Arabs in the Shadow of Israel
By Tony Maalouf
Reviewed by Kelly Adams, Biola University, La Mirada, CA
Arabs in the Shadow of Israel, written by Tony Maalouf Ph.D., explores the biblical narrative of Hagar, the birth of the Ishmaelite line, and the significance of God’s prophetic purpose for the lines of both of Abraham’s sons.
He begins with a dissection of the accounts leading up to the birth of Hagar’s son. A personal anecdote sets the tone for the entire first part of the book, where Maalouf attempts to shatter the preconceived anti Arab sentiment found among Western Christians. In seminary, Maalouf recounts, a fellow student asked whether or not Ishmael was under the curse, revealing that he believed Ishmael was not under blessing. This belief—although easy to believe by reading the bible through western lenses—is incorrect according Maalouf. The attributes given to Hagar concerning her son when she was driven into the wilderness paint a very different picture when put in the correct context. For instance, many believe that the blessing (although commonly thought of to be a curse) invoked upon Hagars son to be “a wild donkey of a man” means something entirely different than is scripturally intended. I thought it very crucial in understanding that the donkey was not code for a dirty, animal-like man (as it is in western culture) but instead meant “strong willed, choosing his own way, and getting what he desires…his habitat is the desert and it is given to him by God; he escapes from none, but rather he is set free…free moving and having a nomadic life style…he scorns civilization” (70.) In this light, the connotations that donkey would otherwise have fade away in light of how the donkey appears in scripture. In reality, Hagar was being comforted and blessed by God, who promised her that through the line of her son would come a great nation. That nation would settle near to the line of Isaac, from whose offspring would be the nation of Israel.
This brings about Maalouf’s second major theme throughout the book, what he refers to as the Darkness of Israel and the Light of Israel. His main argument is that God fulfilled his promise that through his son Isaac all the nations of the world would be blessed even before the coming Messiah. He follows by stipulating that the children of the east were the recipients of blessing when Israel was being blessed—focusing primarily on the glory of Israel during the Solomonic reign. He even goes as far as to say that these descendants of Ishmael were contributors to Hebrew wisdom literature, and held important positions under King David and King Solomon. It would make sense, on some level, that these two groups would be friendly during times of blessing from the Lord. Based on the loose evidence that was given in his exegesis of the connection between the Ishmaelites and the children of the east, I have to wonder if during this time the nation of Israel knew who they were dealing with. Were they at peace with one another based on the fact that they knew in some sense that they were from the same Abrahamic line? Or were they at peace with one another during the glory days based on the fact that they were geographically close and of the monotheistic persuasion? I suppose my biggest question is how the children of the east saw themselves in relation to the nation of Israel, and in turn, how the nation of Israel saw themselves relating to this group. This is very difficult to decipher, being that the children of the east were nomads whose history must be gleaned by more sedentary groups information on them. The breakdown of friendly relations between the Israelites and the Ishmaelites came with the idolatry of Israel. Maalouf put it best by stating “Abraham’s “Light” upheld in Israel stimulated light among Arabs. Israel’s “Darkness” yielded greater darkness among Arabs” (179.)
If it were up to Tony Maalouf, the apostle Paul would have been more specific when he said “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.” Maalouf’s translation would say, “first to the Jew, then to the Arab, then to the Gentile.” He makes the case that God’s first order of business once Jesus had preached to the Jews was to bring the Arabs into the light of truth, which is belief in Jesus Christ. Again, is this argument based off of anything more than the fact that the descendants of Ishmael settled in the lands closest to the Messiah’s origins? However, I recognize that God’s plan for the Arabs to be first in receiving the gospel and their convenient geographical location are not mutually exclusive.
Overall, this was a refreshing take on the relationship between Jews and Arabs. There is a prevalent belief among Christians that the bible warrants a dismal view of the descendants of the slave woman Hagar—but that just isn’t true. God, in his sovereignty, allowed for the birth of Ishmael and decided in his mercy and grace to bless that line of Abraham as well, although in a very different way from how he would choose to bless Isaac. Tony Maalouf is correct to point out that the Arabs should be a reminder to Israel that blessings from God come through faith alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment