Azahari Hassim
The prophecy of the Servant in Isaiah 42 and the mention of the Paraclete or Spirit of truth in John 16:13 are believed to refer to the “Prophet like Moses” foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. Scholars studying the Dead Sea Scrolls have identified this figure as a prophetic Messiah or Messianic prophet.
This “new Moses,” as prophesied by Moses, elaborated by Isaiah, proclaimed by Jesus, and awaited by the Samaritans, is understood by Muslims to be none other than the Prophet of Islam. The Qur’an testifies to this in Sura 7:157, which states:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong, and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil, and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him, and followed the light which was sent down with him—it is they who will be successful.”
Muslims believe that Muhammad fulfills the characteristics of this prophesied figure, one who would guide humanity towards righteousness and truth.
Connections in the Gospel of John
Several verses in the Gospel of John provide additional evidence of this awaited figure:
- John 1:21: When John the Baptist is questioned, he is asked, “Are you the Prophet?” This question indicates that there was an expectation among the Jewish people of a prophet who was distinct from the Messiah. Muslims interpret this figure as Muhammad, the “Prophet like Moses” foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18.
- John 6:14: After witnessing Jesus’ miracle of feeding the five thousand, the people say, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” This statement reflects a continuing expectation of a prophet who would fulfill the role outlined in Deuteronomy 18:18, and Muslims connect this expectation to Muhammad.
- John 7:40: During Jesus’ ministry, some of the crowd exclaim, “This is truly the Prophet.” This again highlights the anticipation of a prophet who would come after Jesus. Muslims interpret these statements as pointing to Muhammad, who they believe completed the prophetic mission initiated by Moses and proclaimed by Jesus.
The Jewish expectation of a prophet, as seen in John 1:21, John 6:14, and John 7:40, is closely connected to the Paraclete described by Jesus in John 16:13. Both figures are portrayed as divinely guided messengers who convey God’s words and truth to humanity. Muslims interpret these passages as consistent with the Islamic understanding of Muhammad as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:18, completing the prophetic mission initiated by Moses and carried forward by Jesus. In this view, the Paraclete is not the Holy Spirit but rather a human prophet who fulfills these biblical prophecies.
It is significant to note that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus explicitly claim to be the prophet predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18. Instead, his mission is often described in terms that align more closely with his role as the Messiah. This distinction leaves open the possibility of another figure fulfilling the role of the prophet like Moses, as anticipated in Jewish and Samaritan traditions and interpreted by Muslims to refer to Muhammad.
Bridging Religious Traditions
The connection between these religious texts highlights a common thread running through different faith traditions. The prophecies in Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Gospel of John, along with the confirmation in the Qur’an, point to a promised figure who will guide people toward righteousness and truth. The recognition of Muhammad as this prophesied figure serves as a bridge between the Abrahamic faiths, emphasizing shared values of morality, spirituality, and devotion to God.
By identifying Muhammad as the Prophet foretold in the Torah and Gospel, Muslims find confirmation of their faith within earlier scriptures, fostering a deeper sense of continuity and shared spiritual heritage among the monotheistic traditions.
Montanism and the human Paraclete
How did the Montanists believe in the human Paraclete and regard their founder as such?
The Montanists were a Christian sect that emerged in the late 2nd century, founded by Montanus, who claimed to be a prophet and the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit.
Montanism emerged as a significant and controversial movement within early Christianity, and it was recognized by many mainstream Christian authorities of the time as a heretical group.
The movement was characterized by the belief that Montanus himself was the embodiment of the Paraclete, or the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised in the Gospel of John. This belief in Montanus as a prophetic figure who would deliver new revelations and guidance was central to Montanism and contributed to its contentious relationship with established Christian orthodoxy.
Montanus, along with his followers, including two prophetesses named Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla, claimed to receive direct revelations from the Holy Spirit.
This belief in Montanus as the human Paraclete was central to their teachings. They saw him as the final and ultimate revelation of the Holy Spirit, which they referred to as the “New Prophecy.” This new revelation was considered a continuation and fulfillment of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
This is a complex theological topic that has been debated by scholars. Here’s an overview of the different perspectives:
The traditional Christian interpretation:
Most Christian theologians and denominations interpret John 16:13 as referring to the Holy Spirit.
In this view, Jesus is describing the role of the Holy Spirit who will come after his departure. The Spirit speaks what he “hears” from the Father and Son, not on his own authority, emphasizing the unity of purpose within the Trinity.
The argument for a human paraclete:
Some scholars have proposed that this verse could be referring to a human prophet or messenger rather than the divine Holy Spirit. Their arguments include:
- The language of “not speaking on his own” and “speaking only what he hears” seems more fitting for a human prophet acting as God’s mouthpiece.
- In various religious traditions, particularly within Islam, this verse has been interpreted as a prophecy regarding a forthcoming human messenger. Some interpretations indicate that this messenger is, in fact, Muhammad.
- The Greek word “parakletos” (translated as Helper, Advocate, or Comforter) could potentially refer to a human figure.
Islamic Correlation
An interesting parallel can be drawn from Quranic references. Surah 61, verse 6 states:
“And when Jesus son of Mary said, ‘Children of Israel, I am indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and giving good tidings of a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.’ Then, when he brought them the clear signs, they said, ‘This is a manifest sorcery.’”
This verse suggests the idea of a human messenger after Jesus, reinforcing the argument for alternative interpretations of the Paraclete concept.
The Potential Link Between Isaiah 42 and the Prophet Foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18
Some argue Isaiah 42 might be referring to the prophet prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. How is their interpretation presented?
Some scholars believe that Isaiah 42 is referring to a prophet who was prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. In Deuteronomy, Moses predicts that God will raise up a prophet like him from among the brethren of the Israelites, and whoever does not listen to this prophet will be held accountable.
In Isaiah 42, the passage describes a servant of God who will bring justice to the nations and establish righteousness on earth. This servant is described as being chosen by God and having a special relationship with Him. Some argue that this description aligns with the characteristics of the prophet foretold by Moses. They believe that the servant in Isaiah is seen as a messianic figure.
The interpretation presented by those who believe Isaiah 42 refers to the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, is based on similarities between the descriptions of both figures in their respective passages. They argue that these similarities suggest a connection between the two prophecies and point to a fulfillment of Moses’ prediction in Isaiah’s prophecy.
Muhammad is identified as a servant of Allah in the Quran. There are those who posit that the reference to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42, specifically verse 11 which mentions Kedar, may be alluding to Muhammad. How do they present and support this argument?
Those who posit that the reference to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42, specifically mentioning Kedar, may be alluding to Muhammad, often present and support this argument based on several key points:
- Kedar’s Descendants: In Isaiah 42, verse 11, it mentions Kedar, who was the second son of Ishmael and, according to Islamic tradition, is considered the ancestor of the Arabs. The argument is that since Muhammad was an Arab, and he came from the lineage associated with Kedar, this reference could be an allusion to him.
- Characteristics of the Servant: The description of the servant in Isaiah 42 aligns with certain traits that are associated with Muhammad in Islamic tradition. The servant is described as bringing a new law, being a light for the nations, and engaging in conquest and warfare. Proponents of this argument argue that these attributes are consistent with the mission and actions of Muhammad.
- Similarities in Language and Prophecies: Some commentators draw parallels between the language used in Isaiah 42 and certain prophecies and descriptions related to Muhammad in Islamic sources. They argue that linguistic and conceptual similarities between Isaiah 42 and Islamic teachings support the idea that Muhammad is the servant referenced in the passage.
- Connection to Monotheism: Proponents of this argument also highlight the emphasis on monotheism in Isaiah 42, which they relate to the monotheistic message of Islam and the role of Muhammad as a carrier of the monotheistic faith in the Arabian Peninsula.
It’s important to note that this interpretation is based on a specific reading of the text and is subject to debate and interpretation within different religious traditions. Not all scholars or religious authorities agree with this perspective, and there are varied understandings of the meanings and implications of the servant mentioned in Isaiah 42. Different religious communities and denominations may have distinct interpretations of these passages based on their particular religious and theological frameworks.
ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY 