How then is Biblical conquest different from jihad? Shehadeh notes five ways:

The biblical conquest is marked by the following:

1. It is limited to one time, not all times.
2. It is limited to one land, not all lands. It judges sin to fulfill prophecy, not to adhere to a religion.
3. It shows God’s holiness, not his power. Its goal is to bless the whole earth, not subdue it. It is God fighting for his people, not the people fighting for God.
4. It is according to God’s trustworthy nature, not according to a capricious nature.
5. It prefigures God finally absorbing the deserved judgment and wrath on all nations in Christ’s death on the cross. Judgment deserved became judgment absorbed.

When we read in Romans 1:1 that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God at his resurrection, we are lead to ask in what way is Jesus (like) a son and in what way he is (like) a/the Son of God. But by asking these questions we are starting with our own pre-understanding and experience of what it means to be a son as used in our own ethnolinguistic community. Here arises the difficulty with translating “Son of God” in Muslim contexts as readers come to the text with a notion of what it means to be a son that contrasts sharply with the way the Bible speaks about sonship. God becomes analogical of man.

Linguist Rick Brown summarizes the difficulty:

In some languages and people groups, sonship terminology is used almost exclusively for direct biological relationships, i.e., it means the same as ‘offspring’ in English. In Classical Arabic, for example, the counterparts for ‘son’ and ‘father’ mean biological son and biological father. These terms were not used metaphorically for other interpersonal relationships, not even for a nephew…

The Arabic usage contrasts significantly with the situation in Hebrew and Aramaic (and Akkadian), where one could address his son, grandson, nephew, son-in-law, and neighbor’s son as bni/bri ‘my son’…

So it is not surprising that these Hebrew idioms were misunderstood by the Arabs in classical times, even by some Arab Christians, as referring to biological descent.¹

Concerning sonship language in Muslim contexts then we see that the pattern for the analogy runs from human to divine; that is, the human ethnolinguistic view of sonship supplies the content for the divine, Scriptural way of speaking. God becomes analogical of man rather than man analogical of God.

Athanasius, however, questions this human-divine direction of analogy in writing against the Arians. He asks,

Why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him ‘is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named.’²

While no language will comport exactly as Scripture does, Christians must bear in mind Athanasius’ grounding principle for analogical language: God does not make man his pattern. Unfortunately this is more easily said than applied.

Footnotes

• http://trevinwax.com/2011/02/10/islam-and-contextualization-a-conversation-with-collin-hansen-j-d-greear/
• http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/02/the-son-of-god-and-ministry-to.html
• http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/02/08/translating-son-of-god/
• http://www.missionfrontiers.org/blog/post/bible-translations-for-muslim-readers

Reports

• http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/02/09/translating-%E2%80%9Cson-of-god%E2%80%9D-for-muslims/
• http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/02/scripture-translation-and-mini.html
• http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/09/translating-son-of-god-for-muslims/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29

Until about the start of the 20th century, the Muslims didn’t even remember there had been Crusades… By the way, I’m not making this up, either. Again, there is a consensus among historians of the Crusades that there is no record of Muslim concern with the Crusades until the 20th century.

Now Tom Asbridge, University of London medieval history scholar, spoke today at the UK’s Hay Festival of Literature and Arts in an effort to sever the artificial link between modern Christian-Muslim conflict and the Crusades.

“This [link] is a manipulation of history, not a reality. I believe there is no division linking the medieval past and the conflict of the crusades with the modern world,” he said. “[It's a] misunderstanding which goes back to the 19th century and western triumphalism in emerging colonialism, and the tendency of western historians to start to glorify the crusades as a proto-colonial enterprise, an [obsession] with Richard the Lionheart and a burgeoning interest in [Muslim leader] Saladin as almost the noble savage.”

The Guardian’s got the rest of the story, but I’ll just give you the concluding remarks:

There has been “distortion and simplification” of the truth about the crusades, and, concluded Asbridge, “both sides [today] need to acknowledge the crusades for what they were … [they] belong in one place and one place alone – and that is the past.”

What I’m gathering is we don’t quite understand the Crusades and yet we’re happy to pontificate and apply them. Stark adds that “It struck me that the historians of the Crusades had not reached the public.” True enough. It’s not hard to have the average person on the street mention the Crusades in a discussion about religion. Unfortunately, the discussion is bound not to be an intelligent one as we basically don’t know what we’re talking about. So, let’s educate ourselves.

photo credit: Spatial Mongrel

You know his name wasn’t really Jesus Christ, right?

Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua.

But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.

So it’s really not blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ”, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.

Isn’t religion fun?

To be honest I felt giddy when I read the above. It’s perfect to blog. It involves linguistics and Jesus and it’s moronic; the first two I love, the last just makes good blog fodder. Why’s the above moronic?

The Third Commandment

“Do not take up the name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The argument above borrows whatever potency the author believed it to have from this, the third commandment found at Exodus 20:7. Blasphemy seems to be the issue, but what exactly is blasphemy?

How about misuse or use for no purpose. Or, use as if it were nothing, thus “in vain.” Check out the use of the same word in Jeremiah: Jeremiah 2:30, Jeremiah 4:30, Jeremiah 6:29, Jeremiah 18:15, Jeremiah 46:11. You’ll gain a sense of what’s going on real quick.

It would be a mistake, however, to narrowly limit “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” as the above does, to a particular word (e.g., “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” in whatever language). “The ‘name’ of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person . . . (2) his teaching or doctrine . . . and (3) his moral and ethical teaching.”¹

Thus, speaking irreverently about almost anything pertaining to God is easily considered blasphemy.  I shouldn’t need to provide examples, but the point is that blasphemy isn’t only blasphemy if and only if you utter the right word in the right language. Blasphemy encompasses the content of and the heart behind language.²

The Name of the Lord

The author concludes “So it’s really not blasphemy to say ‘Jesus Christ’, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.” The question then arises, Which name should one take in vain if one wanted to take “the right name in vain”?

Exodus 20:7 has shem yhwh or “the name of YHWH,” often translated into English as “the name of the Lord” instead of “the name of Yahweh” with YHWH as a proper name. Taking YHWH in vain can be a bit problematic though as the Hebrew text doesn’t preserve the original vowels for the divine name. According to the above argument then it should be impossible to take the Lord’s name in vain and thus blaspheme. But is that true?

Blasphemy in the Bible

One can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who is God (Matthew 12:31).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy for affirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God because some believed he was lying (Matthew 26:63; John 10:31-39).

In the first case one needn’t know God’s name in the right language to blaspheme against him. In the second, Jesus didn’t even use God’s name, but was called a blasphemer.

Isn’t religion fun?

Shooting Down the Upshot

It’s true that Jesus’ name wasn’t the Anglo-Germanic word “Jesus” nor was “Christ” his parents’ surname. It’s anachronistic to even assume so.

Do we then conclude that it’s not really blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ” when we accidentally stub a toe? Absolutely not.

The name “Jesus Christ” is the English result of that long etymological history given above that represents the man profiled in the Bible. “Jesus Christ” is how we can talk about that God-man. Therefore to use it in vain is blasphemous.

Two Examples

If the above argument holds true, Muslims shouldn’t have been offended at the now famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed because, well, that’s not really the prophet Muhammad because in order for the cartoon to be idolatrous it would have to be correctly labeled in Arabic rather than in Danish.

Or, if blasphemy or defamation of character can only be done correctly if used in the right language, there’s no such thing as international libel. Americans shouldn’t be offended by what any nation says about them, if not said in English.

Footnotes

A second one-of-the-best-things-about-Christmastime is the theology inescapably present in carols. All of sudden glitzy starlets turn from singing the praises of their many paramours to the glories of the advent of the Christ child. In so doing the themes of sin, judgment, reconciliation, true peace, salvation, redemption, and God’s provision fill the airwaves for the season until we’ve gotten what we wanted from under the tree and can tuck these confronting, blatantly Christian topics away into the attic with all our Christmas decor. Out of sight, out of mind.

The theology present in carols highlights a difference between Christianity and Islam to which I would like to draw your attention. Tonight as I listened to the mellifulously sopranic voice of Celine declare over the radio for all of North America to hear Christ is the Lord! O praise His Name forever I was struck by the ineffective nature of her otherwise decidely Christian confession. Let the reader recall the somewhat infamous martyrdom of Polycarp at which time he was called upon to declare Kurios Caesar (“Caesar is Lord”) but rather than choosing to deny his Lord replied securely Kurios Iesous (“Jesus is Lord”). This is the most basic Christian confession. Indeed at the church I attend the baptized are asked “What is your confession?” to which the expected response is “Jesus is Lord.” However, much to my chagrin, there is reason to believe that Celine Dion along with the company of fifty plus artists who have recorded this carol in singing out “Christ is the Lord!” are not making heart-felt, Spirit-induced confessions of the lordship of Jesus of Nazareth.

In Christianity, just saying the words is not what renders a confession effectual. Yes, Paul affirms in Romans 10:9 that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” But Jesus’ words in John 6:44 are also true “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This is not to deter anyone from Christianity or from turning to Christ for the forgiveness of sins; but to deter a flippant confession by which one might expect to be saved apart from the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:3). This then is where the difference between Christianity and Islam emerges.

The Shahada

Al-Islam.org in a section entitled If You Decide to Convert outlines what it takes to become a Muslim:

Ash hadoo an laa ilaahaa ilallaah [I bear witness that there is no god but Allah (one god)]

Ash hadoo anna Muhammadan Rasoollallah (I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah).

If you state those two things with belief and conviction, you are Muslim.

Unlike Christianity, in Islam there is a magic formula, the Shahada, whereby one becomes Muslim upon declaration in Arabic. Later on in the above-linked article the new convert is advised:

When you get the chance, meet with someone who already knows the prayer and they can help you with the Arabic and little details, God willing.

Help with the Arabic seems a most important step. In Christianity, however, each hearer of the gospel is invited to respond by turning to God through Christ in prayer in their heart language and in their own words in faith, for he is not merely God of one tribe, tongue or nation alone, but the high king of heaven around whose throne peoples from all nations will gather.

Caroling Doesn’t Save

Christmastime is therefore not an automatic in-gathering of carolers but a season during which each listener gains another precious opportunity to take in the glories of God in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). Each season gives the gospel another spin on the record players and over the airwaves only to be ignored and superficially melodically enjoyed. Were this a time during which the Shahada filled the airwaves set to infectiously hum-worthy tunes we might all awake on Boxing Day Muslims!

Basically the news is that an Episcopal priest, one Reverend Ann Holmes Redding, is claiming to be both a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously. She writes Jesus’ claims off as metaphorical and seeks to harmonize the two (historically and rightfully) opposed belief systems. What a kook.

When you try to be both, Ms. Redding, you end up being neither; neither Muslim nor Christian.

The latest episode of the Albert Mohler Radio Program treats of this news (stream and/or download MP3). I’m sure he was equally flabbergasted (I haven’t listened yet, but I trust and enjoy his word).

Read a full treatment of the news on VirtueOnline, “The Voice of Global Orthodox Anglicanism.”