Muhammadan Objections

68	OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINESS OF

addition, that the Qur'an¹ represents God as "annulling" certain verses, which the Bible never does. As to His "repenting," you tell us that one of His ninety-nine "most excellent names" is التوّاب, i.e. "He that is continually repenting," or "relenting," from the root of توبة, repentance. But it is no real objection either against the Bible or the Qur'an that such language is used in both books; for it is clear that all human language must primarily have reference to appearances (φαινομενα ) and to earthly life, and is only by analogy used to describe spiritual realities or even mental concepts. It is therefore inaccurate with regard to God, but is used because we have no better way of expressing our thoughts. "To repent" in Arabic is "to turn back," and in reference to God denotes that He "turned back" from punishing, &c. It has no moral meaning as in the case of the repentance of sinners, where it denotes turning back from sin.

40². M. In Jer. xxii. 30 we read that King Coniah

¹ Surahs II., Al Baqarah, 100; XVI., An Nahl, 103: vide §§ 67 and 68. The Muhammadan doctrine of the Nasikh and Mansukh ("annulling" and "annulled") verses of the Qur'an renders it quite impossible for Muslims to know for a certainty which parts of the Qur'an are now in force, since they are not agreed in every case as to the question which are the abrogated and which the abrogating verses.
² The objections given in §§ 40-8 are not imaginary but have all been adduced by Muslims in controversy. The answers in the text are only suggestions. They express the opinion of the compiler of this Manual: but he has no wish to dogmatize on such matters. Others may be able to furnish better answers.
[Footnote continued onto next page]

THE BIBLE AS IT NOW EXISTS

(Jeconiah, Jehoiachin) was to be childless; yet in 1 Chron. iii. 17-19, we find that he had several sons, one of whom (Matt. i. 12) was ancestor of Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary. Is not this a contradiction?

C. The expression "Write ye this man childless" is explained in Jer. xxii. 30 as meaning that, though he had children, yet he should be as if devoid of them, inasmuch as none of them should ever succeed him on the throne. The Bible shows that none of them ever did¹.

41. M. If Christ be descended from him then, He cannot be "the king of the Jews."

C. As Joseph was not Christ's father, Jesus was not descended from Jeconiah². Moreover, Christ

[Footnote continued from previous page]
It is well known that Christians differ in their explanations of some of these points, so that it would be well to refer to standard commentators. The difficulty in giving absolutely conclusive answers arises from our ignorance of so many of the circumstances. This is excusable, because we have no information on these points except what the Bible itself affords. (Vide §§ 47, 48.)
¹ It is, of course, possible that Jeconiah was literally childless, for he was carried captive at the age of eighteen (2 Kings xxiv. 8, 15) and was freed from confinement only when fifty-five years old (2 Kings xxv. 27). If so, then 1 Chron. iii. 17, 19, gives not his children but his heirs. Solomon's line probably ended in Jeconiah (because of the massacres in 2 Kings x. 13, 14; xi. 1). On Jeconiah's death Nathan's line became the heirs to the throne. Salathiel was the first of that line who thus inherited. Zerubbabel (his nephew, 1 Chron. iii. 18, 19) succeeded him. Thus Matthew gives the list of the heirs of the throne of David, and Luke the natural genealogy. (Rev. A. E. Johnston.) Vide Farrar's view, Excursus ii to St. Luke.
² If Jeconiah was literally childless, having only adopted
[Footnote continued onto next page]

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA