Muhammadan Objections

194	OBJECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF MUHAMMAD'S

told was to come "from the midst of thee," thus explaining "of thy brethren."] Ishmael was Isaac's brother, or rather his half-brother: and if the Ishmaelites can be called in one sense the brethren of the Israelites, in a far stricter sense can the Israelites themselves be called one another's brethren. (Cf. Surah VII., Al A'raf, 83, "their brother Shu'aib.") They are so called in Deut. iii. 18; xv. 7; xvii. 15¹; xxiv. 14; 1 Kings xii. 24, &c., &c. Moreover, the Torah shows most clearly that no prophet was to be expected from Ishmael, for God had made His covenant not with him but with Isaac, to the rejection of Ishmael and his posterity (Gen. xvii. 18-21; xxi. 10-12). This is confirmed by the Qur'an, which represents the prophetic office as given to Isaac's seed. (Surah XXIX., Al 'Ankabut, 27, and Surah XLV., Al Jathiyyah, 15: "Also to the children of Israel gave We of old the Book and Wisdom and Prophecy, and We supplied them with good things, and privileged them above all peoples.")

203. M. But the words "from the midst of thee,"

¹ "I always found a reference to this passage effective. No one questions to what race Saul and David belonged, and therefore we see unmistakably what 'from among thy brethren' means. Refer also to the universal Eastern use of brother. For instance, in the sentence 'Apne bhaion men se kisi ko bulao' (e.g. to receive an appointment), what Muhammadan so addressed would think that members of his own family were excluded?" (Bp. of Lahore.) "Did the Israelites ever choose a foreigner to be their king, or did God ever appoint in Israel a foreign king?" (Rev. Dr. Hooper.)

DIVINE MISSION AS LAST OF THE PROPHETS

195

in Deut. xviii. 15, must be an interpolation, for they do not occur in the oldest Greek translation (the Septuagint)¹, nor do they occur when the verse is quoted in Acts iii. 22.

C. That by no means proves that they did not stand in the original text, though we acknowledge that this is one of the passages in which a marginal note may have been incorporated into the text. Yet our argument by no means depends upon these words, but upon the whole tenor of Scripture. The Prophet spoken of is the Messiah, promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. xii. 3; xxvi. 4; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxviii. 14, &c.). This is clear even from the passage you quote from the Acts, where, although "from the midst of thee" (as you have pointed out) does not occur, nevertheless Peter (Acts iii. 25, 26) explains that the reference is to Jesus Christ. [Some hold that the meaning of "a prophet," in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, is not only one man but the whole body of prophets; just as "a king" in Deut. xvii. 14, means the kings of Israel and Judah in general, and "the priest" in Deut. xviii. 3, means the priests in general. But even so the passage refers to Christ, who is the Prophet, the Priest, and the King².] Jesus explains this and

¹Nor in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Heb. text contains just two letters more than the latter, thus making the difference. The argument as given above is one a Muhammadan adduced in discussion with me.
² But from John i. 21, we see that the Jews then understood the passage as referring to an individual. (Rev. Dr. Hooper.)

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA