I received yet another email today with a subject in the vein of “Was Muhammad Really a Man of Peace?” and “Is Islam REALLY a Religion of Peace?”
I’m sure you’ve seen them. The emails and related articles go on to decry the violence of Islam’s founder, Islam’s sacred text, and even Islam’s god, with the express purpose of discrediting the religion on account of its being a “violent religion.” Before you groan and exclaim “not another commentary on the wrong-headed violence of Christians in the past,” or “here we go again, another one pleading ‘we misinterpreted our scriptures too!’ ” hear me out. I may not be headed where you think.
Jihad (by the sword) is not an inherently evil means of kingdom advancement. What else was Joshua’s campaign against Canaan(1), if not precisely that–a holy war against the infidel Philistines (and all the surrounding “ites”)? Isn’t his “taking of the holy land” exactly that? A holy jihad? And it was commanded by the God of the Bible. Speaking of him, wasn’t it precisely a jihad when he came against the gods of Egypt–and their devotees? What’s more, wasn’t the entire history of redemption kicked-off by his declaration of holy war (between “her seed and the devil’s seed”) in Genesis 3 [show] Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" [2]And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, [3]but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" [4]But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. [5]For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." [6]So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. [7]Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
[8]And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. [9]But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" [10]And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." [11]He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" [12]The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." [13]Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
[14]The LORD God said to the serpent,
"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
[15]I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
[16]To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you."
[17]And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
[18]thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
[19]By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."
[20]The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. [21]And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
[22]Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" [23]therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. [24]He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (ESV)
? Every man born of a woman since then has been born into an epoch of cosmic jihad.
Jihad is not, therefore, inherently evil. The morality of jihad depends on its end (or goal), and on the conditions under which it is waged. Why, then, was the Conquest of Canaan (a jihad if ever there was one) legitimate–even moral? Why, then, was the Egyptian massacre not only warranted, but in fact quite glorious? For one reason: the true Creator of all that is commanded it. His very person is the alone standard of Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Justice. His perfect will is the very measure of our own virtue or vice. With pleasing him as the end, and under the condition that he orders it, jihad is not merely permissible: it is praiseworthy. So, why is Islamic jihad necessarily evil?
To put it quite clearly, there is only one reason why Islamic Jihad is evil: Allah is not God. Jehovah is.
To drive this point home, imagine the reverse. If Allah was the true Creator of this cosmos, and if Muhammad truly was his prohpet, and if (therefore) the Koran truly is the word of God, then heaven and earth would be his, all non-Muslims would be his enemies, and he would have every right to drive them out of his holy cosmic temple by any means that he wishes–by sword or by spear. If Allah is God, then jihad would not only be permitted, it too would in fact be praiseworthy, and any who would not participate would be considered “faithless.”
Once more, if Allah is God, and is therefore the true king of the cosmos, then jihad would be the right response to his supreme lordship. If Allah is God, then vehement jihad would be the very mark of covenant faithfulness and zeal for his renown. If Allah is God, then his cosmic temple ought to be purged of treasonous “infidels” — his holiness and justice would require it.
But Allah is not God, Jehovah is. This is why jihad done in the name and under the “orders” of Allah is wicked, and why Joshua’s jihad was utterly righteous–why it was praised for “faithfulness unto the Lord.” This is why the Egyptian massacre was the exacting of perfect Justice and why carbombings are thoroughly wicked. No, Joshua did not misinterpret his sacred text(2). He was commended for getting it right.
Jihad is not inherently evil. It is not merely an Islamic thing; it is a holy war thing. We’d better get that clear in our heads. Otherwise, just what exactly is it that we think Jesus is coming back to do?
gmail.com
(1) Joshua’s conquest, of course, acts as a foreshadowing picture of what the True and Ultimate Joshua (‘Jesus’ in the Greek, btw) will do to this present cosmic Jericho: he will take it by storm and by sword, and he will destroy all of his enemies. We do not yet take up the sword to advance the kingdom of Christ; he will do that when he returns with ten thousand thousands of his saints “in order to execute judgment on his enemies.” Until then, we are pilgrims in this foreign kingdom, earnestly persuading our neighbors to repent from the judgment that is coming — and that persuasion is command, plea, as well as a warning: for surely “he comes quickly to execute judgment upon the wicked.”
(2) …though the Crusaders did.
The key word in this discussion is ‘theocracy.’ The Garden of Eden was a theocracy, so was the temple, so was Israel, and so shall heaven be. Muslims believe that we are now living in a theocracy. The mistake is to denounce theocracy, or to say merely that “we do not live in a theocracy, put down your sword.” We ought to say “we do not live in a theocracy yet. Put down your sword for now. Oh, and by the way, fight for Jesus and not Allah.”
AG
I’m not sure we’ve ever really talked eschatology before…
Do you believe that we will pick up literal (read: man made) weapons to fight the enemies of Christ when he returns?
Just curious…
:-)
your point in the notes about theocracy is so important. part of the reason joshua gets the divine stamp of approval, as it were, is that he has the authority to do what he does. (unlike the crusaders, i would guess, but i haven’t hashed that thought out much…)
glad to see you posting again!
Greg: Probably not…but maybe. “Saints” (elsewhere translated “holy ones”) in Jude 14 [show] [14]It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, (ESV)
could mean us. Maybe. I don’t know. I suppose it depends on whether things like Rev. 14:19-20 [show] [19]So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. [20]And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse's bridle, for 1,600 stadia. (ESV)
, for example, or 19:15, are ‘merely’ allegorical, or if they’re meant to be descriptions of suffering in physical, martial terms, which are analogous to the deep spiritual suffering stored up for the unrighteous. What will the “meek inheriting the earth” look like in its consummation?
But does it really matter who swings the sword? The point is that his ‘takeover’ will be fierce, violent, cataclysmic even–martial. The point is that holy war, a.k.a., jihad is not inherently evil. Jehovah declared it first, not Allah. And, when He comes, His benevolent (uncompromising and all-encompassing) divine theocracy will be established, and there will be no “religious tolerance” in heaven or on the earth.
And the greater point isn’t about violence or bloodshed at all, but about the fact that we live in Jehovah’s cosmic temple, not Allah’s.
Lauren: you’re absolutely correct. The concept of theocracy is vital, I think, to understanding Eden, the ark, the temple, Israel, the kingdom of God, heaven, and the history of redemption as a whole–we need to get “back to the Garden” and only Christ, the faithful Second Adam who passed his wilderness temptation has the power to pass through the flaming sword, thereby accomplishing full satisfaction for the “thou shalt surely die” curse and bring us, in Him, back into Edenic paradise. Sorry for the run-on sentence. I also think the concept of theocracy is vital for understanding modern day “political” issues such as the separation of church and state and radical Islam.
I don’t disagree with the final circumstance of things, of course…
has guided most of my thinking in that regard and that when Jesus comes and everything is changed, “in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor 15:52 [show] [52]in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. (ESV)
; 1 Thess 4:16-17 [show] [16]For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [17]Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. (ESV)
; ) – that at that moment all resistance will be over and judgment will begin.
I just wonder about the means. I guess 2 Cor 10:4 [show] [4]For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. (ESV)
I’m assuming that at the 2nd coming that the normal 2nd cause propulsion of history will end and the first cause will take the reign and things will just ‘be’ as they are to be by divine fiat… Perhaps I am not balancing my Paul with enough Revelation, but I’ve always read Revelation as the symbolic version of Paul’s teaching on life in this world for the Christian… mostly this age, and just the beginnings of the next.
I don’t mind the term Jihad in its proper context, and I see that you are trying to put it there. I’m just concerned for those in many Christian circles (mostly dispensationalists) who believe that it is a material Jihad that will bring about the second coming of Christ and are waiting for it to begin. And that is also why those who understand Christianity least, fear it so much politically and socially.
I do not believe that the world, on this side of the eschaton, ever has anything to fear from Christians. Not rationally speaking, anyway… In scripture it is always the opposite that is true. In the Christian life, waiting for Jesus to come back always means that if given the choice, we are to be oppressed rather than to oppress. That does not mean we do not stand for justice, but it does mean that we never put it aside (humanly speaking).
The hallmark of Christian living, according to Jesus, Peter and Paul (to name a few minor influences…) is not victory in this life, but suffering until the next.
And that, I believe, is the greatest difference in the outworking (practically speaking) between Islam and Christianity. (Myriad of spiritual differences aside…)
Well said, Rev.
Interesting point about 2 Cor 10:4 [show] [4]For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. (ESV)
. I’ve seen that verse mostly in light of intercession and apologetics, but perhaps you’re right and it’s not part of the temporary already-not yet, but part of the already-and-always-will-be. I heartily echo your concerns about waging a ‘material jihad’ to bring about‘ the Second coming, etc., and appreciate how you’ve articulated the antithesis between suffering and oppressing. I couldn’t agree more.
All that said, I think when He does come (albeit unprovoked by a ‘material jihad’), it will not just be a sudden change in everything into what it should be. I can’t help but think of the vast ‘materiality’ of the flood. Peter mentions next it will come by fire — and I’m not convinced that what he means by this is only the coming of the Holy Spirit or some such thing. I think it’s going to be terrifying.
Anyway. Maybe I’m making a big deal out of nothing here, and flitting off into speculations. I guess my point is that their means are irrelevant: Islam is invalid and immoral for only one reason: Allah is not God. When He returns, he will purge his creation of the true ‘infidels’ — and “there will be blood.” His glorious theocracy will thus be established.
Hmm, I had actually misplaced my memory in regards to Peter talking about the melting of the elements by fire. And he does do it in the context of commenting of the floods destruction. So it makes sense that there will be real physical destruction and burning. And apart from the exploding of the sun or some such suchness, and can’t think of any other kind of ‘ordinary providence’ (2nd cause related) that would bring about that kind of destruction other than some kind of vast nuclear destruction. Though if it is like the flood, I guess it doesn’t have to be 2nd cause related at all… the magma could just erupt from the earth and swallow it all… So I guess I wonder then if that would be something that is overseen by the physical presence of Christ, or if that is something that will happen before hand…. Deut 29:29 [show] [29]"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (ESV)
I suppose…
Always fun to hash things out with you bro.
Breakfast (or something) awaits… soon.
Aron,
I don’t know if you’ve heard of Greg Boyd? He has a very interesting series of posts on OT violence at his blog: http://www.gregboyd.blogspot.com His take on things is interesting: the failure of the Israelites to take the promised land by violent force was a lesson; war is not the way to advance His kingdom.
I’d have to take issue with your statement that Jihad is not inherently evil. If we asked ourselves which is the better world: one where babies are dashed against rocks or one in which they are not, I think the answer obvious. A world in which people are slaughtered wholesale is not the ideal. Is not the kingdom of God a kingdom of peace between men? No, jihad is inherently evil (despite it’s teleology).
Mike, nothing that God does or commands can be considered evil.
Ever. If they were, He couldn’t be God by His own definition.
Just because something looks evil according to our limited western 21st century gaze, does not make it so in the eyes of eternity. And some things, that outside of a particular context and command would indeed be evil, can, within that context and command, be nothing but the supreme good.
Only sin is inherently evil.
(Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression against the preceptive will of God, aka the Law of God.)
Greg,
It is because of sin that Jihad happens in the first place. Let me rephrase: in a sinful world Jihad happens; in an ideal (sinless) world it does not. Are you actually arguing that a sinful world in which men, women, and children are slaughtered wholesale is the best one?
Secondly, what makes you think our western, 21st century gaze is so limited. Never before have we been more able to learn the lessons of history. Christ himself said that His kingdom is not of this world and that if it was his people would fight – but they don’t. In fact, those who live by the sword die by it.
Hey Mike,
Thanks for dropping by, brother. I’ve been enjoying your posts.
Yes, I’m familiar with Greg Boyd from his leadership in the Open Theism debate. I find his suggestion appalling, to be quite honest. The philistines and the ‘ites’ didn’t die merely to be an arbitrary object lesson in ‘how not to.’ Their deaths were wholly just; capital punishment for a crime–much like high treason, if you will. Joshua wasn’t so much advancing the kingdom of God with all that violence, as he was purging it–obediently, at that.
The main difference I see between the theocratic conquests of Islam, Joshua, and the coming Christ, is precisely what you mentioned: telos. In all theocracies, the church bears the sword–and not for no reason. If I may venture a little friendly jab: if we query scripture, instead of ourselves, the better world is clearly the holy world. Yes, the kingdom of God is a kingdom of peace between men–but not before, or without, it first being a kingdom of peace between God and men. And that won’t happen until his enemies are destroyed–when the “second Joshua” returns to purge his cosmic kindgom.
When that happens, it will be absolutely nothing if not absolutely holy. (Then, of course, the garden will be peaceful again.)
Of course, had there been no fall, there would be no curse. No curse, no need for the execution of the death-sentence (i.e., no “jihad”). We’d all agree, I’m certain, that a pre-fall creation would’ve been better. My point is that, given the fall and existence of “infidels”, the means of jihad is not inherently evil, since it was mandated by God, and since it’s precisely what Christ is coming again to do–consummate his victory in the ultimate holy war.
…sorry so verbose.
I always appreciate your thoughts, Mike. Thanks!
Mike,
I think it goes without saying that a sinless world is better than a sinful one. I was certainly not proposing anything contrary to that. I agree that in a sinless world there would be no Jihad – but that is like saying in a hairless world there would be no hair… perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
In your second point, you make the same point I made above. I would never advocate Jihad for Christians today – and I believe if there were one, it would indeed be sinful. See my second post in this thread.
However, to say that Jihad is inherently sinful is to misunderstand much of redemptive history, and the author of it.
Blessings,
Greg
Jihad sounds like a trip dude, where do I sign up?
(Aron – good to see you posting again, hope you keep it up)
Greg,
I actually agree with the teleological principle behind jihad, which is the consumation of the kingdom. By nature I am a dialectical thinker. I deliberately oppose or negate assertions in order to increase my own understanding.
When Aron made the statement that jihad is not inherently evil my mind immediately searched for further qualification. The point behind my statements, which are somewhat ambiguous, is that we have keep certain aspects of reality in front of us. I trust the Author of redemptive history implicitly, but I have to resist the temptation to communicate in solely theological abstractions. When Joshua took his armies in to Jericho bad things happened: pregnant women were pierced through their bellies with swords, infants were thrown from the heights, children as young as 3 or 4 years old had their fathers killed in front of them and were then hacked to pieces.
While the telos (end or purpose) of God in all this was ultimately good, the means should shock us. Sin is why these happened. We should be horrified at what sin has caused. That is why I was reluctant to say that jihad is not inherently wicked.
Mike,
I understand now what you’re saying, and you bring up a very interesting point. Though its telos determines the morality of punishment, punishment in itself can be ugly, even shocking, and is not part of the “ideal” (I might call it “original”) creation, but is the necessary result of sin and the fall. Very interesting point, Mike. Thank you.
I suppose the word ‘inherently’ is a bit ambiguous. Let me try this: Divorced from its telos, jihad/punishment/temple-purging is ugly and shocking, though not necessarily moral or immoral. The morality / immorality, or the virtue / viciousness, of any act is most often determined by its telos. Perhaps this is a wider application of Paul’s thinking in Romans 14 [show] As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. [2]One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. [3]Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. [4]Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
.
[5]One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. [6]The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. [7]For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. [8]For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. [9]For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
[10]Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; [11]for it is written,
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God."
[12]So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
[13]Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. [14]I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. [15]For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. [16]So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. [17]For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. [18]Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. [19]So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
[20]Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. [21]It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. [22]The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. [23]But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (ESV)
Thanks to all who’ve commented on this!
Aron
More on this topic from Nick Batzig (of the Reformed Forum) and Dr. Vern Poythress: Holy War: Jesus Style.