
illiterate
person, but he excuses himself by saying he cannot read (vs. 12). The
point is that the people of Isaiah’s day refused to pay attention to
God’s Word spoken through His prophets. They did not want it! Verses
13-16 explain that because of their closed minds, they would all suffer
for their rejection of His Word when the Assyrians arrived to besiege
the city. But, as usual, God revealed a better day when people would
listen (vss. 17ff.). Having examined the context, it is transparently
evident that
these verses have absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad!
Deuteronomy 18:18
A second verse that Muslims brandish in support of their claims is the
promise of a coming prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18—“I will raise up for
them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words
in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.”
Muslims claim that the prophet to whom God referred was Muhammad.
Again, a simple examination of additional biblical evidence reveals
that the statement made to Moses was divinely intended to refer to
Jesus Christ—not
Muhammad. Shortly after the establishment of the church of Christ and
the Christian religion (in A.D. 30 in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost
after the death and resurrection of Jesus—Acts 2), two of the twelve
apostles, Peter and John, went to the Jewish temple and healed a lame
man (Acts 3:1-11). When people began to gather in large numbers out of
amazement at what had happened, Peter used the opportunity to preach the
Christian message to them (Acts 3:12-26). He made several crucial
points pertaining to the person of the Christ: (1) the recently
crucified Jesus was, in fact, the One Whom the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob had glorified (vs. 13); (2) God had raised Him from the dead
(vs. 15); (3) it was the “name” (i.e., authority/power) of Jesus, and
faith in Him, that procured the miraculous healing of the lame man (vs.
16); (4) the suffering of Christ was predicted previously by God through
the prophets (vs. 18); (5) at the conclusion of human history, God will
send Jesus back (not any of the prophets, let alone Muhammad)—an
unmistakable reference to the Second Coming of Christ immediately
preceding the Judgment (vss. 20-21; cf. Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians
5:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:7ff.). It is at this point that Peter quoted
from the passage in Deuteronomy and applied it to
Jesus—not
Muhammad (vss. 22ff.). Peter’s inspired application is unmistakable; he
clearly identified Jesus as the fulfillment: “God, having raised up His
Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you
from your iniquities” (vs. 26). Observe further that God stated
explicitly that the prophet that He would raise up would come "from your
brethren" (vs. 15; cf. vs. 18). In context, He was speaking to Moses,
who was a descendant of Isaac. Arabs descended from Ishmael, not Isaac.
Muhammad was not from the brethren of Moses and the Jews--he was an
Arab. Muhammad does not fit the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18.
John 14-16
A third attempt by Muslims to gain credibility for their viewpoint by
linking their beliefs to the Bible concerns the multiple allusions to
the Holy Spirit in John chapters 14, 15, and 16. John 16:7 reads:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go
away; for if I go not away, the Helper will not come unto you; but if I
depart, I will send him to you.” Again, Muslims claim that Jesus was
referring to Muhammad. Yet anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of
effort examining the teaching of John chapters 14, 15, and 16 is
astounded that anyone would claim that the “Helper” (NKNV), or
“Comforter” (KJV), or “Counselor” (RSV, NIV)—the one who stands beside (
paracletos)—is
to be equated with Muhammad. The three chapters have as their setting
Jesus giving His twelve apostles special encouragement and specific
admonitions in view of His eminent departure from the Earth. He
reassured them that even though He was about to exit the planet, He
would not abandon them. They would not be left “orphans” (14:18). He
would send in His place the Holy Spirit Who would teach them all things
and bring to their remembrance those things that Jesus had taught them
(14:26). The term translated “Helper” occurs three times in the context
(14:26; 15:26; 16:7). Without question, Jesus was referring to the power
and directional assistance that the apostles would receive from the
Holy Spirit beginning on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:8; 2:4). A simple
reading of the three chapters makes this conclusion inescapable.
Since Muslims do not believe in the notion of Trinity (God in three
persons—Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14), they reject the reality of
the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit is referred to in the Quran, it is
speaking of the angel Gabriel (Surah 2:87,253; 16:102; see Pickthall,
n.d., p. 40, note 3). But using their own reasoning, the “Helper” cannot
refer to Muhammad since the context specifically identifies the
“Helper” as the “Holy Spirit:” “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom
the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring
to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (14:26). If the
Quran is correct, and the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then John 14:26
teaches that the Helper is Gabriel—not Muhammad! No, John 16:7 does not
refer to Muhammad.
John 1:19-21
A fourth passage brought forward in an effort to show biblical support
for Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet of God is John 1:19-21—“Now this is
the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ He confessed, and did not deny, but
confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him, ‘What then? Are
you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ And he
answered, ‘No.’” Muslims claim that the Jews were waiting for the
fulfillment of three distinct prophecies. The first was the coming of
Christ. The second was the coming of Elijah. The third was the coming of
the Prophet. Muslims point out that the three questions that were posed
to John the baptizer in this passage show this expectation to be true.
They further maintain that since the Jews distinguished between the
Christ and the Prophet, Jesus Christ was not the prophet mentioned in
Deuteronomy 18:15,18.
Muslims certainly are correct in their observation that the Jews of
Jesus’ day thought that the Christ and the Prophet were two separate
personages. But the meaning and proper application of the Bible does not
rest on the perceptions and misconceptions of mere humans. The Bible
records the opinions and viewpoints of a wide range of individuals
throughout human history—including Satan himself (Matthew 4:3,6,9)—even
though their opinions and viewpoints were incorrect. The Bible does not
authenticate such opinions simply by reporting them. The Jews were
confused.
The real question is, does the Bible indicate whether the Christ and
the Prophet were/are to be understood as the same person? As already
noted, the apostle Peter certainly thought so (Acts 3:12ff.). So did the
great evangelist and Christian martyr, Stephen. Standing before the
highest-ranking body of the Jewish religion, the Sanhedrin, and in the
presence of the highest-ranking religious figure in Judaism, the high
priest, Stephen recalled the words of Moses from Deuteronomy (Acts
7:37), and then forthrightly declared Jesus to be the Just One Whom they
had betrayed and murdered (vs. 52). The “Just One” is precisely the
same person that Peter identified as the fulfillment of the Deuteronomy
passage, i.e., Jesus Christ. Likewise, Paul referred to Jesus (not
Muhammad) as the “Just One” (Acts 22:14). An objective appraisal of the
biblical data yields the unmistakable conclusion that the Bible
identifies the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 as Jesus Christ—not Muhammad.
Jesus is
both the Christ and the Prophet.
Song of Solomon 5:16
A fifth passage alleged to be a reference to Muhammad is found in Song
of Solomon 5:16, where it is claimed that Muhammad is actually referred
to by name in Hebrew. In English, the verse reads: “His mouth is most
sweet, yes, he is
altogether lovely. This is my
beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem!” (NKJV). A
phonetic transliteration of the underlying Hebrew text reads:
Kheeco mahm-tah-keem vuh-coollo ma-kha-madeem zeh dodee veh-tseh ray-ee beh-note yerushalayim.
Muslims claim that the bolded word, though translated “altogether
lovely,” is the name of Muhammad (Naik, n.d.). Consider six linguistic
evidences that dispute their claim:
1. The second syllable (
kha) utilizes the Hebrew letter
heth which has a hard initial sound like the “ch” in the Scottish word “loch.” It is to be distinguished from the Hebrew letter
he
which is the same as the English letter “h.” If Muhammad was being
referred to, the simple “h” would have been more linguistically
appropriate.
2. Muslims claim that the
eem (or
im) in
ma-kha-madeem
in the Hebrew language was “added for respect” (Naik). This claim is
untrue and unsubstantiated. The letters constitute the standard form for
changing a singular to a plural—like adding “s” or “es” in English (cf.
Weingreen, 1959, pp. 35ff.). As the eminent Emil Rödiger (who was
professor for oriental languages at the University of Halle and the
student of the well-known German Orientalist, H.F.W. Gesenius) noted in
his editorial comment in the prestigious
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar: “The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew” (p. 418).
3. The meaning of the Hebrew
ma-kha-madeem is different from
the meaning of the word “Muhammad” in Arabic. According to Sheikh Abd
al-Azîz, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the word “Muhammad” is derived
from the Arabic root word
hamd meaning “praise.” It is the
emphatic passive participle of that root and can be translated as “the
Oft-Praised One” (n.d.). However, the Hebrew term (
makh-mahd)
in the passage under consideration has a completely different meaning.
It refers to “grace, beauty” (Gesenius, 1979, p. 464), “a desirable
thing, delightfulness” (Brown, et al., 1906, pp. 326-327), “a pleasant
thing” (Payne, 1980, 1:295), or “precious” (Holladay, 1988, p. 190).
English translations render the term “altogether lovely” (NKJV, NIV),
“wholly desirable” (NASB), and “altogether desirable” (ESV, RSV). No
reputable English translation would render the underlying Hebrew as
“Muhammad.” All Muslims have done is happen upon a Hebrew word that
phonetically sounds somewhat like “Muhammad” and have erroneously
concluded the word must be referring to him. Such handling of linguistic
data is irresponsible.
4. Further, the claim that Muhammad is intended in the verse completely
disregards the context and message of the book of Song of Solomon. The
book consists of a dialogue between Solomon, his Shulamite bride-to-be,
and the “daughters of Jerusalem,” with perhaps even God interjecting His
comment (5:1b), as well as the Shulamite’s brothers (8:8-9). The term
used in 5:16 that Muslims claim refers to Muhammad is also used in 2:3
to refer to the Shulamite’s beloved—“Like an apple tree among the trees
of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down in his shade
with
great delight.” “Great delight” is the Hebrew word
also used in 5:16; in both cases the words of the Shulamite refer to
her beloved—not Muhammad.
5. Forms of the same Hebrew word are used elsewhere in the Old
Testament, yet Muslims do not claim that those passages refer to
Muhammad. Rightly so, since those verses cannot be forced to fit the
notion that Muhammad is under consideration. For example, Isaiah 64:11
mourns the destruction of Jerusalem: “Our holy and beautiful temple,
where our fathers praised You, is burned up with fire; And all our
pleasant things are laid waste.” “Pleasant things” is a form of the same
word in Song of Solomon 5:16. Would the Muslim contend that Muhammad
was “laid waste” in Jerusalem? Additional occurrences of the same
word—which dispel the misuse of the term by Muslims—are seen in 1 Kings
20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10,11; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25;
Hosea 9:9,16; Joel 3:5; et al. (Wigram, 1890, p. 687).
6. Even if the Hebrew word “lovely/desirable” in Song of Solomon were
the Hebrew equivalent of the Arabic word “praised one,” it still would
not follow that Muhammad is being referred to in the Bible. Instead, it
would simply be an indication that the underlying word stands on its own
as a term used for other applications. For example, the Hebrew word for
“bitter” is
mah-rah. It is used throughout the Old Testament
to refer to the concept of bitter. Yet, due to her unpleasant
circumstances in life, Naomi (meaning “pleasant”) requested that her
name be changed to “bitter” (
mah-rah) to reflect her bitter
predicament. It does not follow, however, that when the Hebrew word
“bitter” appears in the Old Testament it refers to Naomi. If parents
today were to name their child John, it would not follow that they
intended to reflect an association with others in history who have worn
the name John. Muslims have the cart before the horse. Their claim is
equivalent to parents naming their child “wonderful” or “special”—and
then claiming that an ancient writer had their child in mind when the
writer used the word “wonderful” or “special” in referring to another
person contemporary to the writer.
conclusion
All of the above verses may be understood with a little study and
consideration of context. Those who would attempt to use these verses to
apply to Muhammad demonstrate that they have a very superficial,
cursory understanding of the Bible. The truth is available for anyone
who cares to “check it out.” But searching for the truth requires
effort. It requires proper motivation, sincerity, and honesty. Yet it
can be done. As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free” (John 8:32).
References
al-Azîz, Sheikh Abd (no date), “The Meaning of the Prophet’s names ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad,’” Islam Today,
http://en.islamtoday.net/quesshow-14-738.htm.
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906),
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint).
Gesenius, William (1847),
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Holladay, William (1988),
A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Naik, Zakir (no date), “Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Bible,” Islam 101,
http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/mBible.htm.
Payne, J. Barton (1980),
hamad in
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.),
The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).
Weingreen, J. (1959),
A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Clarenden Press), second edition.
Wigram, George W. (1890),
The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).
Rarely
(if ever) have I read the words “genealogy” and “exciting” in the same
sentence. It seems most people consider the genealogies of Christ as
some of the Bible’s dullest reading. They frequently are described as
boring, dry, and monotonous—full of “begets” that many would just as
soon “forget.” In reality, however, exciting pearls of truth often are
overlooked. One of these truths that escapes the reader who simply skims
(or skips) the genealogies is the virgin birth of Christ.
Another
earthshaking find within the evolutionary community only spotlights
once again the inherent irrationality of the faltering, fallacious
theory. During a Southeast Asian expedition, retired Florida State
University science professor, David Redfield, captured the first photos
of the Laotian rock rat, once believed to have gone extinct more than 11
million years ago. The fossilized remains, collected previously from
sites in Pakistan, India, Thailand, China, and Japan, were thought to
verify this last known relative of a long-extinct family of rodents
known as Diatomyidae (“Retired Professor Captures...,” 2006). Surprise,
surprise—another alleged “ancestor” eliminated from the tattered
evolutionary tree.