Answer:
Allah is an Arabic word that means “God” or, more accurately, “the God.” In Western culture, it is commonly believed that the word Allah is used exclusively by Muslims to describe their God, but this is not actually true. The word Allah
is used by Arabic speakers of all Abrahamic faiths (including
Christianity and Judaism) as meaning “God.” However, according to Islam,
Allah is God’s proper name, while Christians and Jews know Him as YHWH or Yahweh. When Arabic-speaking Christians use the word Allah, it is usually used in combination with the word al-Ab. Allah al-Ab means “God the Father,” and this usage is one way Arab Christians distinguish themselves from Muslims.
Before the inception of Islam,
most Arabs were polytheistic pagans, believing in an unfeeling,
powerful fate that could not be controlled or altered or influenced by
human beings. Muslims regard Muhammad
as the last and greatest prophet, and they credit him with restoring to
the Arabs the monotheistic faith of their ancestors. Islam and Judaism
both trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham, but the God-concept of
Islam is different from that of Judaism and Christianity in some
significant ways. Yahweh and Allah are both seen as omnipotent,
omnipresent, omniscient, and merciful. However, in both Judaism and
Islam, God’s mercy is dependent, at least partly and many times fully,
on man’s actions. The Islamic concept of Allah and the Jewish concept of
Yahweh both deny the triune nature of God. They eliminate God’s Son,
Jesus, and they also eliminate the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person of
the Godhead.
Without Jesus, there is no provisionary salvation—that is, salvation is
based on man’s effort rather than God’s grace. Without the Holy Spirit,
there is no sanctification, no peace, no freedom (Romans 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17).
Christians trust that by Jesus’ death and resurrection, along with the
indwelling of His Spirit, sin is forgiven, the conscience is cleansed,
and the human soul is freed to pursue God and goodness without the fear
of punishment (Hebrews 10:22).
A Muslim may love Allah and wish to please Allah, but the question in
his mind will invariably be “is it enough? Are my works enough to merit
salvation?” Christians believe that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to
provide an answer to the question “is my work enough?” The answer is,
no, our work is not enough (Matthew 5:48).
This is shocking to anyone who has been trying on his own to appease
God. But this was the point of Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1–48).
The Jews that Jesus spoke to, just like the Muslims who follow Allah,
were trapped by the knowledge that nothing they did would ever meet
God’s perfect standard. But Christ’s perfect life, atoning death, and
resurrection did meet God’s standard (Hebrews 10:10; Romans 8:1–8). Jesus’ message to the Jews and His message now, to Muslims and everyone else, is “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15).
This does not mean “stop sinning” and “believe that God exists.” It
means “turn from sin and stop trying to please God by your own ability”
and “believe that Christ has accomplished everything for you.” The
promise to those who trust Christ is that they will become the children
of God (John 1:12).
Allah offers no such promise. Muslims believe Allah will be merciful to
them based on his evaluation of their performance. But salvation is
never sure; it is never a promise. When the Western world looks with
horror on things like jihad
and acts of Islamic terrorism, they get a glimpse of the powerful fear
that Allah instills in his many of his followers. Faithful Muslims are
faced with a terrible choice: obey the violent commands of an omnipotent
deity whose mercy is given only to the most passionate and devoted
followers (and perhaps not even then), or give themselves up as
hopelessly lost and headed for punishment.
Christians should not regard Muslims with hatred, but instead with
compassion. Their god, Allah, is a false god, and their eyes are blinded
to the truth (see 2 Corinthians 4:4).
We should be praying for Muslims and asking God to show them the truth,
revealing His promise of mercy and freedom in Christ (2 Timothy 2:24–26).
Answer:
The Bible teaches that Jesus was not created but was rather the Creator.
“In [Jesus Christ] all things were created: . . . all things have been
created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16). The doctrine of the eternality of Christ is one of the distinguishing marks of biblical Christianity.
While Jesus is held in high esteem by Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, and others of various theological beliefs, those groups teach
that Jesus was a created being. It is orthodox Christianity’s
affirmation of the full deity of Christ and His uncreated nature that
makes Christianity unique from all other religions and philosophies.
Various world religions may agree on some important issues such as the
existence of a transcendent, objective morality and the value of a
strong family life, but the answer to the question “who is Jesus Christ?” quickly separates those who adhere to biblical Christianity from those who do not.
The early creeds of the church unequivocally teach that Jesus was not
created but that He is an eternally divine Person, the Son of God. Muslims teach that Jesus was a human prophet who was born like anyone else. Mormons, who adhere to a modern-day form of Arianism, believe that Jesus had a beginning, just as God the Father had a beginning. Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus was the first creation of Jehovah and was originally called Michael the archangel.
So on which side of the creator/creature divide does Jesus actually
fall? Is Jesus a creature, and thus part of the created order, or is He,
along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Creator of all created
things? Is Jesus heteroousios (“of a different substance”) than the Father, as the 4th-century heretic Arius held; or are Christ and the Father homoousios (“of the same substance”), as Athanasius maintained and the Council of Nicea decreed?
When attempting to answer the question of “was Jesus created?” there is
no better person to look to than Jesus Himself. During His public
ministry, Jesus continually assumed for Himself divine prerogatives. He
continually exercised rights that would never be appropriate for a
created being. He said that He was “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28),
and, since the Sabbath was instituted by God, Jesus’ claim to be “Lord”
of the Sabbath was an assertion of deity. Jesus spoke of His unique,
intimate knowledge of the Father (Matthew 11:27) and of the glory He shared with the Father “before the world began” (John 17:5). Jesus accepted the worship of others (Matthew 14:32–33) and described a future time when He will sit in judgment over all nations (Matthew 25:31–44).
Luke tells us that Jesus went so far as to personally forgive a woman’s
sins—something only God can do—and attributed her forgiveness to her
faith in Him (Luke 7:48–50)!
Jesus’ disciples were equally clear in their belief in Jesus’ deity and
uncreated nature. John tells us that “in the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God” (John 1:1). After having encountered the risen Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). The apostle Paul referred to Christ as “God over all” (Romans 9:5) and stated that “in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). In the early days of the church, Jesus was both the object of prayer (Acts 7:59) and the One in whose name the forgiveness of sins was proclaimed (Acts 2:38; 10:43).
After having interrogated Christians under the threat of death, the
Roman administrator Pliny the Younger wrote in his letter to the Emperor
Trajan (c. AD 110) that “[the Christians] were in the habit of meeting
on a certain fixed day before it was light when they sang in alternative
verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (Letters 10.96).
Jesus, God the Son, was not created. He has always existed; He has no
beginning or end. The Son took on human flesh at a particular point in
human history (John 1:14). Christians refer to this event as the Incarnation (“the act of being made flesh”). This act was integral to our salvation (Galatians 4:4–5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:22).
From the Incarnation onward, the eternal, uncreated Son is both truly
God and truly man. But there was never a time when the Son did not
exist. He was never created. Jesus always was and will forever remain
“our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13).
Answer:
It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus'
mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept
biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to
understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual
virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother
of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted
place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father.
Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did
occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would
not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is
not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual
relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual
virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of
Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.
So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using
the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see
that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25
NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and
he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her,
Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture
is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations
until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56
NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named
Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His
sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms
for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male
and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters.
However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be
Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon,
and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters.
Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text
to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with
the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.
Matthew 12:46
NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother
and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14.
All mention Jesus' mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins,
or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned
with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot
be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in
contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.
Answer:
Many people claim to have seen apparitions of Mary or other Catholic saints. However, biblical teachings don’t speak highly of supernatural visions that go against sound biblical teachings. Why, then, do people claim to see these visions, and how should we interpret them?
Human beings were designed to be with God, so we naturally desire
spiritual experiences. This can lead us to jump to conclusions,
misinterpret, or overreact to situations that seem to be supernatural.
It also makes us vulnerable to false teachings (2 Timothy 4:3–4).
It’s not unusual to see what we want to see or expect to see, and this
can lead us to interpret an odd experience as an apparition of Mary.
True messages from God are unmistakable (John 3:1–2) and in harmony with the rest of His Word (John 20:31). Apparitions of Mary, by their very nature, cannot be either one of these.
Sometimes, those who claim to have seen an apparition of Mary are simply lying (see Ezekiel 13:6).
Sometimes, basic human superstition or misunderstanding comes into
play. Most claims regarding apparitions of Mary involve vague details,
few actual witnesses, and so forth. People looking for mystical signs,
patterns, or apparitions will tend to find them, even when they aren’t
really there. This is an attitude the Bible actually discourages (1 John 4:1; Mark 13:22; 2 Corinthians 13:5), because it distracts from the legitimate moments when God truly speaks through supernatural means (e.g., Matthew 11:21; Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:4; Exodus 3:20).
It is quite possible that some of those who claim to have been visited
by Mary did have a real supernatural encounter—although the supernatural
being contacting them was a demon masquerading as Mary, rather than
Mary herself.
None of this is to say that every claim regarding apparitions of Mary is
due to overt satanic influence. Or that all people making such claims
are blatantly lying. But every spiritual claim must be judged against
the written Word of God. God can, in fact, speak to people in visions and dreams (Habakkuk 2:2; Isaiah 1:1; Acts 2:17). He has also, on occasion, sent angels to deliver His messages (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:13; Genesis 19:12; Judges 6:11–12). However, the Bible clearly warns that the devil is capable of creating visions and experiences as well (2 Corinthians 11:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9),
so we can’t treat every such incident as if it comes from God. Instead,
we must compare our experience to the fixed, objective, written words
of God (Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8) and the doctrines they teach. Any apparition that contradicts or undermines the Word of God is a lying spirit.
There are no biblical descriptions of apparitions or appearances of the dead, other than when Saul consulted a witch who conjured the spirit of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 28).
This event seems to be unique in history, however, and the Bible is
clear that we are not to communicate with the dead. The question of
whether these visions support false Catholic doctrines must be
considered when interpreting apparitions of Mary. In other words, there
are more biblically sound, reasonable explanations for apparitions of
Mary than simply accepting them at face value.
Answer:
Job 1:1 includes the statement that Job was “blameless and upright.” This cannot mean that Job was sinless (Romans 3:23), so what does it mean?
The Hebrew word translated “blameless” is tam and can be translated as “blameless,” “perfect,” or “upright.” The same word is used in Proverbs 29:10,
which states, “The bloodthirsty hate a person of integrity / and seek
to kill the upright.” A blameless person is someone whose life exhibits
integrity.
“Upright” in Job 1:1 is a translation of the Hebrew yashar, meaning “upright” or “just.” This word is used in parallel in this verse with blameless. In Psalm 37:37
the same word is used in parallel with “those who seek peace”:
“Consider the blameless, observe the upright; / a future awaits those
who seek peace.”
The fuller context in Job 1:1
is “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned
evil.” So, the description of Job being “blameless and upright” is
linked to the fear of God and the avoidance of evil. The parallelism can
be seen like this:
Blameless/upright
God-fearer/one who turns from evil
In short, Job was “blameless and upright” in that he was a man of integrity who trusted in God as his redeemer (see Job 19:25), sincerely worshiped the Lord, loved his family, and was consistent in his walk with God.
Following a description of Job’s riches and his children, the text
mentions the feasts held by Job’s sons. A specific example of Job’s
blameless and upright nature is then given: “When a period of feasting
had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them [his children]
to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, ‘Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.’ This was Job’s regular custom.” (Job 1:5).
Verse 5 contains some significant details: 1) Job offered sacrifices to
God, 2) he was concerned for the spiritual welfare of his children, 3)
he feared the Lord (since he was concerned about his sons’ cursing God),
4) he was sensitive even toward unknown sin, and 5) he lived with this
attitude continually.
All of these factors serve as examples of Job’s blameless and upright
life, and they set the stage for the challenge Satan brings before God (Job 1:6–12). Further, these character traits of Job stand out to the reader of the rest of the book of Job
containing the details of Job’s suffering. According to conventional
wisdom, those who live like Job should be blessed, not cursed. In fact, Job’s three friends thought he must have done something wrong, and they were adamant that Job somehow deserved his suffering.
God uses the example of Job to show that He will sometimes allow people
to suffer even when they have done nothing specifically wrong to
“deserve” the suffering. Sometimes, suffering is part of God’s plan to
purify and mature us. James 5:11 uses Job’s life as an example of how to endure suffering patiently:
“As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have
heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought
about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.”
Answer:
The idea of a soul link is a New Age belief that finds its roots in
Hindu mysticism and Greek mythology. A soul link is often called a soul
mate, soul twin, or twin flame. A soul link is supposedly felt by two
people who are spiritually connected. Being “linked” indicates that
their souls originated from the same spiritual source before assuming
physical form. Belief in soul links is tied to reincarnation, as many people believe that the two halves of a soul link will find each other over and over again as they are reincarnated.
Some people point to 1 Samuel 18:1
as mentioning a soul link: “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul
of David” (KJV). However, this verse is simply saying, in an idiomatic
way, that Jonathan and David were “bound together in close friendship”
(NET). They were committed to each other, but there was no mystical
union of souls.
The concept of a soul link or soul mate comes from Plato. In his work The Symposium,
Plato tells a comedic story about the first human beings who had two
faces and four arms and legs. Those humans threatened to overthrow the
gods, so in response the gods split the humans in two. This would assure
twice the amount in tribute the gods would receive from humans, plus it
would humble humanity. After the split, though, the humans were so
unhappy that they ceased to eat, so the gods sewed up their bodies and
healed them. Ever since then, according to the myth, human beings have
sought their other half taken from them by the gods, and, when they find
that other half, they feel complete. Much romantic literature and art
is based on this concept.
Humans often do feel incomplete. Loneliness and the sense that something
is lacking is a universal feeling. It is possible to live in the
world’s largest cities, surrounded by other people, yet be overwhelmed
with loneliness. This feeling of incompleteness is not solved or
overcome with romantic love, as anyone who has been in love can attest.
The only truly satisfying “soul link” is the one we can enjoy with our
Creator. God has fashioned man to desire a relationship with Him, and
when we are “linked” to Him in our souls, we feel satisfied (Psalm 1; John 3:29; 7:38; 16:22). Sadly, sin drives us constantly to find that satisfaction elsewhere (Jeremiah 2:13).
Anything from a pagan idol to a glass of wine can become our substitute
for God. Lovers, drugs, work, television, sports, and even our own
families can become idols when we try to find wholeness in them or when
we use them as distractions from the emptiness we feel without God. The
Bible tells us to abide in Christ, or we can do nothing (John 15:4),
and this is amazingly true, both on a deep, spiritual level and on a
practical, everyday level. Personal dysfunctionality is inextricably
linked to our distance from God. When we seek a soul link between
ourselves and our Creator, all other things we need—including joy,
pleasure, satisfaction, security, and wholeness—will be added to us (see
Matthew 6:33: Psalm 16).
Answer:
We can learn how to pray for unbelievers by modeling the prayers Jesus prayed. John 17
is Jesus’ longest recorded prayer and shows us how He prayed. Verse 3
says, “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” He prayed that people come to
know God the Father. And the means by which they could know God is
through Christ the Son (John 14:6; 3:15–18). If this was Jesus’ desire, we know we are right when we pray similarly. Any prayer that agrees with God is an effective prayer (James 5:16; 1 John 5:14).
Second Peter 3:9
also gives us a glimpse into the heart of God toward unbelievers. It
says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand
slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish,
but everyone to come to repentance.” It is not God’s desire that anyone
spend eternity away from His presence (Romans 6:23). When we pray for repentance
in the lives of unbelievers, we are in agreement with God. We can also
pray for opportunities to be the hands and feet of Jesus so that people
can come to know His goodness (Galatians 6:10; Colossians 4:5; Ephesians 5:15–16). We can pray for boldness, like the apostles did, in seizing those opportunities when God makes them available (Acts 4:13, 29; Ephesians 6:19).
We can also pray that God will orchestrate whatever circumstances are necessary to turn stubborn hearts toward repentance. Psalm 119:67
says, “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word.”
It often takes painful circumstances to drive us to Christ. When we
pray for loved ones who don’t know Jesus, it is tempting to ask God for
protection and blessing. However, it is sometimes necessary to pray the
opposite if that is what it takes to break the control that idolatry has
on their lives. Comfort, materialism, sensuality, and addiction are
false gods that keep unbelievers in bondage. Praying the will of God may
require that we ask Him to remove His protection and comfort in order
to drive them to the place where they must seek God. There is nothing
more important for our unsaved loved ones than that they seek God and
find Him.
Praying for others touches the heart of God (James 5:16). It is one way we show love for other people (1 John 4:7). Even when we are not sure how to pray, we can take comfort in the promise of Romans 8:26.
God knows we don’t always know what to pray. He has sent the Holy
Spirit to intercede for us so that the desires of our hearts are
transported to the throne room of heaven.
answer:
“Slaying” people in the Spirit is the practice of laying hands on a
person who then loses control of his body to the extent that he falls
helplessly to the ground, supposedly overcome by the power of the Holy
Spirit. This behavior typically occurs in Charismatic and Pentecostal
circles. The person thus “slain” may lie on the floor for minutes or
hours, convulsing, crying out in ecstatic utterances, or simply lying
quietly. People are often “slain” in the Spirit
during revival meetings or praise services led by a Charismatic
minister with a reputation for having the ability to “slay” people in
such a fashion.
Some try to use 2 Chronicles 5:14
to justify the behavior demonstrated by being slain in the Spirit. In
that passage, King Solomon and the priests of Israel are dedicating the
newly built temple in Jerusalem. As the ark of the covenant is being
brought into the temple for the first time, there is music and loud
singing in praise to God. Then something spectacular happens: “The house
of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not
stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled
the house of God” (2 Chronicles 5:13–14, ESV).
Using 2 Chronicles 5:14 as a proof text for slaying in the Spirit hinges on the word stand.
The reasoning is that, if the priests could not “stand” to minister,
they must have fallen to the ground, just like happens in modern-day
Charismatic services. The fact that we fall to the ground incapacitated
proves that the glory of the Lord is among us, just like it was in
Solomon’s day.
This interpretation of 2 Chronicles 5:14 requires several assumptions and ignores the definition of the word stand
in this context. The word here does not mean “maintain an erect
posture”; it means “take one’s place.” Other translations of the same
verse say the priests “could not perform their service” (NIV); “could
not carry out their duties” (NET); and “were unable to complete their
duties” (ISV). The idea is simply that the priests were prevented from
taking their positions in the temple, not that they were knocked flat.
The priests may have “knelt on the pavement with their faces to the
ground” with the other onlookers (2 Chronicles 7:3), but otherwise they remained upright.
The ESV translates the same Hebrew word for “stand” in 2 Chronicles 5:14 as “stay” in Exodus 9:28.
In that verse, the pharaoh tells Moses, “There has been enough of God’s
thunder and hail. I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer”
(emphasis added). Was pharaoh telling Moses that Moses would soon fall
to the ground, shaking and uttering unintelligible words? No, he was
saying that Moses would soon be allowed to leave his place in Egypt and
go to another place.
We must remember that the church is only obligated to follow those
instructions clearly given to us in the New Testament. We cannot apply
an Old Testament event in Israel to the New Covenant church with
haphazard disregard of context and dispensation. Even if the priests in
Solomon’s time were struck down in a temporary fit of spiritual ecstasy
(which they were not), it would not give license for believers today to
seek such an experience. Remember, when Saul was filled with the Spirit,
“he stripped off his garments, and he too prophesied. . . . He lay
naked all that day and all that night” (1 Samuel 19:24). Should we imitate Saul’s behavior, too?
There is a big difference between narrative in the Bible and commands in
the Bible. The Lord truly fed Israel with manna in the wilderness, but
that doesn’t mean we should sit outside with bowls in our hands today,
waiting for it to rain bread. We have no command to do so. The fact that
the glory of the Lord filled the temple and the priests could not
perform their duties is narrative—it is an accurate telling of history. But the priests had no command
to seek the same experience the next week. Neither do we. The church is
never commanded to seek a repeat of the priests’ experience, and we are
never commanded to be slain in the Spirit.
Also arguing against being slain in the Spirit is the fact that we
cannot base theology on what we have seen or experienced.
Experience-based doctrine will invite deception. Jesus said, “A wicked
and adulterous generation looks for a sign” (Matthew 16:4),
and He warned that in the last days “false messiahs and false prophets
will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive” (Matthew 24:24). No, the miraculous is no guarantee that God is at work.
“The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:17).
In our faith system, we are being matured to believe God when there are
no signs, to trust Him when there is no evidence, to follow Him when
there is no proof of the truth except that God said it. Faith,
“confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see,”
is primary (Hebrews 11:1).
The Charismatic movement is not the faith movement; rather, it is the
signs movement. It teaches people to seek after a sign or to rely on
personal experience rather than on the written Word of God. Those who
live by faith do not need signs and wonders to keep their faith alive or
to prove the Word. They do not need to engage in extra-biblical
practices to somehow prove God’s presence. Those who live by faith read
the Word of God, believe what God has said, and live accordingly.
God wants us to be alert, conscious, aware, ready, and watchful (Luke 21:36; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Timothy 4:5; Revelation 3:2).
God never teaches chaos, unconsciousness, confusion, mysticism, or the
practices of pagan spiritualism. He teaches self-control,
self-discipline, the renewing of the mind, growth in knowledge and love,
the necessity of faith, and the awareness of God’s presence in our
waking moments.
The fact that the priests in 2 Chronicles 5:14
“could not perform their service” is not due to their falling to the
ground. Nothing in the passage suggests the priests were laid out on
their backs or physically incapacitated in any way. Rather, the visible
glory of the Lord filling the temple made the priests keep their
distance. This was the Lord’s temple, the Lord’s work, and the Lord’s
day. The priests became awed observers of the glory of God.
Answer:
The concept of “holy war” is most commonly expressed as a war justified
on the grounds of religious differences. As typically understood, this
concept is neither taught nor encouraged by the Bible. The ancient
Israelites were never given a broad mandate to wage war on behalf of
their faith, though they were given a specific time, place, and region
which they were instructed to conquer. Jesus Christ explicitly
contradicted the holy war concept through both His teachings and His
example. The concept of “just war,” meaning justifiable war waged by a legitimate government, is not the same as a “holy war”.
Critics sometimes claim that holy war is encouraged in the Old
Testament. However, the nation of Israel was given a mandate only to
conquer the land of Canaan (Numbers 34:2).
This command was for a specific place, time, and people, not an
endorsement of religious warfare. Nor was the conquest of Canaan made on
the basis of religion, in and of itself. On the contrary, God
repeatedly stated that this conquest was due to the wickedness of the
Canaanites, not the merit of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:4–6).
Historically, this is exactly how the nation of Israel interpreted
these commands. No attempts were made to conquer other lands or to
expand that territory through combat.
Christians are strictly forbidden from using violence in an attempt to
spread their faith. Christ directly told His disciples not to use
violence to further His ministry (Matthew 26:52–54). He lived out a philosophy of peacemaking and taught others to do the same (Matthew 5:9–10).
When arrested and facing death, Jesus clearly said that His kingdom was
not earthly, so His disciples would not fight to protect Him (John 18:36). Christians expect persecution, not conquest, since Christ experienced the same (John 15:18–21). The example of the earliest believers was that of civil disobedience (Acts 5:25–29) and submission (Romans 13:4–5),
never armed revolution or conquest. In fact, for the first three
centuries of its existence, Christianity was effectively illegal, yet it
spread throughout the Roman Empire.
The occurrence of “holy war,” historically speaking, is rare. Secular
historians note that more than 90 percent of the wars fought in human
history had no religious motivation. The remaining 7 percent of
conflicts account for about 2 percent of all deaths in war. Islam
accounts for more than half of these religious wars, despite existing
for only about 1/3 of human history; in Islam’s first three centuries,
its growth was fueled by armed conquest. If there’s any reason the
concept of “holy war” exists, it’s fair to say that reason is Islam.
It’s also worth noting that atheistic regimes have resulted in untold
millions of deaths, just in the last 100 years alone. Religious belief,
historically, hasn’t been a major cause of conflict, while non-belief
has enabled some of history’s worst atrocities.
The Bible maintains a strict emphasis on God’s righteousness and
mankind’s fallibility. Jesus preached a message of peace and lived it
out perfectly. His earliest followers did the same, and every attempt to
justify “holy war” by nominal Christianity was met with opposition and
dissent from within the church. Historically and theologically, “holy
war” has never been a part of biblical Christianity.
