Rebuttal to Silas' "Who is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18" article:
The following rebuttal was sent to me by a Muslim brother who requested that his name remains anonymous; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.
This article is a rebuttal to Silas' article that is located at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/deut1818.htm.
Silas wrote:
Muhammad claimed that the Bible foretold his prophethood. Today many Muslim apologists claim that the term "brethren" in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18 could include anyone who is a descendant of Abraham. They believe that since Muhammad was an assumed descendant of Ishmael, Abraham's first son, then Muhammad qualifies as a 'brother' to the Israelites, and is indeed the prophet who Moses foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18.
The New Testament tells us that Jesus is the prophet Moses foretold (Acts 3:22). Let's examine the biblical evidence and see if Muhammad has a claim to be the prophet foretold by Moses.
CONTEXT OF “BRETHREN”
To begin with, the term used for 'brethren' is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament, (Taurat, Zabur). What must be addressed is the context for the term 'brethren'. If the context of how it is used means anyone loosely related to the Israelites, then perhaps it is possible that Muhammad could be the prophet. If the context means that the future prophet is to be an Israelite, then Muhammad could not be that prophet.
In one sense, since Muslims and Christians believe that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, then all of us are brothers and sisters. But Muslims insist that the meaning of "brethren" in the Deuteronomy 18:18 verse is one who is a descendant of Abraham, not Adam. Is their definition valid? What is the context for the use of the term "brethren" in the Old Testament, and specifically, Deuteronomy?
Response:
I agree, it totally depends on the context of the sentence. The Ishmaelites are indeed the brothers of the Israelites, and as will be shown below. Deuteronomy 18:18 could in fact refer to the Ishmaelites and it could also refer to the Israelites themselves. However, considering the evidence below will prove the high probability that the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18 is Muhammad (pbuh).
Silas wrote:
Here are three different ways the term 'brethren' is used in Deuteronomy:
1) used for relating the 12 tribes together,
2) used to relate the Levites amongst themselves as brothers, as in 18:7
3) used to relate the Israelites to the Edomites, as in 2:4.
I did research into the way the term 'brethren' is used throughout the Old Testament. I found that the Hebrew word is 'awkh'. It generally means 'a brother' used in the widest sense of literal relationships, and metaphorically, having an affinity or resemblance. 'awkh' is also translated (in the King James Version - I'm using a Strong's King James Version concordance) 'another' as in 1 Chr 26:12, ('relatives' in New International Version), as 'like' in Ezekiel: 18.10, and as 'other' in Genesis 13:11.
Brown's Hebrew lexicon also reinforced Strong's definition. It states that the word can be translated in various ways: 1) as brother, meaning born of the same mother, 2) indefinite relative, a kinship in a wider sense, as in Lot being a 'brother' of Abraham in Genesis 13:8... Lot was Abram's nephew, not literal brother, or the Israelite tribes being brothers, or as in Israel and Edom being brothers, and likewise for Israel and Judah.
It is also used to denote close friendships like 2 Samuel 1:26 - the relationship between David and Jonathan, or used for allies - as in Amos 1:9.
Brown's also states that it is used as a figure of resemblance as in Job 30:29... Job was not the literal brother to a jackal, Job was identifying with being abandoned. And, it is used to denote the cherubim facing each other in Exodus 25:20, and as 'the sight' of a crocodile in Job 41:9!
Another verse I found is in Proverbs 18:9 "One who is slack in his work is brother to him who destroys". Again, the use is metaphorical.
All of the above shows that the term 'awkh' can be used in various ways; part of its specific meaning being defined by the context in which it is used.
Response:
So far we are in agreement. As I mentioned above, the word itself could be used to point to the brothers of the Israelites themselves.
Silas wrote:
So, digging deeper into the contexts of how "brethren" is used start with the book of Deuteronomy. The first clue to the context of "brethren" is from the purpose of the book of Deuteronomy itself. The name Deuteronomy means 'copy of the law'; the law for who? - the Israelites, no one else. This book was given specifically to the Israelites; it was Moses' farewell address to them. A large part of it was a review of the laws between God and the Israelites, and its reading was to prepare them to enter into the promised land.
Next, I took a look at how the term 'brethren' (King James Version) is used throughout Deuteronomy. I found that it is used about 20 times; at least 14 times it means 'fellow Israelites' - members of the 12 tribes. Twice it is used to ref. the Edomites, and once for Levitical brothers, once for literal brothers (25:5), and twice for the verses in question: 18:15, 18.
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of times the context is used for referring to 'fellow Israelites'.
Response:
I have two comments:
1) I don’t really see the connection between “copy of the law” and the prophecy made in Deuteronomy 18:18. It could well be assumed that the Israelites were informed of a prophet coming their cousins or brethren.
2) It doesn’t really matter how many times the word “Brethren” is used to point to the Israelites themselves, the question is: Could it actually be referring to the Ishmaelites?
Silas wrote:
So let's carefully examine the verses in question, and see if we can find any clues to the context in question. Let's start with verse 14. The New International Version uses 'brothers' usually in place of the King James Version 'brethren'. Words in ( ) parenthesis are mine. From Deut. 18:
14: "The nations you (i.e. the Israelites) will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you (the Israelites), the Lord your (the Israelites) God has not permitted you (the Israelites) to do so.
15: The Lord your God will raise up for you (the Israelites) a prophet like me from among your (the Israelites) own "brothers". You (the Israelites) must listen to him.
16: For this is what you (the Israelites) asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you (the Israelites) said, "Let us (the Israelites) not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we (the Israelites) will die."
17: The Lord said to me "What they (the Israelites) say is good.
18: I will raise up for them (the Israelites) a prophet like you from among their (the Israelites) brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them (the Israelites) everything I command him.
19: If anyone (the Israelites) does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him (an Israelite) to account.
Response:
18: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
We notice from the above:
1) A prophet like Moses
2) From among their brothers
3) God’s words will be put in his mouth.
Let’s talk about point “2”. Is it possible that God could be talking about the Ishmaelites? Even if the same word was used to point at the Israelites in other places, from reading the above, could it be about the Ishmaelites? If the word “Brethren” could actually refer to their cousins regardless of how the author of Deuteronomy used it in other places, then can we have a reason to believe he was referring to their cousins.
Another question: Could this actually refer to the other brothers of the Israelites, not the Ishmaelites?
Yes. But how do we know it is speaking about the Ishmaelites and no other?
The answers will be provided below.
Now concerning point “3”, didn’t every prophet speak in the name of God? Even if the prophet spoke to an angel from God. Didn’t this angel transmit the words of God accordingly and accurately? So in a sense if the prophet transmitted what he heard from the angel, we can assume that God practically spoke to this prophet. Isn’t this a valid argument?
So far, we have no reason to believe that the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18 is Jesus or Muhammad peace be upon them all. However, point “2” will be the determining factor and will be discussed below.
Silas wrote:
We should also try to cross reference to other verses in Deuteronomy to see if we can get additional understanding of the context. In Deuteronomy 2:4, 8, 'brethren' was used in conjunction with the Edomites, who were basically their cousins. Moses plainly described who the brothers were... what the context of them being brethren was (i.e. Edomites being the descendants of Esau). By understanding the context here we would not confuse the Edomite 'brethren' with the Levitical 'brethren' found in 18:7, or the Israelite 'brethren' found in 1:16 or 33:24. Edomite 'brethren' would clearly not fit the context for 18:7, 1:16, or 33:24.
Response:
There is no problem in describing the Edomites as their brothers. As a matter of fact, this shows that the word “Brethren” used in Deuteronomy 18:18 could refer to any of their brothers, not specifically the Israelites and it could also refer to the Israelites themselves. However, with the help of other verses and looking into the other criteria we would eventually conclude that they were referring to the Ishmaelites.
The reference to the Edomites as brothers does not prove your point that “brethren” in Deuteronomy 18:18 is to denote the Israelites only. As we mentioned above, it is possible, and I emphasize, “Possible” that Brethren could refer to the Ishmaelites. Also, it should be noted that using the context of Deuteronomy 18:18 alone, the word "Brethren" could possibly refer to any of the Israelites cousin or the Israelites themselves
Silas wrote:
In Deut 17:15 a very strong statement is given regarding who "brothers" means in the verses in chapter 18:
"Be sure to appoint over you the King the Lord your God chooses. He must be "FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS". Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a "BROTHER ISRAELITE".
Compare these terms with 18:15 -
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS. You must listen to him."
Clearly, this verse has much in common with 17:15. Moses did not add 'brother Israelite', because they understood what he was talking about based upon what he had said just a few moments earlier in Chapter 17. The context is the same for both. The future prophet had to be a fellow Israelite.
Therefore, the weight of the evidence for understanding the context - and who actually the "brethren" were, shows clearly that the future prophet had to be from the 12 tribes. Jesus fulfills that requirement, Muhammad does not.
Response:
As matter of fact we notice a couple of differences:
1) Do not place a foreigner over you.
2) one who is not a "BROTHER ISRAELITE
A more proper translation:
15 you shall set that man over you as your king whom the LORD, your God, chooses. He whom you set over you as king must be your kinsman; a foreigner, who is no kin of yours, you may not set over you.
As we can see, the reference above is specific to the Israelites themselves. The word “Foreigner” would indicate that the king should only be an Israelite. On the other hand, if we examine “me FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS” (from Deuteronomy 18:15), it could very well refer to their cousins also, AND, it could very well refer to the Israelites themselves. It is the other criteria in Deuteronomy 18:18 that will determine the identity of this prophet.
Silas wrote:
We should be thorough in our search for the context of how "brethren" is used. Lets go back and see if we can find any context that calls the descendants of Ishmael, or the descendants of the Abraham's other sons "brethren" to the Israelites.
Genesis 25:1-4 lists some of Abraham's sons. Note in verse 5 that Isaac was the main inheritor. His sons listed here are from his concubine Keturah, they are: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Some of these brothers descendants were the Asshurites, the Letushites, and the Leummites.
[Note in verses 25:5,6 that Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac, but while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines, and sent them away from his son Isaac, to the land of the east.]
Lets examine these sons, and their descendants, and see if there is any reference to them being "brethren" to the Israelites.
Zimran - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32
Jokshan - He is only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32, but his descendants are named - Sheba and Dedan.
Medan - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32
Midian - His descendants are mentioned with regards to the Israelites. They will be addressed in a few paragraphs.
Ishbak - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32
Shuah - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2.
Let's see if Sheba or Dedan are called "brethren" to the Israelites.
Dedan - is mentioned several times, often with Sheba. In no place are Dedan or his descendants called "brethren" to the Israelites.
Sheba - same as with Dedan. When Sheba's descendants are mentioned, they are never referred to as "Kin" or "brethren" in any way. Ref. the story of the Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon. Note her comment to Solomon in 1 Chron 9:8. She acknowledges how God has blessed Solomon and chosen Israel. In Isaiah 60:6, Sheba, Midian, and Ephah are mentioned as being distinct peoples apart from the Israelites.
Now, the sons of Dedan are mentioned in 25:3. "Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. Are these peoples ever referred to as "brethren"? No, not even mentioned beyond 25:3.
So far, not one reference to the other sons of Abraham, or their descendants being 'brethren' to the Israelites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's examine Midian
The Midianites are mentioned in Numbers chapters 25, 31, 10, 22. Not once are they called "brethren", or anything closely related to that. If anything, they were mortal enemies to the Israelites. Refer to Num. 25:16, 17. These people are Abraham's descendants, yet God ordered the Israelites to destroy them. Since Ishmael was Midian's brother, wouldn't it follow that Ishmael's descendants would not be considered "brethren" in the way the Midianites were not considered "brethren"?
What about Midian's sons, and any specific ref. to any of their particular descendants as being "brethren" to the Israelites?
Going throughout the OT, I found that Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, Eldaah are never mentioned as being "brethren" to the Israelites.
Finally, we come to Ishmael and his descendants, and for good measure, we'll throw in the "Hagarites".
Ishmael's sons are mentioned in Genesis 25:13-18. Never are they or their descendants referred to as "brethren" to the Israelites.
The Ishmaelites are mentioned in Genesis 37. Not once are they referred to as brethren of the sons of Jacob. They were not considered brethren.
The Hagarites are mentioned in Psalm 83:6, along with the Ishmaelites. They are portrayed as the enemies of God. Likewise they are mentioned in 1 Chron 5:10. Again, they are the enemies of God's people - the Israelites. They are never mentioned as "brethren" to the Israelites.
Response:
The same argument applies.
Silas wrote:
There are two interesting references to Ishmael and his sons. One is found in Genesis 16:12. The other is in Genesis 25:18. 25:18 says:
"His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers." Here is the only implication that Ishmael's sons were called "brethren" to possibly the Israelites. But if this verse is taken in context with Genesis 16:12 it is shown that "brother" were immediate relatives. So, 25:18 looks like Ishmael's sons were hostile towards each other.
The context of this passage, taken with the references concerning the Ishmaelite, Hagarites, Midianites, etc. show that these people were not considered "brethren" to the Israelites. Therefore by judging from the references it would not be correct to consider the descendants of Ishmael to be "brethren" of the Israelites. There is no support for the Muslim’s assertion that the descendants of Ishmael were considered “brethren" to the Israelites. In several cases, these descendants are considered enemies of Israel and God.
Response:
Genesis (25:18):” The Ishmaelites ranged from Havilah-by-Shur, which is on the border of Egypt, all the way to Asshur; and each of them pitched camp in opposition to his various kinsmen.”
Genesis (16:12):” He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; In opposition to all his kin shall he encamp."
I don’t really see how you made the conclusion that “brother” meant immediate relative. Reading Genesis (16:12) we read “his hand against everyone” and also we read “, and everyone's hand against him” This implies that (if understanding Ishmael as a nation) the nation of Ishmael will be in be conflict with their other brothers, and this has been demonstrated throughout history until today. Also, they have been hostile among themselves in the past but not anymore. The general feeling among most Arabs nations is understood in the form of brotherhood.
Silas wrote:
The only non-Israelite people to be called brethren, that I'm aware of, are the Edomites. Esau was Jacob's brother. Jacob was the father of the Israelites. That seems to be as far back as the term "brethren" goes. And, Esau was a descendant of Isaac, not Ishmael. Since the promise to the descendants was named thru Isaac, it is understandable for Esau's descendants to be considered "brethren" to the Israelites.
Read Numbers 20:14-21. It details the conflict between the two 'brethren' nations of Esau and Jacob.
Response:
Numbers (20:14)” 4 From Kadesh Moses sent men to the king of Edom with the message: "Your brother Israel has this to say: You know of all the hardships that have befallen us,”
This demonstrates the possibility and the versatility in which the word “brother” could be used. Esau was a brother of Jacob and yet would be considered either a brother or a cousin to the Israelites. Like wise, the nation of Ishmael could be considered either their cousins or their brothers.
The fact remains, the word “brethren” could be used to denote other meanings other than immediate relatives. Comparing to how the word was used in other verses does not prove that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to a prophet FROM the Israelites. It is still a possibility that the word “brethren” in Deuteronomy 18:18 could refer to their actual cousins. The context of Deuteronomy 18:18 do not show in any way that the prophet will be specifically an Israelite, yet it is a possibility.
Silas wrote:
Some Muslims object to Muhammad being ruled out as the prophet, and assert the following:
"Jesus never claimed to be the prophet Moses foretold".
Jesus never said directly "I am the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18". But He said that He was a prophet, and probably meant that He was that prophet. Other parts of the N.T. declare Him to be that prophet. Let's start with Christ's implications then go on:
1)-Luke 7:39 - the Pharisee said to himself, 'if this man were a prophet...Jesus knew his thoughts and addressed them, proving to the Pharisee that he was a prophet.
2)-John 5:46 - Jesus said "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he (Moses) wrote about me." Moses did write about Jesus; Jesus is the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18. Jesus claimed to be the prophet Moses foretold.
3)-In various places, at various times, various people called Jesus the 'prophet' of Deuteronomy 18:18, yet Jesus never corrected them, rebuked them, or told them otherwise. He always accepted those particular statements. When the Pharisees called him otherwise, He set them straight. Matt. 21:11, John 1:45, 6:14, 7:40, Luke 7:16, 24:19, etc.
4)-Jesus did call Himself a prophet - John 4:44
5)-After His ascension His disciples emphatically said He was that prophet: Acts 3:22, 7:37.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION ON "FROM AMONG YOUR BRETHREN"
All of this shows that Muhammad could not be the prophet Moses foretold. The only acceptable, logical context for Moses' words is that "the prophet" must be an Israelite. No non-Israelite can meet the requirement. Muhammad was not an Israelite and thus he could not have fulfilled the conditions Moses set forth. Jesus is the prophet Moses foretold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"LIKE UNTO ME"
Another point often brought up by Muslims is that Moses said that the future prophet would be "like unto me". Muslims then list the similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and the dis-similarities between Moses and Jesus as proof that Muhammad is the foretold prophet.
There can be found similarities and differences between all men. What needs to be identified are the crucial attributes that the future prophet would have to possess to be "like unto Moses".
Here is the Deut. 18 passage again from the NRSV:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: "If I hear the voice of the Lord my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die." Then the Lord replied to me: "They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command."
So, the first requirement is
(1) this future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.
Additional implicit requirements to make this prophet "like unto Moses" can be found in the last verses in Deuteronomy 34.10-12:
"And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, (2) whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the (3) signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."
The three requirements I find are:
1) this future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.
2) this future prophet would speak with God face to face
3) this future prophet would perform miracles, signs, and wonders.
How do Jesus and Muhammad compare to these requirements?
#1 the future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.
JESUS
Jesus said that He spoke God's word; he heard directly from God.
John 7:16, 17 - "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own."
John 8:28 - "So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me."
MUHAMMAD
Muhammad heard the Quran from a spirit he believed to be Gabriel. Muhammad repeated the words that this spirit spoke.
The Quran, chapter 53:2-5 - "Your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived, nor does he speak of his own desire. It is an inspiration this is inspired, which one (Gabriel) of mighty powers has taught him."
Muhammad fails the requirement because he did not hear from God directly. In fact, the Bible contains warnings about angels teaching false messages:
2 Cor. 11:14 - "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades an angel of light."
Gal. 1:8 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"
#2 the future prophet would speak with God face to face
JESUS
Jesus was with God prior to being revealed on earth. While he was on earth, he spoke with God face to face.
John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
John 17:5 - "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed."
Matthew 17:5 - "While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!"
MUHAMMAD
As stated before, Muhammad never spoke with God directly. The entire Quran was given to him through a medium - a spirit. Was the spirit from God? If not, then we can conclude that it was an evil spirit that was deceiving Muhammad.
I'll note that after Moses spoke with God face to face, his face glowed with the glory of God. Jesus was transfigured when he spoke with God face to face. (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 17:2). Muhammad was never transfigured; he never radiated the glory of God.
3) the future prophet would perform miracles, signs, and wonders.
JESUS
Jesus performed many miracles. Read Luke chapters 5, 7, and 8 to find some of them.
MUHAMMAD
The Quran shows that Muhammad performed no miracles. Even the people who did not believe him pointed it out that Muhammad lacked miracles.
The Quran, chapter 6:57, 58 - "Say: "For me, I (work) on a clear sign from my Lord, but you reject Him. What you would see hastened (a miracle) is not in my power. The command (to perform a miracle) rests with none by Allah: He declares the Truth, and He is the best of judges. Say: if what you would see hastened (a miracle) were in my power, the matter would be settled at once between you and me...
The Quran, chapter 28:48 - "...They (the people who did not believe in Muhammad) say, "Why aren't miracles sent to him like those sent to Moses?"
It must be noted that the Hadith records some fanciful miracles, but these are purely mythical, because they contradict the Quran's statements about Muhammad uable to perform a miracle. Some of those Hadith "miracles" are simple copycat miracles taken from Bible stories.
Response:
· From among their brothers
Now let us examine why the word “Brethren” could refer to the Ishmaelites.
Reading Genesis (17:20):” As for Ishmael, I am heeding you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.”
We extract the following from the above verse:
1) Ishmael is blessed.
2) He will be fertile.
3) His nation will multiply
4) AND will be made into a great nation.
We can clearly see the distinction between being “a numerous nation” and “a great nation”. These two phrases could not indicate the same meaning.
Now can we ask what is “a great nation” mean?
As understood from first five books of the Old Testament, Israel was a numerous nation also by the time they reached the boarders of Palestine and yet they were called “a great nation”.
Let’s examine the verses below:
Deuteronomy, chapter 4:”
6 Observe them carefully, for thus will you give evidence of your wisdom and intelligence to the nations, who will hear of all these statutes and say, 'This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.' (The nation of Israel was already a huge nation in number. We see that they are called a great nation, but is it because they are numerous?)
7 For what great nation is there that has gods so close to it as the LORD, our God, is to us whenever we call upon him?
8 Or what great nation has statutes and decrees that are as just as this whole law which I am setting before you today?”
As we can see, the nation of Israel is called great because:
1) They worship God and only God.
2) They have the law of God.
An honest look at the Muslim nation today reveals that they worship the same God of Abraham and they also have a set of laws given to them in the Quran. Is this a valid comparison? Indeed.
The nation of Ishmael has been blessed, they are numerous, and they are a great nation (a great nation for worshipping the true God and for having the law of God written down in the Quran).
So now, there is a higher probability from Deuteronomy 18:18 that “brethren” could actually refer to the GREAT NATION of the Ishmaelites. Also, there is still a chance that the prophet could be from the Israelites themselves. However, the other sons of Abraham have been excluded now, and that is because only two sons from Abraham have been blessed, Ishmael and Isaac peace be upon them.
At this point, it is important to report an alleged saying by Jesus from the gospels:
Matthew (21:43) “Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
So here we are confronted with another fact, the kingdom of God will be given to another nation. A probable nation at this point would be the Ishmaelites, for they are blessed and are a great nation according to the Old Testament.
· God’s words will be put in his mouth.
We all should know that every prophet will speak what God would command him to. Examining Deuteronomy 18:18 would still not reveal the identity of the prophet if we look into this criteria. If we are to assume that Muhammad was God’s prophet then we are also to assume that God has put his words in Muhammad’s mouth. The same thing goes for Jesus, and every single prophet of God.
If God spoke to Muhammad –peace be upon him- through an angel, why can’t we then assume that God spoke through Muhammad-peace be upon him- also? Is it not fair enough to assume that this angel of God will deliver God’s word accurately? Yes.
· The prophet
Reading the gospel of john shows us that the Jews expected the Messiah and The Prophet, two distinct persons. The discoveries of the Qumran scrolls reveal such belief among some of the Jews also.
Matthew, chapter 16:”
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
Reading the above verses reveals the following:
1) Some of the Jews are confused about the identity of Jesus –pbuh-
2) Jesus admits he is the Messiah.
John, chapter 7:”
40 Some in the crowd who heard these words said, "This is truly the Prophet."
41 Others said, "This is the Messiah." But others said, "The Messiah will not come from Galilee, will he?
42 Does not scripture say that the Messiah will be of David's family and come from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?"
43 So a division occurred in the crowd because of him.”
Examining the verses above reveals the following:
1) Some Jews thought he was The Prophet.
2) Others thought he was The Messiah.
3) The Jews are definitely confused.
We understand from the above verses that the Jews expected two characters; some other passages reveal three characters. Now reading the verses below would clear up some of the confusion:
John 6:”
14 When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, "This is truly THE PROPHET, the one who is to come into the world."
15 Since Jesus knew that they were going to come and carry him off to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain alone.”
Now can we assume that the Jews were correct when they thought he was THE PROPHET? Were they not confused about his identity? The Jews were indeed confused. Anyway, Jesus leaved and didn’t want them to declare him as King of the Jews. That is understandable since we can assume that he was not that prophet (the ruler). He was the Messiah as he confirmed earlier.
Let’s examine the following verses to clear the confusion now:
John, chapter 1:”
19 And this is the testimony of John. When the Jews from Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (to him) to ask him, "Who are you?"
20 he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, "I am not the Messiah."
21 So they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not." "Are you THE PROPHET?" He answered, "No." “
We notice the following:
1) The Pharisees asked him about three characters. Presumably, they are well versed with the Old Testament.
2) We see the clear distinction between “The Prophet” and “The Messiah”.
3) John the Baptist did not object to their reasoning about the three characters and this is important to remember.
Reviewing the above we conclude:
1) Most of the Jews were in confusion about the identity of Jesus, was he The Prophet or The Messiah?
2) When they though he was The Prophet they tried to declare him as king but he escaped indicating that he is not that Prophet they were looking for and also for the reason mentioned by Jesus that he has no kingdom here on earth.
3) The Pharisees knew exactly who they were asking about when confronting John the Baptist and John the Baptist answered them accordingly for he also understood their questions and did not object to it at all. John the Baptist knew that he was not Elijah, he was not The Messiah, and he was not THE PROPHET. Three distinct characters.
4) Jesus admitted that he was the Messiah.
Reading through John:
John, chapter 5:”
46 For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.
47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" “
Jesus never claimed to be THE PROPHET, the one the Jews were expecting also beside the Messiah, but according to the verses above he did claim that Moses wrote about him.
Deuteronomy, chapter 18:”
20 But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.'
21 "If you say to yourselves, 'How can we recognize an oracle which the LORD has spoken?',
22 know that, even though a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the LORD did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him. “
Could Jesus be one of those many prophets who would be sent to the Israelites? Yes he could. We then could assume that Moses spoke about Jesus through the verses above.
We have seen the clear distinction between THE PROPHET and THE MESSIAH. John the Baptist knew what the Pharisees were asking about and he answered them accordingly. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah not THE PROPHET. As a matter of fact when the Jews thought he was THE PROPHET he departed which supports the theory that he was not that prophet the Jews were waiting for.
Indeed Jesus called himself a prophet but he did not call himself “The Prophet”.
Sadly though, according to the Trinitarians, this prophet of God (Jesus) was killed. Now if we assume Deuteronomy (18:20) to be a true verse, we are left with two choices, either Jesus was not a prophet and that is why he was killed or he was indeed a prophet and was not actually killed. As a Muslim, I would take the second choice.
· Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad
We will first examine the claims made by Silas about the similarities between Jesus and Moses.
1) He claimed that The Prophet should speak God’s words. This has been touched on above.
2) He claimed that he should meet God face to face. Well, Muhammad –pbuh- did also on the night called “Isra’a Wa Me’araj”
3) He claimed that the prophet should perform miracles:
Muhammad –pbuh- indeed performed miracles also. The Quran itself is seen as a miracle. If we are to examine the Biography of the Prophet we see how the Quraish tribe called him a magician because the words he spoke made people submit and declare their Islam after hearing it. Also, you can find many other references to miracles performed by Muhammad-pbuh-, like feeding hundreds of people, knocking out the rocks before the “Ahzab” battle, and having water dripping from the tips of his fingers.
As for refusing to perform a miracle in front of the unbelievers, let’s not forget that Jesus himself refused to perform a miracle when asked by the Pharisees. Also let’s not forget how the Jews called Jesus POSSESSED when he revived a dead person.
Miracles are enhancement of faith and for those who don’t recognize them, they are doomed. This could be found in many verses in both the Quran and the Bible.
The phrase “I am but a man” is mostly misunderstood as that Muhammad could not perform a miracle because God didn’t support him with one, but if we examine the life of the prophet we see that he performed many. To understand this “I am but a man” we should pay attention to other verses from the Quran:
Quran, chapter 25:”
7 And they say: "What sort of an apostle is this, who eats food, and walks through the streets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to give admonition with him?”
8. "Or (Why) has not a treasure been bestowed on him, or why has he (not) a garden for enjoyment?" The wicked say: "Ye follow none other than a man bewitched."
9. See what kinds of comparisons they make for thee! But they have gone astray, and never a way will they be able to find!”
Did you think they were going to believe even if he performed miracles for them? No.
The unbelievers did not understand the fact that Muhammad could be nothing more than a man. In their mind a prophet is someone who is walking with an angel, living in gardens and so on. That is what the phrase “I am but a man” implies. Muhammad-pbuh- was a human, and a prophet would live like all other prophets. Every single prophet of God was mocked and when they performed miracles they still did not believe. Both Jesus and Muhammad were called possessed, what difference do we have now between the both in this regard? They both at some point refused to perform miracles and when applicable they did perform miracles.
Also, let’s not forget the greatest miracles of all, the Quran. Muhammad’s miracle is eternal. People used to submit right whenever he recited them. Until this day, we see people crying like little babies in prostration when they hear the Quran. As Muslims, why shouldn’t we then not consider the Quran a better miracle than the ones performed by other prophets of which are only considered incidental?
Now, it’s time to divert our attention to the comparison made by Muslims which in most cases Trinitarians choose to ignore:
Area of Comparison |
Moses |
Muhammad |
Jesus |
Birth |
Natural |
Natural |
Miraculous |
Family Life |
Married with children |
Married with children |
No marriage or children |
Death |
Normal |
Normal |
Killed |
Career |
Religious leader Nation leader |
Religious leader Nation leader |
Religious leader None |
Immigration (in adulthood) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Encounter with Enemies |
Pursuit/battles |
Pursuit/Battles |
None |
Results of encounters |
Physical and moral victory |
Physical and moral victory |
Moral victory |
Writing down of revelations |
During his life time |
During his life time |
After his departure |
Nature of Teachings |
Spiritual and legal |
Spiritual and legal |
Mainly spiritual |
Claimed Nature |
Human |
Human |
God |
At this point we can definitely conclude that “Brethren” in Deuteronomy 18:18 is actually referring to the Ishmaelites. However, a couple of points need to be discussed in order to understand how Jesus is actually different from Moses.
· The alleged prophecies in the Gospel of Matthew
In so many occasions while reading the gospel of Matthew, we are confronted with passages from which the reader would conclude that Jesus is like Moses. However, detailed analysis would reveal otherwise:
1) Out of Egypt:
Matthew (2:15):”He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, "Out of Egypt I called my son." “
This is in relation to
Hosea, chapter 1:”
1 When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son.
2 The more I called them, the farther they went from me, sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.
3 Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, who took them in my arms;”
As we can see, that is not a messianic prophecy. It identifies the son as being the Israelite people, then it goes on “The more I called them, the farther they went from me, sacrificing to the Baals….” Which, in conclusion, we can safely say that the author of Matthew ripped the passage out of context and labeled it as a prophecy.
Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the other gospels mentioned this.
The reason why Matthew invented such thing is to provide some parallels between Moses and Jesus. Just like Moses was called out of Egypt, Jesus was also.
2) The slaughter of Children
Matthew, chapter 2:”
16 When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.
17 Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:
18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more."”
Matthew is quoting Jeremiah:
Jeremiah, chapter 31:”
15 Thus says the LORD: In Ramah is heard the sound of moaning, of bitter weeping! Rachel mourns her children; she refuses to be consoled because her children are no more.
16 Thus says the LORD: Cease your cries of mourning, wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown shall have its reward, says the LORD, they shall return from the enemy's land.
17 There is hope for your future, says the LORD; your sons shall return to their own borders.
18 I hear I hear Ephraim pleading: You chastised me, and I am chastened; I was an untamed calf. If you allow me, I will return, for you are the LORD, my God.”
When examined, we also conclude that there is no messianic prophecy here:
1) It is talking about the deportation of the 10 tribes of Israel.
Rachel was the mother of Joseph, on the other hand Leah was the mother of Judah and the son of Joseph was Ephraim. Also, we need to note that the name Israelite was often used to denote to the 10 lost tribes of Israel. We conclude from this that Judah and his descendents were associated with Bethlehem, not Ephraim; therefore, the descendents of Judah were the children of Leah, not Rachel.
2) The verses above specifically say that the children are in the land of the enemy.
3) It is clearer once we examine verse 17, your sons shall return to their own borders.
4) Ramah is about 6 miles north of Jerusalem while Bethlehem is also about 6 miles south of Jerusalem which shows that the Geography doesn’t fit.
It should be noted also that the alleged massacre claimed by Matthew is only mentioned in his gospel. Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, on the other hand failed to mention such massacre.
Once again, it is rather clear that Matthew is fabricating stories to create parallels between Moses and Jesus.
Silas wrote:
CONCLUSION ON "LIKE UNTO ME".
Jesus satisfied the requirements to be "like unto Moses". Muhammad did not. Jesus fulfilled the requirements, Muhammad fails the requirements. Jesus spoke God's direct words, Muhammad did not speak God's direct words, he spoke a spirit's words. Jesus spoke with God face to face, Muhammad did not speak with God face to face. Jesus performed many miracles, Muhammad performed no miracles.
Response:
After reading the above, I would actually suggest that it is Muhammad –pbuh-
Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to Silas' Articles section.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.