Claim: Haggai 2:7 (“the Desire of all nations shall come”) predicts Muhammad.
Finding: False. The Hebrew noun חֶמְדָּה (chemdāh) in Haggai 2:7 is a feminine singular collective meaning “desirable/precious things, treasures,” not a masculine proper name. The verb in the verse is plural (“will come”), proving the subject is things, not a single person. The immediate context (vv. 8–9) explicitly talks about silver and gold filling the Second Temple with gloryfive centuries before Muhammad and five centuries before the Temple’s destruction in A.D. 70.
Ancient translators (especially the Septuagint) render it as “the precious things of all nations”, confirming this reading.
- Philology: Hebrew ḤMD = desire/covet; Arabic Ḥ‑M‑D = praise/commenddifferent meanings. The supposed name‑equation is a folk etymology, not scholarship.
- Islamic polemics: Early Muslim apologists did not cite Haggai for Muhammad; the Qur’an itself does not point to Haggai. Modern attempts rest on late, non‑expert speculations (e.g., Godfrey Higgins), not on Hebrew grammar, ancient versions, or historical context.
Conclusion: Haggai 2:6–9 concerns the Second Temple and its glory (including wealth brought by nations, and, in the larger biblical canon, the Lord’s own visitation). It has no connection whatsoever to Muhammad.
The Passage (Haggai 2:6–9)
“For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land.
And I will shake all nations, and the desire [or ‘precious things’] of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts.
The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.”
Context: Haggai prophesies in 520 B.C. to encourage the rebuilding of the Second Temple (post‑exile). The oracle promises an influx from the nations that will embellish the house and make its latter glory surpass the former.
1) What the Hebrew Actually Says
Key phrase: וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּי אֶת־כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם וּבָאוּ חֶמְדַּת כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם Transliteration: vehir‘ashtî ’et‑kol‑haggôyim, uva’û ḥemdat kol‑haggôyim. Literal: “I will shake all the nations, and they will comethe desirable [things] of all the nations.”
Grammar Facts:
- חֶמְדָּה (chemdāh): Is a feminine noun meaning desire/pleasant/precious [thing], often collective (“treasures, desirable things”).
- The Verb וּבָאוּ (uva’û): Is third person plural (“they will come”), which cannot take a singular male individual (“Muhammad”) as subject. It naturally agrees with a plural collective sense: “the precious things of all nations.”
- Construct Chain: In a phrase like חֶמְדַּת כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם (“the desirable [things] of all the nations”), the head noun is not a proper name; it is indefinite and semantically generic.
Lexicon: The Hebrew root חמד (ḤMD) = to desire, take pleasure in, covet (cf. Ex 20:17 “You shall not covet (לֹא תַחְמֹד)…”). The noun חֶמְדָּה = desirable thing, treasure; plural חֲמוּדוֹת/חֲמֻדוֹת = pleasant/precious things (e.g., Is 64:11; Lam 1:10–11; Dan 11:38–43).
Bottom line: The grammar and lexicon force the translation “precious/desired things”not a male proper name.
2) The Immediate Context (vv. 8–9) Controls the Meaning
Verse 8 explicitly mentions silver and goldthe very treasures that will adorn the Temple. Verse 9 speaks of the glory of “this house” (i.e., the Second Temple) exceeding the former. The entire unit concerns Temple beautification and peace in that place.
A human visitor named “Muhammad” is foreign to the contextespecially since:
- Muhammad was born A.D. 570, five centuries after the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
- Islam has no Temple theology to satisfy “I will fill this house with glory.”
3) Ancient Jewish & Christian Witnesses Agree
- Septuagint (LXX): Renders τὰ ἐκλεκτὰ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν“the choice/precious things of all the nations shall come,” i.e., valuables, not a person.
- Vulgate: venient desiderati cunctarum gentiumtraditionally taken by some later readers as “Desire of all nations,” but the broader Latin context and vv. 8–9 still anchor it in treasures and Temple glory.
- Second Temple Literature: (e.g., Qumran, 4QFlorilegium/4Q174): Projects an eschatological Temple and a Davidic Messiah whose throne endures; nothing suggests a non‑Israelite Arabian prophet fulfilling Haggai 2.
4) Why the “ḤMD = Muhammad” Equation Fails (Linguistics 101)
Different meanings across languages:
- Hebrew ḤMD = desire/covet (ethically positive/negative depending on context).
- Arabic Ḥ‑M‑D = praise/commendation (ḥamd, Muḥammad = “worthy of praise”).
They are not semantic equivalents.
Form & Gender:
- חֶמְדָּה in Haggai 2:7 is feminine.
- “Muḥammad” is a masculine proper name.
- The verse’s plural verb further excludes a singular person.
Syntax: If (absurdly) read as a name, the phrase would be “Muhammad of all the nations”a nonsensical construct in biblical Hebrew.
Usage elsewhere proves the ordinary sense:
- Ex 20:17 (lo tachmod): “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (same root).
- Dan 11:37: “He shall pay no attention to the desire of women (חמדת נשים)” (same noun).
- No one imagines these verses speak of a person named “Muhammad.”
5) Historical Mismatch: No Temple to “Fill with Glory”
Haggai speaks of “this house”the Second Temple completed c. 516 B.C., standing until A.D. 70.
Muhammad (b. A.D. 570) lived centuries after the Temple’s destruction. The Islamic Isrāʾ tradition (A.D. 621) posits a night journey when no Temple existed. There is simply no possible fulfillment of Haggai 2:7 in Muhammad.
6) Even Early Muslim Polemicists Didn’t Use Haggai
‘Alī ibn Rabban al‑Ṭabarī (9th c.), among the earliest Islamic polemicists seeking proof‑texts in the Bible, did not appeal to Haggai 2:7. If the verse obviously named Muhammad, early scholars would have seized it. They didn’tbecause the Hebrew won’t allow it.
The Qur’an (7:157; 61:6) speaks generally of a prophet foretold in the Torah and Gospel; it never points to Haggai. The appeal to Haggai is a modern improvisation.
7) On Godfrey Higgins & Similar Claims
Godfrey Higgins (1773–1833) was not a qualified Hebraist. His Anacalypsis and Apology for Mohamed mingle speculation and syncretism (e.g., eclectic claims about Indian, Egyptian, and biblical religions). His attempt to connect חמד (Hebrew) with Muḥammad (Arabic) ignores basic philology and the immediate Hebrew grammar of Haggai 2:7.
Serious exegesis does not rest on 19th‑century fringe etymologies but on grammar, context, and ancient versionsall of which oppose the Muhammad reading.
8) What About the Traditional Christian (Messianic) Reading?
Historically, some Christians (following the Vulgate and KJV) poetically took “Desire of all nations” as a title for the Messiahand saw the Temple’s latter glory fulfilled in the Lord’s visitation (cf. Mal 3:1, “the Lord… will suddenly come to his temple”).
The New Testament itself cites Haggai 2:6–7 (see Heb 12:26–28) to speak of God’s eschatological shaking and unshakable kingdom.
Whether one takes the verse strictly as treasures (the best grammatical reading) or also as part of a larger canonical trajectory pointing to Christ, neither reading leaves any space for a 7th‑century Arabian prophet.
9) Anticipating Common “Sound‑Alike” Misuses
- Song 5:16: מַחְמַדִּים (machmadim) = “altogether lovely/precious,” plural of מַחְמָד (pleasant/desirable thing). It describes qualities, not a proper name.
- Isa 64:11; Lam 1:10–11: Use the cognates for “precious things/treasures” of the Temple.
- Daniel 11:37–43: Repeatedly uses ḤMD words in the sense of desire/treasure.
None of these contexts can bear the weight of a personal name.
10) Conclusion Zero Biblical Connection to the “Haggai Predicts Muhammad” Claim
On every relevant axisgrammar, lexicon, syntax, context, ancient translation, history, and even early Islamic polemicsHaggai 2:7 cannot, and does not, predict Muhammad. The verse speaks of the desirable/precious things of the nations coming in to adorn the Second Temple, such that its latter glory surpasses the former and peace is granted in that place.
Therefore, the modern notion that the Old Testament (here, Haggai 2:7) prophesies Muhammad is philologically indefensible, contextually impossible, and historically anachronistic. The Bible has zero connection to this fallacy.
Appendix Translation Notes & Summary
Timeline: Haggai concerns the Second Temple (destroyed A.D. 70). Muhammad (b. A.D. 570) came ~500 years later; the Night Journey (A.D. 621) was when no Temple existed. Islam has no Temple concept; Haggai’s Temple theme cannot point to Muhammad.
Early Islamic apologists: (e.g., al‑Ṭabarī) never cited Haggai 2; if it clearly named Muhammad, they would have done so.
Higgins (19th‑century): Promoted the idea for irenaic reasons between Christians and Muslims; he was not a Hebrew specialist, and his claims lack linguistic rigor.
Hebrew details (per Dave Washburn, et al.): The word is חֶמְדָּה (chemdāh), appearing ~25x in the OT; in Haggai 2:7 it is feminine and, in construct with kol‑haggoyim, refers to desirable things. The verb is pluralnot a single male person.
Other uses of ḤMD: (e.g., Ex 20:17; Dan 11:37) confirm the ordinary sense “desire/treasure,” not a proper name.
Qur’anic criterion: (7:157; 61:6) speaks of Torah/Gospel, not Haggai.
Qumran 4Q174: Reflects Temple/Messiah themes aligned with an Israelite expectation, not an Arabian prophet.
Summary: Why Haggai 2:7 Is Not About Muhammad
- Hebrew grammar: feminine noun + plural verb → treasures, not a man.
- Context: Temple glory via silver/gold (vv. 8–9).
- Ancient versions: LXX = “precious things,” not a person.
- Semantics: Hebrew ḤMD (desire) ≠ Arabic ḤMD (praise).
- History: Temple destroyed A.D. 70; Muhammad A.D. 570–632.
- Early Islam: no Haggai claim; Qur’an doesn’t cite Haggai.
- Scholarship: Higgins‑style claims = fringe; not philology.
Therefore: Haggai 2:7 is not and cannot be a prophecy of Muhammad. The Bible has zero connection to this modern error.
