Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Jesus demonstrated He is God

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Jesus id greater than Muhammad because he is alive and Muhammad is dead

Monday, December 29, 2025

Jesus is good because He is God

Tuesday, December 23, 2025

The Intrinsic Nature of God’s Love

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The declaration of Scripture, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), stands not as a description of God’s behavior alone, but as an ontological statement of His very essence. Love is not merely one of God’s many attributes, nor a quality that He assumes in relation to creation, but the intrinsic essence of His being. Just as His holiness and glory are not created nor dependent upon the existence of the world, but eternally existent in and of Himself, so too is love. To deny that love is the essence of God is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of divine reality.

The Ontological Ground of Love

Theologically, love cannot exist independently of God. The modern world often conceives of love as a human construct, an emotional response, or an abstract virtue. Yet such conceptions fail to capture the biblical truth that love exists because God exists. God does not possess love as a quality external to Himself; rather, He is love in His eternal essence. This means that love, like holiness and glory, is not contingent, temporal, or derivative—it is self-existent because God is self-existent (Exod. 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM”).

Within the doctrine of divine simplicity, God is not composed of parts; His essence is identical with His attributes. Thus, His love is not one aspect among many, but the fullness of His being. Just as His holiness is not created but eternally radiant from His nature, and His glory not borrowed but eternally shining from His existence, so His love is uncreated, eternal, and unchanging.

Love in the Trinity

The eternal nature of divine love is most profoundly revealed in the Trinity. Before creation existed, before a single creature could receive love, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in perfect fellowship of love. Augustine writes that within the Trinity, the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Spirit is the bond of love. This eternal communion demonstrates that love is not dependent on creation; it is ontologically prior to all things. The existence of love in God Himself affirms that love is eternal because God is eternal.

The Manifestation of God’s Love

Although love is intrinsic to God’s essence, it is not static but active. God’s love flows outward in creation and redemption as an expression of His being. Creation itself is an act of love, not because God needed the world, but because His love is so abundant that it freely overflows into existence. Redemption through Christ is the highest manifestation of this love: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Christ’s atonement reveals the eternal reality of divine love breaking into history, not as a new act, but as the eternal love of God manifest in time.

Theological Implications

Love as Divine Essence, Not Attribute: To treat love as a mere attribute risks reducing God to a composite being who has love rather than is love. The doctrine of divine simplicity insists that God is identical with His attributes; hence, to know God is to know love in its purest form.
Love as Eternal and Self-Existent: Since love is grounded in God’s being, it neither originates from human experience nor evolves through history. Instead, it is eternal, necessary, and unchanging.
Love as the Basis of Christian Life: If God’s very essence is love, then Christian existence must flow from this reality. Believers are not called merely to imitate a quality of God but to participate in His divine essence (2 Pet. 1:4). To love, therefore, is to reflect the very being of God who indwells us through His Spirit.

Conclusion

The love of God is not an attribute among many but His very essence—intrinsic, eternal, and uncreated. Just as God’s holiness and glory exist eternally because God Himself is eternal, so His love exists because God is. To confess “God is love” is to confess that the very ground of reality, the eternal “I AM,” is love itself. This love is revealed in the eternal communion of the Trinity and manifested supremely in the redemptive work of Christ. Thus, all love that is true and holy finds its origin not in human emotion but in the eternal God, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The Purity of Water in Islamic Tradition: A Critical Examination of Hadith and Qur’anic Teachings

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The concept of ritual purity (ṭahārah) occupies a central role in Islamic jurisprudence, shaping both the spiritual and practical life of Muslims. Among the most frequently cited sources on this matter is a hadith regarding the well of Budāʿah, in which the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared that water remains pure regardless of external impurities. This pronouncement, preserved in Sunan Abī Dāwūd (No. 67), has been pivotal in Islamic debates on ritual cleanliness, but it also invites theological and scientific scrutiny when measured against Qur’anic injunctions and broader prophetic traditions.

The Hadith of the Well of Budāʿah

Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī narrated:

“It was said, O Messenger of Allah, shall we perform ablution from the well of Budāʿah, which dead dogs, menstrual rags, and putrid things are thrown into? The Messenger of Allah replied: ‘Water is pure and nothing makes it impure.’” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 67; also transmitted in al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasā’ī).

This hadith has been used to establish the principle that large bodies of water cannot be rendered impure, even when polluted by external contaminants. However, it raises significant theological, legal, and ethical questions when juxtaposed with Qur’anic verses that emphasize both physical and spiritual cleanliness.

Qur’anic Injunctions on Purity

The Qur’an repeatedly underscores the necessity of purity and warns against contamination, both literal and figurative:

Qur’an 2:222: “Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.”
Qur’an 5:6: “O you who believe! When you rise to pray, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe over your heads, and wash your feet up to the ankles…”
Qur’an 74:4: “And your clothing purify.”
Qur’an 9:108: “…within it are men who love to purify themselves, and Allah loves those who purify themselves.”

These verses suggest that both ritual and physical cleanliness are not only encouraged but commanded. It is therefore problematic to reconcile the notion that water filled with carcasses and waste could still be considered “pure” in a hygienic or ritual sense.

Comparative Hadith Literature

Additional hadith illustrate a similar tension. For example:

Prohibition of Urinating in Standing Water
Abū Hurayrah reported:

“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘None of you should urinate in standing water and then wash in it.’” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 239; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 282).

This tradition contradicts the Budāʿah hadith by acknowledging that human waste does indeed render water unsuitable for ritual purification.

Avoidance of Impurity
The Prophet is also reported to have said:

“Beware of the three acts that cause you to be cursed: relieving yourselves in shaded places, in pathways, and in watering places.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 26).

This indicates that Muhammad recognized the dangers of contaminating communal resources and discouraged practices that spread impurity.

Cleanliness as Half of Faith
Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī narrated:

“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Purification is half of faith.’” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 223).

Here, cleanliness is elevated to a fundamental principle of Islamic piety, suggesting that hygiene cannot be divorced from spiritual devotion.

Scholarly and Theological Analysis

From an academic perspective, the hadith of the well of Budāʿah introduces a theological inconsistency when held against other Islamic sources. On one hand, Muhammad proclaimed water to be impervious to impurity, even when visibly defiled by dead animals and waste. On the other hand, he prohibited urination in stagnant water, condemned unhygienic practices, and emphasized purification as integral to faith.

Moreover, when examined through the lens of modern hygiene and water science, the Budāʿah hadith raises significant concerns. The presence of decomposing carcasses and menstrual cloths would undeniably render water unfit for consumption or ritual use by any rational standard of sanitation. Thus, this hadith not only contradicts other prophetic reports but also undermines the Qur’anic principle that God loves those who keep themselves pure.

Conclusion

The Islamic tradition contains both affirmations of absolute water purity, as seen in the hadith of Budāʿah, and explicit prohibitions against polluting water. This tension reveals an inconsistency within the hadith corpus that challenges both theological coherence and practical application. When measured against the Qur’an’s repeated call for purity—both ritual and physical—the Budāʿah hadith appears out of harmony with broader Islamic values. Such critical examination is essential for understanding how Islamic jurisprudence developed and how it continues to face challenges of textual reliability, theological integrity, and scientific validity.

📚 References

The Qur’an, Surahs 2:222, 5:6, 9:108, 74:4.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Hadith Nos. 239.
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Hadith Nos. 223, 282.
Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Hadith Nos. 26, 67.
Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī; al-Nasā’ī, parallel reports.

The Silence of Allah: A Scholarly Challenge to Islamic Claims of Divine Self-Disclosure

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslim apologists frequently challenge Christians by demanding verbatim biblical statements from Jesus such as, “I am God; worship me.” Their argument hinges upon the absence of explicit self-claims of divinity in these exact words. However, when the same standard is applied to Islam, a glaring inconsistency emerges. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah ever declare directly to Muhammad, “I am Allah; worship me.” This article explores the theological implications of such silence, arguing that by Muslim reasoning itself, Allah cannot be regarded as God, and Muhammad’s prophetic claims are rendered invalid.

Introduction

The question of divine self-disclosure lies at the heart of theological debate between Christianity and Islam. Muslims often ask Christians to produce explicit words from Jesus affirming His divinity. However, Islam itself suffers from the very deficiency it critiques. Nowhere in the Qur’an is Muhammad given a direct, personal declaration from Allah that confirms His identity as God and commands exclusive worship.

1. The Islamic Argument Against Jesus

Islamic polemics rest on the absence of verbatim phrases in the New Testament. The typical challenge is: “Where did Jesus ever say, ‘I am God, worship me’?” (cf. Ahmad Deedat, Zakir Naik). The assumption is that without an explicit declaration, Jesus’ divinity is invalid.

Yet, this reasoning disregards numerous scriptural affirmations:

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38).
Jesus identified Himself with the divine name “I AM” (John 8:58).
The apostles and early Church universally proclaimed Him as Lord and God (John 20:28; Philippians 2:6–11).

If this strict standard is binding, it must also be applied to Islam.

2. The Qur’anic Silence of Allah

The Qur’an consistently refers to Allah in the third person: “Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him” (Qur’an 3:51). Yet, these statements are usually placed in the mouths of prophets, not Allah directly declaring to Muhammad:

“Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance” (Qur’an 20:14).

Here, it must be noted: this statement is allegedly spoken to Moses at the burning bush, not to Muhammad. Crucially, Muhammad never receives such a direct self-revelation from Allah.

Thus, the Qur’an contains no moment where Allah addresses Muhammad personally with the words: “I am Allah; worship Me.”

3. Implications for Muhammad’s Prophethood

If Muslims insist that Jesus is not divine because He did not utter specific words, then the same logic must be applied to Muhammad:

Muhammad never heard Allah’s voice proclaiming His identity.
No direct statement of self-revelation was ever given.
Therefore, Muhammad had no divine guarantee of Allah’s existence or authority.

By Islamic reasoning itself, Allah cannot be proven to be God, and Muhammad’s claim to prophethood collapses. This creates a theological paradox: the very argument Muslims use against Christianity becomes the undoing of Islam.

4. The Christian Perspective on Divine Revelation

Unlike Allah’s silence, the God of the Bible revealed Himself throughout salvation history with direct self-claims:

To Moses: “I am the LORD your God… You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2–3).
To the prophets: “I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5).
Through Christ: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

The biblical model is consistent: God does not leave His identity ambiguous. In contrast, Islam’s Qur’an fails to provide Muhammad with any such direct divine declaration.

Conclusion

By applying the same standards Muslims demand of Christians, Islam collapses under its own weight. If explicit self-declaration is required for divinity, then Allah’s silence disqualifies Him from being God, and Muhammad’s message loses legitimacy. The Christian God reveals Himself clearly and personally, culminating in Jesus Christ, who is worshipped as Lord and God. Islam, therefore, stands as a system built upon a deity who never affirmed Himself to His prophet.

Bibliography

The Qur’an, translations by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Saheeh International, and Pickthall.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
Ahmad Deedat, Is Jesus God? (Islamic Propagation Centre International, 1981).
Zakir Naik, The Concept of God in Major Religions (Islamic Research Foundation, 1997).
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 2003).
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press, 1996).

Allah Never Said to Muhammad: “I Am God, Worship Me” — A Scholarly Debate Challenge to Islam

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

Muslims repeatedly challenge Christians with the demand: “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me’?” This polemical strategy, championed by Islamic preachers such as Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik, seeks to undermine the divinity of Jesus by appealing to the absence of verbatim declarations in the Gospels. Yet, when this standard is applied to Islam itself, a fundamental contradiction emerges. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah ever speak directly to Muhammad with the explicit words: “I am Allah; worship Me.” This absence undermines the credibility of Allah’s identity and Muhammad’s prophethood when judged by Islam’s own argumentative criteria.

1. The Muslim Polemical Argument Against Jesus

The Islamic argument is straightforward: if Jesus is truly God, then He should have explicitly declared, in unambiguous words, “I am God, worship Me.” Because such a phrase does not exist in the New Testament, Muslims assert that Jesus never claimed divinity.

This claim, however, fails on several grounds:

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38), a prerogative belonging only to God in Jewish monotheism.
Jesus identified Himself with the divine name “I AM” (John 8:58; cf. Exodus 3:14).
The apostles confessed His deity: Thomas declared, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
The early Church universally worshipped Jesus as divine (Philippians 2:6–11).

Thus, though the exact Muslim-demanded phrase is absent, the substance of Jesus’ divinity is explicit.

2. The Qur’an’s Lack of Direct Divine Self-Revelation to Muhammad

If Muslims apply this same standard to their own religion, an uncomfortable reality emerges: Allah never once tells Muhammad, “I am Allah; worship Me.”

The Qur’an often attributes declarations to Allah in the third person:

“Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him” (Qur’an 3:51).
“So know that there is no deity except Allah” (Qur’an 47:19).

But in none of these instances is Muhammad personally addressed with a first-person, divine self-revelation.

The one verse that appears similar is Qur’an 20:14:

“Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.”

Yet this was allegedly spoken to Moses at the burning bush, not to Muhammad. Muhammad, the supposed final prophet, never once received a direct “I am God” declaration.

3. The Logical Consequences for Islam

If Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus because He did not use their demanded formula, then consistency requires rejecting the deity of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad, since:

Allah never personally identified Himself to Muhammad.
Muhammad received no divine confirmation in the Qur’an that his source was truly God.
By Muslim reasoning, Allah is disqualified as God and Muhammad becomes a false prophet ad infinitum.

The argument Muslims wield against Christianity thus backfires fatally upon Islam itself.

4. Contrast with Biblical Divine Self-Revelation

The God of the Bible repeatedly and unambiguously revealed Himself throughout salvation history:

To Moses: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt… You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2–3).
Through Isaiah: “I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5).
Through Christ: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

This continuity of divine self-revelation stands in stark contrast to the silence of Allah toward Muhammad.

5. The Debate Challenge to Islam

If Muslims insist that Jesus must say “I am God, worship Me” to be divine, then by the exact same standard:

Where in the Qur’an did Allah ever say to Muhammad: “I am Allah; worship Me”?
Where is the verbatim self-declaration to Muhammad that establishes Allah’s divine identity?

The answer is: nowhere. Islam’s God never spoke these words to Muhammad.

Therefore, by Islam’s own argumentative framework:

Allah cannot be proven to be God.
Muhammad cannot be proven to be a prophet.

Conclusion

The silence of Allah in the Qur’an is deafening. By demanding explicit divine declarations from Christians, Muslims have trapped themselves in a standard that their own faith cannot meet. The God of the Bible speaks directly, clearly, and repeatedly to His people. Allah never once tells Muhammad, “I am God, worship Me.” On Islamic grounds, therefore, Allah fails the test of divinity, and Muhammad’s prophethood collapses. Christianity, in contrast, rests on a God who reveals Himself fully and finally in Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made flesh.

Bibliography

The Qur’an, translations by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Saheeh International, and Pickthall.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
Ahmad Deedat, Is Jesus God? (Islamic Propagation Centre International, 1981).
Zakir Naik, The Concept of God in Major Religions (Islamic Research Foundation, 1997).
F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 2003).
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press, 1996).
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008).

The Danger of Following a Blind Man: Muhammad in Theological and Historical Critique

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba – Shimba Theological Institute

1. Introduction: The Principle of Blind Leadership

In biblical wisdom literature, Jesus warns, “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?” (Luke 6:39). This timeless principle applies to any religious leader who lacks the light of truth and divine revelation. When the leader himself is in darkness—spiritually blind—his followers inevitably walk toward destruction. The Qur’an itself acknowledges that Muhammad did not know the truth before supposed “revelations” came to him (Qur’an 42:52), and Islamic traditions reveal that he initially feared his experiences were demonic (Sahih Bukhari 6982). This raises serious theological concerns about the trustworthiness of his spiritual guidance.

2. Muhammad’s Spiritual Blindness

Biblically, spiritual blindness is not merely ignorance—it is the inability to discern the truth of God’s salvation in Christ. Muhammad denied the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (Qur’an 4:157), directly rejecting the central truth of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). This rejection alone places him among those whom Scripture describes as “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
His teachings replaced the certainty of salvation in Christ (John 10:28) with the uncertainty of works-based religion, where even he confessed he was unsure of his own eternal fate (Sahih Bukhari 5:266). Thus, he was leading without sight toward an unknown destination.

3. The Historical Consequences of Following Muhammad

A blind guide not only misdirects spiritually but also leads to physical and societal calamity. History records that after gaining political and military power in Medina, Muhammad shifted from peaceful persuasion to violent conquest. Islamic sources confirm the military subjugation of Arabian tribes, executions of dissenters (e.g., Banu Qurayza massacre), and institutionalized slavery—all justified under his claimed divine mandate.
The result was not the peace of Christ (“My peace I give to you” – John 14:27), but the spread of faith by the sword, producing a system where coercion and fear replaced the liberty of the Gospel (Galatians 5:1).

4. Theological Warning

To follow Muhammad is to follow a leader who denied the Light of the World (John 8:12) and replaced it with a path of human works, uncertain mercy, and earthly conquest. The Bible’s warning is clear: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him” (2 John 1:10). Spiritual blindness in a leader is not a private flaw—it is a public danger. Those who follow such a leader share in the same destiny of destruction unless they turn to the One who opens blind eyes (John 9:39–41).

Conclusion

History, theology, and Scripture converge on this truth: following Muhammad is following a man who walked in spiritual darkness, denied the saving work of Christ, and instituted a system that perpetuated both spiritual and societal bondage. The danger is not only the loss of earthly freedom but also eternal separation from God. The call is urgent—abandon blind guides and follow the true Shepherd, Jesus Christ, who alone can say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Why Did Muhammad Turn Away from the Blind? A Theological Challenge to His Prophetic Claim

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Qur’an recounts a striking incident in Surah 80:1–2: “He (Muhammad) frowned and turned away, because the blind man came to him.” This passage has raised significant theological and historical questions regarding Muhammad’s prophetic authority and character. Unlike the prophets and apostles of the Bible, who demonstrated divine power through acts of healing—including restoring sight to the blind—Muhammad neither healed the afflicted nor treated them with compassion in this particular episode. This paper critically evaluates the implications of this account and challenges the Islamic claim of Muhammad’s prophethood.

The Biblical Tradition of Healing the Blind

In the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, healing the blind stands as a powerful sign of divine authority. The prophet Elisha, though not directly performing sight restoration, participated in miracles demonstrating God’s power over life and death (2 Kings 4–6). More profoundly, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 35:5: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened.” The Gospels consistently testify to Jesus’ miraculous healing of the blind (e.g., Mark 10:46–52; John 9:1–12). Moreover, the apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit, continued this ministry of healing (Acts 9:17–18; Acts 14:8–10). Thus, the biblical prophetic tradition not only proclaimed God’s truth but also tangibly demonstrated His power through signs of mercy and restoration.

Muhammad’s Response in Contrast

Against this background, the Qur’anic account in Surah 80 presents Muhammad’s conduct as antithetical to prophetic compassion. Faced with a blind man—traditionally identified as ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm—Muhammad “frowned and turned away.” Rather than offering healing, comfort, or dignity, Muhammad distanced himself, preferring instead to engage with wealthy pagan leaders. This choice of social preference contradicts the biblical model of prophetic concern for the marginalized, epitomized in Jesus’ ministry to the poor, the sick, and the outcast.

Theologically, this raises a fundamental question: If Muhammad were truly a prophet of God, why did he not embody divine compassion by healing the blind, as seen in the ministries of Christ and the apostles? Why did he prioritize the influential elite over the vulnerable? The absence of healing miracles in Muhammad’s ministry undermines his claim to continuity with the prophetic tradition recognized in the Bible.

Implications for Prophetic Authenticity

The Qur’anic narrative of Muhammad turning away exposes a critical weakness in Islamic claims about his prophethood. True prophets of God not only declare divine revelation but also manifest the power of God through acts of compassion and miraculous signs that authenticate their message. Muhammad’s inability to heal the blind—and his decision to avoid him—suggests a human weakness inconsistent with the prophetic office. Instead of demonstrating God’s power over infirmity, Muhammad displayed social favoritism and human limitation.

This stands in stark contrast to Jesus Christ, who declared, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor… recovery of sight for the blind” (Luke 4:18). Where Christ brought light, healing, and hope, Muhammad’s response was withdrawal, silence, and rejection.

Conclusion

The episode in Qur’an 80:1–2 provides compelling evidence for questioning Muhammad’s prophetic legitimacy. A prophet who cannot heal the blind—either physically or spiritually—cannot stand in continuity with the biblical line of prophets culminating in Christ. Instead of demonstrating divine authority, Muhammad’s actions reveal human weakness, social bias, and an absence of miraculous authentication. Thus, Muhammad’s failure to heal or even dignify the blind man challenges the Islamic claim of his prophethood and underscores the superiority of Jesus Christ as the true Prophet, Messiah, and Savior.

Two Reasons Why Mohammed Is Not a Prophet

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, New York, NY

Introduction

The claim of Mohammed’s prophethood has been a central theological point of contention between Islam and Christianity. While Muslims revere Mohammed as the “Seal of the Prophets,” a closer examination of both scriptural evidence and historical tradition raises serious doubts about this assertion. In particular, two issues stand out: (1) the so-called Seal of Prophethood represented by a physical mole, and (2) the method by which Mohammed received his alleged revelations. Both diverge sharply from the biblical model of authentic prophecy.

1. The “Seal of Prophethood” and the Hairy Mole

Islamic tradition maintains that Mohammed bore a large, raised, hairy mole on his back, which was interpreted by his followers as the “Seal of Prophethood.” This physical mark was taken as a sign of divine calling and authority. However, such a notion finds no precedent in biblical prophecy.

In Scripture, prophets are not authenticated by physical traits but by their spiritual election and their faithfulness in delivering God’s Word. Moses, despite his speech impediment, was chosen by God because God equips those He calls (Exodus 4:10–12). Likewise, David was selected not for outward appearance but for the condition of his heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The biblical pattern demonstrates that God’s call is rooted in inner character and divine commission, not in physical anomalies.

Thus, the reliance on a bodily mark—a mole—as proof of prophetic status departs from the biblical framework and reduces prophecy to a superstition rooted in external signs rather than divine election and spiritual authority.

2. The Method of Revelation

A second issue lies in the manner in which Mohammed reportedly received his revelations. According to Islamic tradition and Qur’anic testimony (Qur’an 2:97; 16:102; 26:192–195), Mohammed did not hear directly from God but relied on the mediation of an angel, identified as Jibreel (Gabriel).

This sharply contrasts the biblical prophetic model. Scripture consistently records prophets receiving God’s Word directly, often introduced with the authoritative declaration: “Thus says the Lord” (Isaiah 1:10; Jeremiah 1:4; Ezekiel 1:3). Amos 3:7 reinforces this principle: “Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” The absence of an intermediary is crucial, for biblical prophecy emphasizes the immediacy of God’s voice to His chosen messengers.

Even more troubling are the Islamic accounts of Mohammed’s initial encounter with the angel. Tradition reports that Mohammed was physically seized and choked, leaving him shaken, fearful, and doubtful of the experience. This violent initiation stands in stark opposition to the biblical record. When God called Samuel, it was a gentle, persistent summons (1 Samuel 3:4–10). When Moses encountered God in the burning bush, it was profound, awe-inspiring, yet peaceful (Exodus 3:1–6). Divine encounters in Scripture inspire reverence and holy fear but not physical harm or confusion.

Furthermore, the Qur’an itself acknowledges that Mohammed did not converse directly with Allah (Qur’an 53:10–11), underscoring the lack of immediacy that characterizes true biblical prophecy.

Conclusion

The claims of Mohammed’s prophethood collapse when tested against the biblical model. A prophet authenticated by a mole, who never spoke directly to God, and who received messages through traumatic and mediated encounters, cannot be reconciled with the prophetic standards established in Scripture. Genuine prophecy is confirmed not by external marks or coercive experiences but by direct, unmistakable communication from God and the faithful transmission of His Word.

Therefore, Mohammed’s claim to prophethood cannot be sustained. Rather than revealing divine truth, his message represents a distortion of it. The God of the Bible does not validate His messengers with moles or choking—His truth is communicated with clarity, authority, and unmistakable divine presence.

📖 Pictured is the so-called “Seal of the Prophets” as described in Islamic tradition, believed to have appeared on the back of Mohammed, a middle-aged illiterate man.

Reference: Description of the Seal of Prophethood – Link

Muhammad’s Urine and the Claim of Protection from Hellfire: A Critical Examination

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most striking and controversial narrations attributed to Prophet Muhammad is the claim that drinking his urine grants protection from hellfire. This report, found in Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti’s al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā (vol. 2, p. 253), references an incident in which a slave girl allegedly consumed the Prophet’s urine, to which he replied: “Surely she has protected herself from the hellfire with a great wall.” The narration is attributed to reliable transmitters, including al-Tabarani and al-Bayhaqi, through the testimony of Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah.

This claim raises profound theological, ethical, and rational questions. Can bodily excretions, such as urine, possess salvific power? Is this consistent with the message of God in the Abrahamic tradition? Does such a statement support the credibility of Muhammad as a prophet of God?

Critical Theological Assessment

From a biblical and theological standpoint, the notion that urine could protect one from divine judgment is entirely alien. The God of the Bible associates salvation with holiness, righteousness, and faith in His Word—not with the consumption of human waste. Scripture explicitly teaches that nothing unclean or impure can bring salvation:

“But nothing unclean will ever enter it [the New Jerusalem], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Revelation 21:27, ESV).
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” (John 6:63).

By contrast, this hadith not only contradicts divine holiness but also diminishes the dignity of God’s supposed prophet by attributing spiritual efficacy to bodily waste.

Historical Context of Al-Suyuti’s Report

Al-Suyuti (d. 1505 CE) was a renowned jurist and hadith compiler, known for gathering reports that exalted Muhammad’s person. His al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā is a collection of “special virtues” of the Prophet, often uncritically compiling extraordinary claims, many of which exaggerate his supernatural attributes. While some scholars within Islam argue that these reports should not be taken literally, their presence in authoritative texts reveals the tendency within Islamic tradition to elevate Muhammad beyond human limitations.

However, from an academic perspective, such narrations undermine, rather than strengthen, the credibility of Muhammad as a prophet. If salvation is reduced to the drinking of urine, then the entire moral and spiritual framework of revelation collapses into absurdity.

A False Claim of Prophethood

The claim that Muhammad’s urine could save from hellfire cannot come from the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. The biblical prophets never associated salvation with bodily waste. Instead, they consistently proclaimed repentance, holiness, and faith in God as the way to eternal life. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, declared:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6).

If Muhammad taught or endorsed a doctrine wherein urine could grant eternal protection, then such a teaching reveals a false prophet who substituted human absurdities for divine truth.

Conclusion

The hadith reported by al-Suyuti in al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā (2:253) must be rejected as an invention inconsistent with divine revelation. It contradicts the holiness of God, the biblical witness, and rational morality. Far from proving Muhammad’s elevated status, it exposes the problematic nature of his prophetic claims. The true way of salvation is not found in bodily excretions but in Jesus Christ, who alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

References

Al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din. al-Khasāʾiṣ al-Kubrā. Vol. 2. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, n.d.
Al-Tabarani, Sulayman ibn Ahmad. al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-ʿArabi, n.d.
Al-Bayhaqi, Ahmad ibn Husayn. Shuʿab al-Imān. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1990.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version.
Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Trans. A. Guillaume. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Schacht, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953.

A Critical Examination of Muhammad’s Claims About Allah’s Image

Anthropomorphism in Hadith: A Critical Examination of Muhammad’s Claims About Allah’s Image

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The theological portrayal of God’s nature has always been a point of contention between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes the transcendence and incomparability of Allah, declaring “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11). In contrast, several hadiths attributed to Muhammad depict Allah in highly anthropomorphic terms—sometimes even resembling a human being. This creates a theological contradiction between the Qur’anic presentation of Allah as wholly unlike creation and Muhammad’s descriptions of Allah in hadith literature.

One such hadith is found in Sahih Muslim 2612e, which records Muhammad as saying: “When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face, for Allah created Adam in His own image.” The implication of this narration is that Allah possesses an “image” (ṣūrah) comparable to Adam’s form, thus raising the question: did Muhammad inadvertently ascribe human attributes to Allah, contradicting the Qur’an itself?

The Qur’an’s Theology of Transcendence

The Qur’an is explicit in denying anthropomorphism:

“Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision” (Qur’an 6:103).
“There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11).
“He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him” (Qur’an 112:3–4).

These verses emphasize Allah’s absolute otherness, rejecting the idea that He could resemble creation in form or image.

Anthropomorphic Hadiths in Islam

In contrast, hadith literature introduces strikingly anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah:

Allah in Adam’s Image (Sahih Muslim 2612e): Adam was created in Allah’s image, implying similarity.
Allah’s Physical Form (Sahih al-Bukhari 7439): Muhammad described Allah as “a young man with curly hair, wearing a green garment.”
Allah’s Measurements: Some narrations even claim Adam’s height (60 cubits, about 90 feet) was modeled after Allah’s form (Sahih al-Bukhari 3326).

Such depictions suggest that Muhammad’s descriptions of Allah were inconsistent with the Qur’an’s rejection of corporeality.

Biblical Parallels and Distinctions

The Bible indeed declares that humanity was created in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26–27). However, Christian theology interprets this not as a physical resemblance, but as a reflection of God’s moral, spiritual, and rational nature. The divine image in humanity refers to qualities such as reason, relational capacity, and dominion—not physical form (cf. Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:24).

Thus, while Christianity acknowledges that man is made in God’s image, it resists crude anthropomorphism. By contrast, Muhammad’s hadithic statements lean towards corporeal anthropomorphism, even detailing Allah’s youthful appearance and bodily dimensions.

Theological Contradictions in Muhammad’s Claims

The hadiths raise serious questions about Muhammad’s knowledge and his prophetic claims:

Contradiction with the Qur’an: If Allah has an image like Adam, this nullifies the Qur’anic teaching of Allah’s transcendence.
Confusion of Divine Attributes: Muhammad portrays Allah both as incomprehensible (via the Qur’an) and as corporeal (via hadith), producing theological inconsistency.
Prophetic Reliability: If Muhammad misrepresented Allah by attributing anthropomorphic qualities to Him, this undermines his credibility as a prophet who claims to deliver divine revelation.

Conclusion

The Islamic hadith tradition, by presenting Allah in anthropomorphic and even corporeal terms, stands in tension with the Qur’an’s insistence on divine incomparability. In contrast, the Bible presents a consistent theological framework: man is created in God’s image, not in physical form, but in spiritual and moral essence.

Muhammad’s contradictory statements raise significant doubts about his prophetic claims. If Allah is indeed transcendent as the Qur’an insists, then Muhammad’s portrayal of Allah as a man with youthful features cannot be reconciled with authentic divine revelation.

References

The Qur’an: Surah 6:103; 42:11; 112:3–4.
Sahih Muslim 2612e.
Sahih al-Bukhari 7439, 3326.
Genesis 1:26–27; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim.
Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 15.

📚 Bible vs 📙 Quran – A Comparison

1. Authorship

Bible: Written by 40+ known authors (prophets, kings, fishermen, doctors, etc.) over 1,400 years, across 3 continents (Asia, Africa, Europe), in 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek).
Quran: Attributed to one man (Muhammad), compiled by his followers after his death, with uncertain textual history and no independent witnesses.

2. Size (Word Count)

Bible: 773,746 words (English KJV count).
Quran: 77,430 words (Arabic).
➡️ The Bible is about 10 times larger.

3. Chapters (Structure)

Bible: 1,189 chapters (Old Testament – 929; New Testament – 260).
Quran: 114 surahs (chapters).

4. Verses

Bible: 31,102 verses.
Quran: About 6,236 verses (including Bismillah counts, sometimes disputed).

5. Content

Bible: Covers creation, history, prophecy, law, poetry, wisdom, gospels, letters, and revelation. Contains 3,000+ fulfilled prophecies and detailed history spanning thousands of years.
Quran: Mostly repetitive commands, borrowed stories, and legal rulings. Very few prophecies, no coherent timeline, and many contradictions.

6. Message

Bible: Unified story of God’s love, pointing to salvation through Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelation.
Quran: Emphasizes submission to Allah, without a consistent theme of redemption or grace.

✅ Conclusion:
The Bible is a vast, multi-authored, historically grounded, prophetic, and spiritually deep collection of writings inspired by God. The Quran is a much smaller, one-man narrative, limited in scope, and incomparable to the richness and authority of the Bible.

📚 The Bible vs 📙 The Quran – A Debate

Opening Statement

You cannot compare the Bible and the Quran. One is the Word of God through many witnesses across centuries; the other is the word of one man, written down by others after his death.

1. Authorship

Bible: Written by 40+ known authors (prophets, kings, shepherds, doctors, fishermen) over 1,400 years, on 3 continents, in 3 languages. Despite diversity, it speaks one consistent message: God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Quran: Attributed to one man—Muhammad, who never wrote it down himself. Compiled years after his death, with no external witnesses. Even Islamic tradition admits verses were lost, altered, or forgotten.

Question: Which is more reliable—many voices agreeing over centuries, or one man with no witnesses?

2. Word Count

Bible: 773,746 words.
Quran: 77,430 words.
➡️ The Bible is 10 times larger, offering greater history, prophecy, teaching, and wisdom.

3. Chapters & Verses

Bible: 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses.
Quran: 114 surahs, 6,236 verses.
➡️ The Bible is a library; the Quran is a pamphlet by comparison.

4. Content

Bible: Covers creation, law, prophecy, poetry, history, gospels, and letters. Contains 3,000+ fulfilled prophecies and accurate history verified by archaeology.
Quran: Repeats itself, borrows from Jewish and Christian writings, and lacks detailed prophecies or historical verification.

Challenge: Can Muslims point to even one clear fulfilled prophecy in the Quran?

5. Message

Bible: A unified story of love, grace, and redemption. From Genesis to Revelation, it points to Jesus Christ as Savior.
Quran: A book of law, threats, and submission. No Savior, no cross, no assurance of forgiveness—only fear and uncertainty.

Closing Statement

The Bible is God’s masterpiece: many authors, one message, centuries in the making, yet perfectly unified. The Quran is the word of one man, small in size, repetitive in message, and empty of salvation.

So, the real question is: Why settle for one man’s words when you can have the living Word of God?

Quantum Physics Points to God

A Reflection for a Curious World

For centuries, science and faith have often been cast as adversaries—locked in a battle where one must win and the other must lose. Yet today, the very frontier of science is telling a surprising story. Quantum physics, the strange and mysterious science of the subatomic world, is not pushing God out of the picture. Instead, it is opening the door to a deeper wonder: the universe itself seems to whisper of a Creator.

In quantum mechanics, the building blocks of reality don’t behave like solid, predictable objects. Instead, they exist in a haze of possibilities until something—or someone—observes them. This raises a profound question: if observation collapses reality into existence, who was the first Observer at the dawn of creation? The most compelling answer is not chance or blind force, but God Himself—the eternal Mind beyond time and space.

Physicists have also found that the laws of the universe are astonishingly fine-tuned for life. Even the tiniest change in the constants of nature would make life impossible. This precision, woven into the fabric of the cosmos, suggests design rather than accident. As Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, once wrote: “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.”

Far from disproving God, quantum physics invites us to see His fingerprints everywhere—in the delicate balance of creation, in the deep interconnectedness of reality, and in the mystery of our own consciousness. The closer we look at the universe, the more it seems to point beyond itself, toward a divine intelligence that sustains it all.

Quantum Physics Reveals the Glory of God

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” (Psalm 19:1)

For centuries, believers have known that creation itself is a testimony to the greatness of God. Yet today, even the most advanced science is beginning to confirm what Scripture has always proclaimed: the universe is not random, but carefully and wonderfully designed. Quantum physics—the study of the smallest building blocks of creation—is uncovering mysteries that point us straight to the Creator’s hand.

At the heart of quantum science lies a profound truth: matter does not fully “exist” until it is observed. The world is sustained by consciousness itself. If this is true, then who was the first great Observer who spoke the universe into being? The answer is clear—God Almighty, the eternal One who called light out of darkness and holds all things together by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3).

Even more, scientists have discovered that the laws of the universe are perfectly fine-tuned for life. A fraction of a change in the constants of nature, and we would not exist. This is not accident—it is evidence of divine intention. The fingerprints of God are written into the fabric of creation, from the tiniest electron to the farthest galaxy.

Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, once admitted: “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.” Beloved, we know this mystery. It is Christ Himself, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3).

Quantum physics does not weaken faith—it strengthens it. It reveals a universe humming with God’s presence, a creation that reflects His intelligence, beauty, and love. As we study the mysteries of the cosmos, may our hearts be filled with worship, for truly, “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1).

The Absence of Divine Verification in the Foundation of Islam: A Theological Appraisal of Jibril and Muhammad’s Prophetic Claims

Title: The Absence of Divine Verification in the Foundation of Islam: A Theological Appraisal of Jibril and Muhammad’s Prophetic Claims

Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract:

This paper critically examines the theological foundation of Islam with particular reference to the claims of divine revelation through Jibril (Gabriel) to Muhammad. It challenges the legitimacy of Islam's origin by highlighting the lack of direct divine communication to Muhammad, the absence of prophetic validation, and the circular reasoning involved in affirming Jibril’s authenticity solely through the Quran. By contrasting these claims with the Judeo-Christian tradition of direct divine revelation, especially as fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the paper asserts that Islam lacks the necessary divine authentication to be considered a continuation or completion of biblical revelation.

1. Introduction

The claim of divine origin is central to any religious faith that purports to represent the will and word of God. In both the Old and New Testaments, prophets and apostles are distinguished by one defining feature: direct communication from God. They hear His voice, receive His instruction, and act under His divine mandate. In contrast, Islam’s foundational claims rest entirely on the unverified interactions between Muhammad and a being he identified as Jibril (Gabriel)—with no direct confirmation from God Himself.

2. The Christian Prophetic Standard: Divine Communication as Validation

In biblical theology, the authenticity of a prophet is measured by direct encounters with the living God. Moses spoke with God "face to face" (Exodus 33:11), and the prophets consistently begin their declarations with, “Thus says the Lord.” In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is not only confirmed by the voice of God (Matthew 3:17; 17:5), but He is God incarnate (John 1:1–14). The validity of Scripture, therefore, is anchored in a consistent, divine-human interaction affirmed by signs, miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and historical reliability.

3. The Islamic Disconnect: No Divine Voice, No Divine Contact

Islam’s foundation departs dramatically from this prophetic norm. Nowhere in Islamic literature—be it the Quran, Hadith, or Sira—is there evidence that Muhammad ever heard the voice of God, saw God, or received direct validation from God regarding the identity or authority of Jibril.

This absence of divine contact raises a fundamental theological question: How can a prophet be sent by God without ever hearing from Him? Even Islamic tradition acknowledges that Muhammad often feared he was possessed or being deceived—until Khadija and a Christian cousin (Waraqah ibn Nawfal) convinced him otherwise. These human affirmations fall far short of divine validation.

4. The Problem of Circular Authentication: Jibril’s Self-Attestation

The Quran declares itself to be the word of a “noble messenger” (Quran 81:19), referring to Jibril. However, this poses a serious epistemological problem. The entire Islamic faith hinges on the testimony of one entity—Jibril—who claims to be from God but offers no external verification of this claim. The logic is circular:

Who brought the Quran? Jibril.
Who says he was sent by God? Jibril.
Who confirmed Jibril’s identity? Muhammad.
Who confirmed Muhammad’s prophethood? Jibril.

This closed loop of unverifiable claims undermines the theological reliability of Islam. Without a direct statement from God to Muhammad—or any miracle, prophecy, or divine sign confirming this arrangement—there is no way to ascertain whether Jibril was truly a messenger of God or a deceptive spirit (2 Corinthians 11:14).

5. Comparison with Biblical Revelation and Christocentric Fulfillment

By contrast, the revelation of Jesus Christ is established by multiple lines of divine attestation:

Fulfilled Old Testament prophecies.
Direct statements from God the Father.
Miracles, resurrection, and historical eyewitnesses.
The enduring impact of the Gospel and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did not rely on a solitary unseen angel. His ministry was verified by God in real time, before crowds, and through unmistakable acts of divine power. This confirmation is completely absent from Muhammad’s experience.

6. Conclusion: The Theological Crisis of Islamic Origin

A prophet who has never heard from God, never seen God, and never received divine confirmation cannot be the bearer of divine truth. Muhammad’s dependence on a solitary being named Jibril—without any divine authentication—leaves Islam theologically disconnected from the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus Christ.

Thus, Islam has no connection to God as revealed in Scripture. Its foundation is self-referential, unverified, and devoid of divine interaction. The burden of proof lies with Islam to demonstrate that Jibril was indeed sent by God—yet no such proof exists outside of Jibril's own claim. Christianity, by contrast, stands on the revealed, audible, visible, and historically affirmed Word of God.

References:

The Holy Bible (NKJV, ESV, KJV)
Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Ishaq – Sirat Rasul Allah
The Qur’an, Translations by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Saheeh International
John of Damascus, Critique of Islam (8th Century)
Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith
Sam Shamoun, Islamic Dilemma and the Prophet’s Credentials

A Scholarly Response to the Claim of “Unfulfilled Prophecies” in the Bible

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

The claim that the Bible contains “unfulfilled prophecies” is a common polemical argument often made by Muslim apologists who, unfortunately, approach the text without understanding its literary genres, historical contexts, linguistic nuances, and theological frameworks. Below, we address each of the examples cited and demonstrate that they do not constitute “failed prophecies” at all.

1. Genesis 4:12 vs. Genesis 4:17 – Cain’s “Wandering”

The Claim: God told Cain he would be a wanderer, but later Cain built a city, which the critic says contradicts the prophecy.

Textual Analysis:

Genesis 4:12 (ESV): “When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.”
Genesis 4:17: “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.”

Response:
This objection stems from a misunderstanding of Hebrew idiom and prophecy. God’s statement was not a deterministic decree that Cain could never build a settlement, but a pronouncement of the curse and condition of his life as a restless exile. The Hebrew term translated “wanderer” (nʿ) means to live as one estranged or unsettled, not necessarily physically moving constantly.

Moreover, Cain’s attempt to “build a city” can be seen as an act of defiance against God’s judgment—much like humanity’s later attempt to build the Tower of Babel. It does not nullify the divine sentence but rather demonstrates Cain’s continued rebellion. The narrative does not portray Cain’s “city” as a stable, enduring civilization, but as part of the tragic consequences of sin.

2. Jeremiah 36:30 vs. 2 Kings 24:6 – Jehoiachin on David’s Throne

The Claim: Jeremiah says no descendant of Jehoiakim will sit on David’s throne, yet his son Jehoiachin does.

Textual Analysis:

Jeremiah 36:30: “Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit on the throne of David…”
2 Kings 24:6: “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place.”

Response:
The critic misunderstands prophetic language and covenantal context. Jeremiah’s statement refers not to the immediate succession but to the enduring Davidic kingship through Jehoiakim’s line. Indeed, Jehoiachin’s reign lasted only three months (2 Kings 24:8) before Babylon deposed him—an event that precisely fulfills Jeremiah’s prophecy.

In biblical terms, “to sit on the throne” (yashav ʿal-kisseʾ Dāwid) implies established, enduring rule, not merely ascending the throne for a brief, failed tenure. Thus, Jehoiakim’s line did not continue the Davidic monarchy, exactly as God foretold.

3. Ezekiel 26 – The Destruction of Tyre

The Claim: Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, but Alexander the Great did.

Textual Analysis:

Ezekiel 26:7–14: “For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon… he shall kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland… They will break down your walls… and I will make you a bare rock.”

Response:
This is a textbook case of selective reading. The prophecy in Ezekiel 26 is not a single-event prediction but a multi-stage oracle against Tyre. The prophecy has two layers:

Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 7–11) would lay siege to Tyre and destroy its mainland settlements (“your daughters”). This was fulfilled historically when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years (586–573 BC), devastating the mainland and forcing Tyre to pay tribute.
“They” (plural, vv. 12–14)—a shift in pronoun from singular to plural—refers to subsequent conquerors, culminating in Alexander the Great’s conquest in 332 BC, when the island city was finally demolished and scraped “like a bare rock.”

Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in stages over time, a common pattern in biblical prophetic literature.

4. Isaiah 7:14 – “Virgin” and “Immanuel”

The Claim: The Hebrew word ʿalmāh means “young woman,” not “virgin,” and Jesus was never called Immanuel.

Textual and Linguistic Analysis:

Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin (ʿalmāh) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Response:

Linguistics of ʿalmāh:
The claim that ʿalmāh cannot mean “virgin” is linguistically inaccurate. While bĕtûlāh often denotes virginity, ʿalmāh is used only for unmarried young women of marriageable age, which implies virginity in the cultural context. The Septuagint (LXX), translated by Jewish scholars two centuries before Christ, rendered ʿalmāh as παρθένος (parthenos), which unequivocally means “virgin.”
“Immanuel” – God With Us:
Ancient Hebrew naming conventions were theological, not literal. Names often described a person’s mission or nature rather than being their personal name. For example, Jacob was called “Israel,” and Jesus was called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6).

Matthew explicitly interprets Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 1:22–23), explaining that Immanuel (“God with us”) is descriptive of Jesus’ divine nature and incarnation—not a literal given name. Jesus’ title “Emmanuel” thus expresses the theological reality of the Incarnation—God dwelling among humanity.

Conclusion: Misunderstandings Do Not Equal Contradictions

Each of the examples presented is based on surface-level reading, linguistic ignorance, or misinterpretation of prophetic genre. Biblical prophecy often employs:

Conditional and typological language
Partial and progressive fulfillment
Symbolic naming and metaphors

These features are not errors but hallmarks of ancient Near Eastern prophetic literature, widely recognized by scholars of Semitic languages and biblical theology.

Ironically, the Qur’an itself acknowledges the Torah and Gospel as divine revelation (Q 5:44–47)—yet the same critics reject them on the basis of arguments that crumble under scholarly scrutiny. The alleged “unfulfilled prophecies” are not evidence against the Bible but rather testimony to its depth, complexity, and enduring truth.

References:

John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Baker, 2018)
Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982)
R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007)
Bruce Waltke & M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns, 1990)

Why Do Muslims Use the Bible to Support the Prophecy of Muhammad, Son of Amina?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Islamic apologists often attempt to locate references to the Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. One commonly cited passage is Isaiah 29:12:

"Then the book was given to a man who had no understanding, and he said, ‘Please read it.’ And he said, ‘I have no understanding.’"

Muslims interpret this verse as evidence that Muhammad, who was reportedly illiterate, was prophesied in the Bible. However, a careful examination of Isaiah 29 in its entirety reveals a broader context that challenges this interpretation.

1. The Textual Context of Isaiah 29

Chapter 29 addresses Ariel (Jerusalem) and the people of Judah, pronouncing judgment due to their rebellion against God’s laws (Isaiah 29:1–10). The chapter describes a people spiritually blind and deaf to God’s word, including even prophets and seers. Verses 11–12 emphasize that both the learned and the unlearned cannot comprehend God’s message:

“All the visions have become to you like the words of a sealed book… Then the book was given to someone who has no understanding, and he said, ‘Please read this’; and he said, ‘I have no understanding.’”

This context clearly situates the passage as judgment on Judah, not as a prophecy of a future prophet.

2. Islamic Interpretation

Islamic scholars often argue:

The “book” in Isaiah represents the Qur’an.
The “unlearned person” is Muhammad, who could not read prior to receiving revelation.

This interpretation is theological, not based on historical or literary analysis of the biblical text. It draws parallels between the illiteracy of Muhammad and the figure described in Isaiah 29:12.

3. Classical Biblical Scholarship Perspective

Historical context: Isaiah lived in the 8th century BCE, centuries before Muhammad.
Literary context: The passage describes Jerusalem’s rebellion and spiritual blindness, using metaphorical language.
No explicit reference: There is no mention of Arabia, Muhammad, or a prophet outside Israel.

Conclusion: The text does not support the claim that Muhammad is prophesied in Isaiah 29.

4. Comparative Verification Table

Interpretation	Basis	Scholarly Support
Islamic Apologetic View	Isaiah’s “unlearned man” = Muhammad; “book” = Qur’an	Present in some Islamic literature (quranaloneislam.org)
Biblical Scholarship	Isaiah 29 addresses Jerusalem and Judah; metaphor for spiritual blindness	Widely supported by Christian and Jewish commentators (answering-islam.org)

5. Challenging Questions for Critical Thinking

To deepen understanding and test the validity of interpretations, consider these questions:

Historical Challenge: How can a passage written in the 8th century BCE, concerning Jerusalem and Judah, be verified as a prophecy about someone living in 7th century CE Arabia?
Textual Challenge: Does Isaiah 29:12 explicitly mention Arabia, Muhammad, or the Qur’an? If not, how valid is the claim of prophecy?
Contextual Challenge: Considering the broader context of Isaiah 29 (judgment on Jerusalem), how does the Islamic interpretation account for verses 1–11 and 13–24?
Logical Challenge: If the “book” is the Qur’an, and the unlearned man is Muhammad, why does the text describe judgment and spiritual blindness rather than the reception of divine truth?
Comparative Challenge: Are there other biblical passages where prophecy is clearly fulfilled in someone outside Israel? How does Isaiah 29 compare to these examples?
Epistemological Challenge: Can theological interpretation alone (without historical or textual support) be considered sufficient evidence for prophecy?
Verification Challenge: What sources outside the Islamic tradition (archaeological, historical, linguistic) could confirm or contradict the claim?

6. Conclusion

Isaiah 29:12, when read in context, does not support the Islamic claim that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible. The passage is part of a broader declaration of judgment on Judah, emphasizing spiritual blindness and the inability to comprehend God’s word.

Muslims’ interpretation relies on theological symbolism, which lacks historical or literary verification. Believers are encouraged to carefully examine scriptural context and engage critically with such claims.

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, the Most High God (Titus 2:13)

A Trinitarian Analogy in Physics and Theology

The Equilibrium of Divine Forces: A Trinitarian Analogy in Physics and Theology

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Abstract

The doctrine of the Trinity remains one of the most profound mysteries in Christian theology, revealing the unity of God in three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This article explores a compelling analogy between the physical concept of equilibrium of concurrent forces and the divine nature of the Trinity. By examining how multiple forces acting at a single point produce balance without contradiction, we gain insight into the harmonious interplay of the Persons of the Godhead and their unified purpose in creation, redemption, and sanctification.

1. Introduction

Physics and theology, at first glance, may seem to occupy distinct realms: one empirical, the other spiritual. Yet, analogical reasoning allows the disciplines to illuminate one another. In mechanics, when several forces act concurrently at a single point, equilibrium is achieved if the vector sum of these forces is zero. No single force dominates; each contributes to the overall stability of the system.

Similarly, in Christian theology, the Trinity embodies distinctiveness in unity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit act in perfect harmony, ensuring the coherent unfolding of divine purpose. This analogy provides a framework to understand how distinct Persons can operate in perfect unity without diminishing their uniqueness, a theological principle foundational to orthodox Christian belief.

2. Concurrent Forces in Physics

In classical mechanics, concurrent forces refer to multiple forces applied at a single point on a body. The body remains in equilibrium when:

[
\vec{F}\text{total} = \sum{i=1}^{n} \vec{F}_i = 0
]

Where each (\vec{F}_i) represents an individual force vector. Equilibrium emerges from:

Distinct contributions: Each force has a unique magnitude and direction.
Unified effect: Despite differences, the forces collectively balance each other.
Point of convergence: The forces act at a single point, producing stability.

This principle ensures that the system neither moves nor rotates—stability arises from coordination, not uniformity.

3. The Trinity: Distinction and Unity

Biblical theology affirms that God is one essence in three Persons:

The Father: The origin and source of divine will (John 5:26; Romans 11:36).
The Son: The Word incarnate, executing redemption and revelation (John 1:14; Philippians 2:6–8).
The Holy Spirit: The sustaining presence, guiding and sanctifying creation and believers (John 14:26; Hebrews 9:14).

Each Person of the Trinity has a distinct role, yet all actions are unified in essence and purpose, reflecting perfect harmony. Just as concurrent forces converge at a single point, the Trinity converges in one divine will, maintaining spiritual equilibrium in creation, redemption, and sanctification.

4. The Analogy: Forces and Persons

By applying the physical concept of equilibrium to the Trinity, several insights emerge:

Distinct Roles: Just as each force in a system has its own magnitude and direction, each Person of the Trinity has a distinct role—Father as source, Son as redeemer, Spirit as sustainer.
Unified Action: Despite distinctions, the total effect is one unified outcome. The three Persons act inseparably to accomplish divine purposes, analogous to how balanced forces produce stability.
Point of Convergence: In physics, equilibrium requires forces to act at a single point. In the Trinity, all divine actions converge at the singular essence of God, ensuring coherence and harmony.

Thus, the Trinitarian God operates as a system of divine forces, perfectly balanced yet distinct, producing stability, life, and order in creation.

5. Biblical Foundations

The analogy is rooted in Scripture:

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Unity in action.
Philippians 2:5–7: Christ, though in the form of God, humbles Himself, demonstrating distinct yet harmonious roles in salvation.
Hebrews 1:1–3: The Son executes God’s will and sustains all things, reflecting divine coordination.
Romans 11:36: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” The totality of divine action originates, flows, and is perfected in God.

These passages illustrate how distinct Persons act in unity, ensuring divine equilibrium in the governance of creation.

6. Implications for Theology and Life

Understanding the Trinity through the lens of equilibrium offers practical insights:

Spiritual Harmony: Believers are called to reflect divine harmony by integrating distinct gifts and roles into a unified spiritual purpose (1 Corinthians 12:4–6).
Relational Unity: Just as forces do not counteract one another in equilibrium, Christians are called to maintain unity in diversity within the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:3).
Theological Clarity: Analogies grounded in observable principles, like physics, can aid comprehension of complex theological truths without compromising the mystery of God.

7. Conclusion

The analogy between concurrent forces in physics and the Trinity in theology provides a vivid illustration of how distinct entities can act in perfect harmony. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while distinct in role and Person, act in unity to achieve divine equilibrium, ensuring stability in creation, redemption, and sanctification.

Just as equilibrium in physics arises from the convergence of distinct forces at a single point, the Trinity demonstrates that unity does not require uniformity, and distinction does not imply division. This understanding enriches both theological reflection and practical Christian living, revealing the profound wisdom embedded in the divine design.

References:

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Academic, 2013.
John 1:1–18; John 10:30; Philippians 2:5–11; Hebrews 1:1–3; Romans 11:36.
Hibbeler, R. C. Engineering Mechanics: Statics. Pearson, 2017.

Allah: A God Who Demands Love but Does Not Love

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The question of divine love distinguishes the Christian God revealed in Jesus Christ from the Allah of Islam. While Christianity teaches that God is the initiator of love—choosing, pursuing, and redeeming humanity—Islam presents a deity who demands obedience and love without first expressing divine affection toward His followers. The contrast between these two theological frameworks is not merely semantic but reveals the heart of Christian revelation versus the transactional nature of Islamic piety.

The Christian God: The God Who Loves and Chooses

Christianity declares that God is love (1 John 4:8), a statement not found in the Qur’an about Allah. Jesus Christ confirms this truth in John 15:16: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you…” God’s initiative demonstrates His sovereignty and His intimate relational nature. In Christian theology, love flows from God to humanity first: “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Thus, Christian faith is grounded in the divine revelation of a God who is not dependent upon human affection but generously bestows His love upon creation.

Through Christ, God is made known personally. The Incarnation (John 1:14) is the ultimate demonstration of divine love—a God who enters history, suffers, and redeems. This personal knowledge of God through Jesus is the cornerstone of Christian faith. Believers know whom they love because He first revealed Himself.

The Islamic Allah: A God in Need of Love

In contrast, the Qur’an depicts Allah as transcendent, unknowable, and detached. Nowhere does the Qur’an say “Allah is love.” Instead, Allah is portrayed as merciful or compassionate (Qur’an 1:1–2), but mercy in Islam is conditional upon human obedience and submission. Allah does not seek a covenantal relationship based on love but demands servitude and devotion.

Muslim theologians acknowledge this relational gap. Al-Ghazali, in his Ihya Ulum al-Din, described love for Allah as rooted in fear and hope, not intimacy. The believer cannot truly “know” Allah in a personal sense; instead, they know His commands and attributes. Thus, the love Muslims claim to have for Allah is an abstract loyalty rather than a personal, relational affection.

If Allah requires Muslims to love him without first revealing himself in love, then Allah is, paradoxically, dependent on human devotion for affirmation. This dependency undermines divine sovereignty. A God who does not love but demands love is not truly God but rather a projection of human-centered religiosity.

Knowing God Through Christ Versus Not Knowing Allah

Christianity affirms that true knowledge of God is possible and relational. Jesus declares: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Through Christ, God’s character—love, justice, mercy—is revealed concretely. Christians do not love an unknown deity but the God who revealed Himself in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

By contrast, Muslims cannot know Allah in this way. The Qur’an emphasizes Allah’s absolute otherness (Qur’an 42:11), creating an impassable gulf between deity and humanity. Love in Islam thus becomes blind submission without relational grounding. The absence of divine self-revelation in love leaves Muslims attempting to love a God they cannot know.

Conclusion

The contrast between the God of the Bible and the Allah of the Qur’an is striking. The Christian God loves first, chooses, and establishes a relationship of intimacy with His people through Christ. The Islamic Allah, however, does not love in return but demands love and submission, making him dependent on human devotion for validation.

If love requires mutuality and revelation, then Allah cannot be God, for He fails to demonstrate the very nature of divine love. Only in Jesus Christ is the true God known, loved, and revealed to humanity.

References

The Holy Bible, New International Version.
The Qur’an.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. Ihya Ulum al-Din (Revival of the Religious Sciences).
Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.
Stott, John. Basic Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP, 2008.
Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.

Where Do You Want to Spend Your Eternity?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Human existence is not confined to time and space. Every person must wrestle with the ultimate question: Where will I spend eternity? Christianity and Islam provide radically different answers, shaped by their distinct understandings of God, salvation, and human destiny. The Christian message, grounded in the love of God revealed through Jesus Christ, stands in sharp contrast to the Islamic narrative centered on human submission to Allah.

In Scripture, the God of the Bible is revealed as love itself (1 John 4:8). His divine initiative toward humanity is not driven by compulsion but by grace. Before we were formed in our mother’s womb, God knew us (Jeremiah 1:5). This profound truth emphasizes that our lives are anchored in divine love and purpose. In the fullness of time, God demonstrated His love by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins and grant us eternal life (John 3:16). Salvation, therefore, is not earned through works, rituals, or human striving—it is a gift of grace received by faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). In this way, Christianity proclaims a God who does not demand that His followers die for Him but rather a God who died for His followers.

Islam, by contrast, presents a fundamentally different picture. The Qur’an does not portray Allah as one who loves humanity in a personal or sacrificial way. There is no passage where Allah declares His willingness to die for Muslims. Instead, the call of Islam historically has often involved fighting and dying for the sake of Allah. Muhammad himself is depicted as one who fought to establish his faith by the sword, while the God of the Bible established salvation by the cross. This stark divergence underscores two theological paradigms: one rooted in divine self-giving love, the other in human submission without assurance of eternal security.

The question, therefore, is deeply personal: Do you want to entrust your eternity to a God who demands your life, or to the God who gave His life for you? The Christian gospel invites every person to receive freedom and eternal life in Jesus Christ. As He Himself declared, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36). The Christian hope is not built upon uncertainty but upon the finished work of Christ, who conquered sin and death and offers eternal fellowship with God to all who believe.

This is not merely a theological debate but a call to decision. Eternity is real, and the path one chooses now determines one’s eternal destiny. The God of the Bible, revealed in Jesus Christ, offers not only salvation but also love, purpose, and assurance that extends beyond this life into the age to come.

At Shimba Theological Institute, we affirm and proclaim this eternal truth: God is love, and His love is fully revealed in Jesus Christ. He alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). The invitation is clear, the promise is sure, and the hope is eternal.

The Paradox of Intoxicants in the Qur’an: An Apologetic Challenge

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Qur’an clearly denounces intoxicants and gambling as “abominations of Satan’s handiwork” (Qur’an 5:90). Muslims are told to avoid them in order to achieve success. Yet in the same book, Paradise is described as a place flowing with rivers of wine (Qur’an 47:15) where the righteous are given pure, sealed intoxicating drinks (Qur’an 83:25–26). This creates an undeniable paradox: Allah prohibits intoxicants on earth as satanic, but then rewards Muslims with them in heaven.

Christian apologetics must raise a crucial question: Why would a holy God use what He once called “Satan’s work” as the eternal reward of the faithful?

The Qur’anic Contradiction

On earth:

“O you who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, idols and divining arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; so avoid them, that you may prosper.” (Qur’an 5:90).

In Paradise:

“In it are rivers of water incorruptible, rivers of milk of which the taste never changes, rivers of wine, delicious to those who drink.” (Qur’an 47:15).
“They will be given to drink a pure wine, sealed; the seal thereof is musk.” (Qur’an 83:25–26).

The Qur’an cannot escape its own inconsistency. If intoxicants are satanic works, why would Allah glorify them as part of eternal bliss? Either intoxicants are inherently evil (in which case Allah cannot use them as reward) or they are not evil (in which case their prohibition on earth makes little sense).

Questions Islam Cannot Answer

Why would Allah choose the imagery of Satan’s handiwork to describe eternal bliss?
If the “wine of Paradise” is allegedly different, why does the Qur’an still use the same word (khamr) that elsewhere is condemned?
Why does Jannah focus on sensual pleasures—wine, women, couches, and luxury—rather than holiness, righteousness, and communion with God?
If heaven is to be free of sin, why would Allah reintroduce what he once condemned as sinful?
Does this not reduce Paradise to a carnal projection of Muhammad’s desires rather than a holy dwelling with God?
Why does Islam offer bodily indulgence while Christianity offers eternal communion with a holy God (Revelation 21:3–4)?

The Biblical Contrast

The Bible never promises that God will use Satan’s works to reward His people. Instead, the imagery of heaven is holy and consistent with God’s character:

Jesus offers “living water” that becomes “a well springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14).
Paul describes eternal blessing as the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22–23)—love, joy, peace, and righteousness, not drunkenness.
The book of Revelation emphasizes God’s presence: “Behold, the dwelling of God is with man… He will wipe every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 21:3–4).

Unlike the Qur’an, the Bible presents eternal life as a holy fellowship with God, not a glorified indulgence of forbidden desires.

Apologetic Conclusion

The Qur’an’s portrayal of intoxicants reveals a deep theological inconsistency. Islam teaches that intoxicants are Satan’s handiwork yet paradoxically elevates them as heavenly gifts. This is not the voice of a consistent, holy God—it is the voice of human imagination, projecting earthly cravings into a supposed afterlife.

Christian apologetics challenges Muslims to wrestle with this contradiction: Why would Allah reward believers with what he once condemned as satanic?

In contrast, the God of the Bible never contradicts Himself. His rewards are consistent with His nature—pure, holy, and eternal. Eternal life in Christ is not a banquet of carnal indulgence but the joy of unbroken communion with the Living God.

References

Qur’anic Sources

Qur’an 5:90 – Condemnation of intoxicants as Satan’s handiwork.
Qur’an 47:15 – Rivers of wine in Paradise.
Qur’an 76:21 – Heavenly goblets of drink.
Qur’an 83:25–26 – Sealed pure wine in Paradise.

Biblical Sources

John 4:14 – Jesus offers living water.
Galatians 5:22–23 – Fruit of the Spirit.
Revelation 21:3–4 – Eternal communion with God.
Revelation 21:6 – The water of life given freely.

Scholarly Works

Geisler, Norman L. & Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. Baker Academic, 2002.
St. Augustine. The City of God. Penguin Classics, 2003.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.
Al-Tabari. Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an.
Al-Qurtubi. Tafsir al-Qurtubi.

🔥

JESUS IS GOD: A Theological and Biblical Defense of Christ’s Sovereignty

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

The Christian confession that Jesus is God stands at the very heart of biblical revelation and Christian theology. From the earliest creeds of the church to the theological reflections of modern scholars, the deity of Christ has been the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 6:15–16, provides one of the clearest declarations of Christ’s divine sovereignty: “He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal power. Amen” (CSB).

This passage encapsulates the majesty and deity of Jesus Christ, affirming that He is the sovereign ruler of the cosmos, the eternal source of life, and the one deserving of all worship. This article explores the biblical, theological, and historical basis for the claim that Jesus is God, while also addressing objections from skeptical and non-Christian perspectives.

Exegesis of 1 Timothy 6:15–16

Paul’s doxological proclamation provides several critical affirmations:

The Only Sovereign (ho makarios kai monos dynastēs)
Jesus is identified not as one among many rulers but as the sole sovereign. In Greco-Roman political language, sovereignty was reserved for emperors. By applying this title to Christ, Paul elevates Him above every earthly authority.
The King of Kings and Lord of Lords
These titles echo Old Testament designations of Yahweh (cf. Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:3; Dan. 2:47). By applying them to Jesus, Paul affirms Christ’s full participation in the divine identity of Israel’s God.
Immortality and Unapproachable Light
Jesus is said to alone possess immortality and dwell in unapproachable light, attributes reserved exclusively for God. This echoes John’s Gospel, which describes Jesus as the true Light (John 1:9) and as the possessor of life in Himself (John 5:26).
Worthy of Honor and Eternal Power
Paul concludes with a doxology directed toward Christ, showing that worship belongs to Him as God. In Jewish monotheism, worship was due only to Yahweh; for Paul, the worship of Jesus is fully consistent with faith in the one true God.

Jesus as God in Broader Biblical Witness

The deity of Christ is consistently affirmed across the New Testament:

John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Colossians 1:15–17: Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the agent of creation.
Hebrews 1:3: Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature.
Revelation 19:16: Jesus is again called King of kings and Lord of lords, affirming His eschatological supremacy.

Together, these passages show that Jesus is not merely a prophet, teacher, or exalted being but God Himself in the flesh.

Theological Implications

Christ’s Sovereignty Over All Powers
As King of kings, Jesus rules not only over human authorities but over principalities, powers, and cosmic forces (Eph. 1:21). His sovereignty dismantles any human claim to ultimate authority.
The Unique Mediator
Because Jesus is God, He alone can mediate between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5–6). His divine nature ensures the efficacy of His atonement and the permanence of salvation.
Worship and Devotion
The worship of Jesus as God is central to Christian liturgy, prayer, and devotion. As Thomas declared: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), so the church throughout history has confessed Christ’s deity.

Responding to Skeptical and Islamic Objections

Skeptics often argue that the New Testament does not explicitly call Jesus “God.” However, passages such as John 1:1, Titus 2:13, and Hebrews 1:8–9 directly do so. Others claim that worship of Jesus contradicts monotheism, but the New Testament authors, steeped in Jewish monotheism, saw Jesus as included in the divine identity without abandoning the oneness of God.

Islam, in particular, denies the divinity of Jesus, reducing Him to a prophet. The Qur’an (Q. 5:72) explicitly denies that Jesus is God. Yet, this view fails to account for the earliest Christian witness, which unanimously confessed Jesus as Lord and God. Furthermore, Islamic arguments often conflate Christian monotheism with polytheism, misunderstanding the doctrine of the Trinity. Christianity does not teach three gods but one God in three persons, with Jesus fully participating in the divine essence.

Conclusion

The testimony of Scripture, the witness of the early church, and the theological coherence of Christian doctrine affirm the truth: Jesus is God. He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the immortal Light, the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of all. To Him belong honor, glory, and eternal power. Any denial of His deity undermines the very heart of the gospel.

As the apostle Paul affirms, and as the church has proclaimed throughout the ages, worship belongs to Christ alone—for Jesus is God.

References

The Holy Bible, Christian Standard Bible (CSB).
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Oden, Thomas C. Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology. New York: HarperOne, 1992.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

✍️ Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Monday, December 29, 2025

Friday, December 26, 2025

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Tuesday, December 23, 2025

The Intrinsic Nature of God’s Love

Introduction

The Ontological Ground of Love

Love in the Trinity

The Manifestation of God’s Love

Theological Implications

Conclusion

The Purity of Water in Islamic Tradition: A Critical Examination of Hadith and Qur’anic Teachings

Introduction

The Hadith of the Well of Budāʿah

Qur’anic Injunctions on Purity

Comparative Hadith Literature

Scholarly and Theological Analysis

Conclusion

The Silence of Allah: A Scholarly Challenge to Islamic Claims of Divine Self-Disclosure

Abstract

Introduction

1. The Islamic Argument Against Jesus

2. The Qur’anic Silence of Allah

3. Implications for Muhammad’s Prophethood

4. The Christian Perspective on Divine Revelation

Conclusion

Bibliography

Allah Never Said to Muhammad: “I Am God, Worship Me” — A Scholarly Debate Challenge to Islam

Abstract

1. The Muslim Polemical Argument Against Jesus

2. The Qur’an’s Lack of Direct Divine Self-Revelation to Muhammad

3. The Logical Consequences for Islam

4. Contrast with Biblical Divine Self-Revelation

5. The Debate Challenge to Islam

Conclusion

Bibliography

The Danger of Following a Blind Man: Muhammad in Theological and Historical Critique

1. Introduction: The Principle of Blind Leadership

2. Muhammad’s Spiritual Blindness

3. The Historical Consequences of Following Muhammad

4. Theological Warning

Conclusion

Why Did Muhammad Turn Away from the Blind? A Theological Challenge to His Prophetic Claim

Introduction

The Biblical Tradition of Healing the Blind

Muhammad’s Response in Contrast

Implications for Prophetic Authenticity

Conclusion

Two Reasons Why Mohammed Is Not a Prophet

Introduction

1. The “Seal of Prophethood” and the Hairy Mole

2. The Method of Revelation

Conclusion

Muhammad’s Urine and the Claim of Protection from Hellfire: A Critical Examination

Introduction

Critical Theological Assessment

Historical Context of Al-Suyuti’s Report

A False Claim of Prophethood

Conclusion

References

Anthropomorphism in Hadith: A Critical Examination of Muhammad’s Claims About Allah’s Image

Introduction

The Qur’an’s Theology of Transcendence

Anthropomorphic Hadiths in Islam

Biblical Parallels and Distinctions

Theological Contradictions in Muhammad’s Claims

Conclusion

References

📚 Bible vs 📙 Quran – A Comparison

1. Authorship

2. Size (Word Count)

3. Chapters (Structure)

4. Verses

5. Content

6. Message

📚 The Bible vs 📙 The Quran – A Debate

Opening Statement

1. Authorship