Is it all right to call God Allah?

Some people today debate whether it is all right for Christians to call God “Allah.” Those within cultures that speak Arabic (or Hausa or other languages that use this title) have a right to discuss whether there might be inappropriate connotations in some of their contexts (or where it might be against the law). But from a purely language standpoint, nobody else should be debating it.
The English word “God” did not originate as a Christian title. Nor did the Greek word that we translate God, “theos”; that was used for pagan Greek deities long before the spread of monotheism in the Greek-speaking world. Canaanites called their chief god “El” and their gods “elohim” before the patriarchs could adopt these titles for the true supreme God. “Allah” in Arabic is related to the Hebrew term for God. It makes no more sense to prohibit Arabic-speaking Christians from using an Arabic term for God, understood in a Christian way, than to prohibit English-speaking Christians from using the term “God,” understood in a Christian way, even though we recognize that others could speak of other “gods” using the same English word, or that others who believe in one God might have a different understanding of this God. I am not entering into the debate here about what Muslims and Christians mean by God–there are some significant differences. But one either adapts existing language, which is usually how we translate, or uses a new loanword and explains it. (YHWH may be “untainted,” but even biblical terms for God such as Elohim and El and theos are not.)
In English we speak of Saturday without regard for it being named after the Roman divinity Saturn, or Sunday being named for the Sun (deity), or Thursday for Thor or the like. We are often very inconsistent in what we tolerate–usually tolerating more that is under our own nose than what is under someone else’s. What might be more fruitful is getting to better understand and communicate what God is like–getting to know His heart in Jesus Christ.

Paul and the Law

Scholars articulate a range of views concerning Paul’s approach to the law. A basic summary of my own current perspective (which surfaces at points in my small 2009 Romans commentary) might be as follows:

  • Paul respects the law as God’s Word; this includes both the narrative and the legal material.
  • Paul believes that the law was meant to teach right behavior (much of which is universal, though Paul does not usually spell out the hermeneutic that guides how he distinguishes those elements).
  • Paul does not believe that the law was meant to transform the heart directly; rather it is meant to point/testify to the experience with the law’s God that transforms the heart.
  • The law’s specific stipulations guided Israel in their setting (e.g., agrarian, in the promised land, etc.), but just as those stipulations required new forms of obedience for their day, so the fuller revelation in Christ takes on new forms.
  • This fuller revelation in Christ, which Paul has undeniably experienced, has inaugurated (albeit not consummated) the promised messianic reign in a largely unexpected way (most dramatically, in a cruciform way), with equally unexpected consequences.
  • This fuller revelation in Christ makes available (as a foretaste of the coming world) the life-transforming experience with God through the Spirit that fulfills all the principles of the law (thus, for example, the new covenant’s greater circumcision of the heart to which earlier physical circumcision merely pointed; or Jesus’s summary of the law’s heart as love).
  • The law’s universal moral and spiritual principles, which God communicated to Israel in a specific context, can be recontextualized by the Spirit for all people of the new covenant, including ethnic Gentiles grafted into Israel’s heritage through following Jesus, Israel’s Messiah (here it must be acknowledged that we often lack consensus on what the universals are; I have offered elsewhere suggestions for discerning those; see e.g., http://www.craigkeener.org/how-i-love-your-law-ot-laws-in-context/; http://www.craigkeener.org/understanding-and-applying-ot-laws-today/; http://www.craigkeener.org/which-day-is-the-sabbath/).
  • The law testifies to the way of a personal relationship with God, as evidenced in the lives of Abraham, Moses, and others; its heart is more about God and his covenant love (e.g., Exod 34:4-7) than about its stipulations (though those stipulations remained crucial as part of God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai).
  • As part of Israel’s heritage and a continuing witness to the universal truth the Scriptures convey, even many of the law’s traditional stipulations remain valuable to those who remain Jewish by ethnic identity (e.g., Messianic Jews, such as Paul himself was, are fully within their rights to continue to express their Jewish heritage in this way).
  • Paul believes that to approach the law as a list of duties (even ones joyfully undertaken) rather than a witness to the way of faith in (and thus personal relationship with) God (Rom 3:27; 9:31-32), or apart from the enabling experience of the Spirit (8:2), cannot transform the identity (more controversially, I am inclined to add, “and never could”; I believe that Paul saw Deut 30 and other parts of the law testifying to divine rather than human transformation of those who walk with God, with the new covenant developing this transformative empowerment more deeply in light of Jer 31:31-34 and Ezek 36:25-27).
  • Treating the law’s stipulations as a means of demonstrating righteousness instead of depending on the divine favor and empowerment to which the law pointed in fact defies dependence on God’s favor and hence incurs condemnation. In this way, the law can even function as an instrument of divine judgment to those who miss God’s heart there.

Now, if you can figure out what such a set of views should be called, you are smarter than I. There are so many different permutations on various details on the scale between Luther and various New Perspective(s), with Reformed articulations often friendlier to continuing value for the law than some other views (especially Bultmann’s), that I find traditional ways of classifying views inadequate (even if they are necessary to provide some sort of handle on the spectrum).

I am noting this hastily constructed list because I am turning more of my attention back to Pauline studies now, and if I am wrong on some of these points, it will be helpful for me to learn that now before I publish more work on this subject! Nevertheless I remain certain that, given the range of perspectives now current on various details, there is almost no way to summarize a view without missing some nuancing valuable for this or that point of debate. For that I can only apologize in advance and hope to keep learning.

Marital conflict in the Bible

I don’t like arguments, and I especially do not like arguments with people close to me. (The less my relationship with a person, the less I care what they think about me, except when they’re armed!) Warning: the purpose of this post is not to stir more arguments. But what do you do when they happen?

Did you know that even some of the great patriarchs and matriarchs whom we honor in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, had marital conflicts? Marital conflict obviously is not the ideal; it was apparently introduced as a result of the fall (cf. the final lines of Gen 3:16, especially in view of the same key Hebrew terminology in 4:7).

Nevertheless, it happened often enough that it gets recorded even in the very selective accounts of Genesis, a book more focused on God’s promise. A few examples of such conflicts may suffice, though the character of each of these examples varies from the others.

Abraham often appears to be a peacemaker where he could be (e.g., 13:8), but circumstances did cause times of discomfort even in his marriage. In light of ancient custom, Sarai felt responsible to provide Abram an heir one way or another. Thus, following expectations for women of her class in Mesopotamia, where the couple was from, she wanted her Egyptian maid Hagar to act as a sort of surrogate mother to provide her a son. Once Hagar was pregnant with Abram’s heir, however, her own background expectations took over, and she became less respectful of Sarai.

In this situation, Sarai charged Abram for being at fault (16:4-5); he gave way to her (16:6). (Ironically, the one person God speaks to and protects in this narrative is Hagar; 16:6-14.) Years later, Sarah demands that Hagar and Ishmael be sent away (21:10). The narrator does not tell us whether Sarah and Abraham argued, but the narrator does make quite clear Abraham’s distress (21:11). The distress was resolved only when God instructed him to heed Sarah’s words (21:12) but promised a good future also for Ishmael (21:13). (God again helps Hagar and Ishmael, 21:15-21.)

Circumstances beyond our control can often cause us stress, and beyond a given level of stress we sometimes blow up at others unfairly. In the ancient Middle East, as in many cultures today, society valued men for their agrarian or pastoral productivity and women particularly for their childbearing. Jealous of Leah’s childbearing and brokenhearted over her own inability to have children, Rachel demanded to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I’ll die!” (30:1).

Jacob had no more control over the situation than Rachel did. Rather than responding to her on the level of her grief, he took her demand as an unfair accusation. He got angry (30:2), and protested, “Am I in God’s place? God is the one who’s kept you from bearing!” (30:2). Jacob was right about God being sovereign (cf. 29:31; 30:22), but his angry words might have wounded Rachel even more. Perhaps (this is not clear) she even understood him as claiming that her lack of pregnancy was God’s judgment, since inability to have children was often so understood in their culture. (In the Bible it was not always a judgment—see e.g., 11:30; 25:21; and even when it was, it was often judgment on a people or a group, not on the individuals who suffered it—e.g., 20:18.) Both Jacob and Rachel spoke from frustration, but in the long run their love for one another was undiminished (cf. 29:30; 37:3; 48:7).

Less argumentative but more reflective of long-term issues was the division between Isaac and Rebekah concerning their children. Though Genesis does not tell us whether the two argued about it along the way, in the end they each sought their own way without communication. This does not necessarily mean that they did not love each other, nor is there the slightest thought of divorce or separation. Moreover, the narrator’s interest is in his people rather than the Edomites being the ones to whom God gave the promise, not so much in the marital dynamics of this couple. Nevertheless, and despite the romantic story of their coming together, they experienced less than forthright communication.

God told Rebekah that the elder would serve the younger, so she favored Jacob (25:23, 28), but Isaac favored Jacob, because he liked to eat the wild game that Esau hunted (25:28). Isaac planned to give the blessing to Esau; given societal expectations, Rebekah had no final say in the matter, so she went around behind Isaac’s back and helped Jacob to get the blessing deceptively (27:5-17).

This does not imply that Rebekah had no influence over Jacob; she could privately persuade Isaac to send Jacob to Mesopotamia to get a proper wife from among their relatives (27:46); both Isaac and Rebekah were unhappy with Esau’s local wives (26:34-35). Yet Rebekah chose not to disturb Isaac with the more urgent reason for sending Jacob away—namely, that his brother Esau now wanted to kill him (27:41-45).

Because Isaac was blind, he couldn’t know everything that was going on in their camp, but Rebekah apparently did, and she did not tell him about it. It’s hard to say how much of this Isaac knew about and chose to ignore. Such a relationship may not have been considered so dysfunctional in their setting, but it certainly would be in ours.

When we bring together different people from different backgrounds, differences are inevitable. We may address those differences constructively—or not; but differences will arise, one way or the other. Sometimes, as with the (obviously nonmarital) conflict between Barnabas and Paul in Acts 15:36-40, both sides have a good point and speak from genuinely important values. Although right and wrong exist and some conflicts (say, with Boko Haram and its victims) fall into that category, reality can be more complex than one side always being completely in the right and the other completely in the wrong. Unhappily, Paul and Barnabas divided over this conflict, so in contrast with the picture of peaceful resolution of the church’s conflicts in the previous narrative (Acts 15:25, 28).

Sometimes how we resolve disagreements is even more important than the conclusion we come to. As God told Abraham to heed Sarah on an occasion narrated above, the best resolution is not always what initially seems best to us (cf. Prov 12:15; 21:2; 26:12). Nevertheless, communication seems much healthier for us than the way that Isaac and Rebekah related to each other. (We can affirm this without us needing to take sides on which of the two, if either, was in the right.)

Personally, I much prefer to resolve differences in a controlled setting without losing tempers; still, as our marriage enrichment instructors, Peter and Carol Schreck, emphasized, when you are going to debate a topic, “fight fair.” Disagreements need not escalate into arguments with tempers flaring, but even when that happens, as in the case of Rachel and Jacob noted above, such flares need not be permanent and need not mar a marriage’s long-term happiness.

New for 2016

Lately I have been running short clips from the free video courses on Matthew and Acts, with few written blog posts. In 2016 I plan to return to more of a balance (and might eventually even run out of regular video clips). Please also note the “Free Resources” page and also the searchable archives, which include roughly 400 free Bible studies and videos. If you don’t find interesting the blog post coming up at the time, keep in mind that there are enough other posts already available to read or watch one every day of the year.

It’s not possible in every post to nuance every angle or think of every issue that someone may raise. Nevertheless, I hope that you will find much that you are able to recycle and use in your own setting.

All about the African empire that the official in Acts 8:27 was from

Official from the African kingdom of Meroë–Acts 8:27. 6.5-minute lecture from Acts scholar Craig Keener. (Part of a larger segment.)

For 23 free lectures on Acts, see http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/DigitalCourses/00_DigitalBiblicalStudiesCourses.html#Acts_Keener. Craig’s Acts commentary treats the passage about this African official in vol. 2, pp. 1534-1596.