Tuesday, December 2, 2025

WHY DOES THE NAME OF ALLAH HAVE NO POWER TO HEAL DISEASES?

Friday, August 26, 2016
WHY DOES THE NAME OF ALLAH HAVE NO POWER TO HEAL DISEASES?
WHY IS THERE NO HEALING POWER IN ISLAM? WHILE IN CHRISTIANITY, PEOPLE ARE HEALED IN THE NAME OF JESUS?

Why does the name of Allah have no power to heal diseases?
Allah failed to heal Muhammad.
Gabriel’s prayer failed.
But the name of Jesus heals every disease.
Have you ever seen a healing crusade in Islam?

Dear Reader,

What is healing?
Healing is an act of faith — receiving life in spirit or body through prayer, the laying on of hands, or hearing the true Word of Christ Jesus. This act of faith brings both spiritual wholeness and physical health to the believer. Remember — many who were healed of physical ailments were also healed in their spirits.

So why is it that when Allah sent Gabriel (Jibril) to pray for his prophet Muhammad — who was sick from eating poison — their prayer failed to work?

Healing does not come from any human being. Even the best doctors do not heal; they only provide treatment. The one who truly heals is God. Servants of God merely serve as vessels or channels through whom the Lord releases His healing to those in need.

Now let us examine Allah and Gabriel in their attempt to heal Muhammad:

According to Ibn Sa’d, page 265,
Aisha, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad, said:
“When the Prophet of Allah was sick, Gabriel used to pray for him, saying: ‘In the name of Allah, may He heal you from all diseases and pains, and from every evil that may wish you harm. You shall be healed...’”

But did the name of Allah heal Muhammad? Let us read what Sahih al-Bukhari records:

Muhammad’s Response after Being Prayed for by Allah/Gabriel:
Bukhari’s Hadith 5.713
Narrated by Aisha:
“The Prophet, during his illness which led to his death, used to say, ‘O Aisha, I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this very moment, I feel as if my aorta is being cut because of that poison.’”

Can God pray and fail? Why did the prayers of Allah and Gabriel for Muhammad’s healing not work?

Now let us read about Jesus in the Bible — did He heal people?

“When Jesus came into Peter’s house, He saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and began to serve Him.” — Matthew 8:14–15

The Bible does not tell us that Jesus prayed for this woman. It simply says that He touched her, and the fever left. Just one touch from the Man of God was enough because the anointing was within Him. Even Peter’s shadow healed the sick because of the same anointing (Acts 5:15).

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUTTING YOUR FAITH IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST

“Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering the temple. Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms. Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, ‘Look at us.’ And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, ‘Silver and gold have I none, but what I have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.’ And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. And leaping up he stood and began to walk...” — Acts 3:1–8

If you follow this man’s story, you will see that he had been lame since birth and was over forty years old when he was healed (Acts 4:22).

What was the secret behind this miracle? Did Peter and John heal the man by their own power, or by the power of the name of Jesus Christ?

Many people today, when they see someone used by God in healing, place their faith in the person instead of in the name of Jesus Christ. The same thing happened when the lame man was healed — people marveled at Peter and John as though they had healed him by their own power.

But Peter corrected them:
“When the man who was healed clung to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them in the portico called Solomon’s, astounded. And when Peter saw it, he addressed the people: ‘Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk?’” — Acts 3:11–12

Peter clarified that the power that healed the man did not belong to them. He explained:
“The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus... And by faith in His name, His name has made this man strong whom you see and know; and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.” — Acts 3:13–16

Reflect on Peter’s words:
“By faith in His name, His name has made this man strong.”

Peter and John placed their faith in the name of Jesus Christ. They knew that the secret to miracles lay in that name. That’s why when they met the lame man, they commanded him to rise in that very name!

Place your faith in the name of Jesus Christ if you want to see signs and miracles of Jesus in your life and among those you serve.

The early disciples understood this truth. When they were forbidden by the high priest Annas “to speak or teach in the name of Jesus,” they prayed, saying:

“‘Now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while You stretch out Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.’” — Acts 4:18, 29–31

It is vital to remind people of the importance of putting their faith in the name of Jesus Christ if they want to see God’s hand healing, performing signs, and working miracles.

Dear Reader, why waste your time with witch doctors or fortune tellers? Call upon the name of the living Jesus, for He desires to heal all your diseases.

If you are suffering from any sickness, please contact us at maxshimbaministries@gmail.com or call (347) 770-4886.
No matter the disease, reach out to us — and surely, the name of Jesus will heal you.

Max Shimba Ministries, 2015
Posted on August 26, 2016

MUHAMMAD ENGAGED IN SEIZURE AND LOOTING OF PEOPLE’S PROPERTY

Friday, August 26, 2016
MUHAMMAD ENGAGED IN SEIZURE AND LOOTING OF PEOPLE’S PROPERTY

A Behavior Contrary to a Prophet’s Conduct

Historical records indicate that Muhammad, along with his followers, engaged in the seizure and looting of caravans belonging to merchants and travelers. This conduct raises significant questions about the prophetic character traditionally attributed to him.

According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Chapter 8, Hadith 495 (page 280), it is stated: “When Allah made the Prophet wealthy without conflict, one-fifth of the war captives’ possessions were allocated to the treasury.” Similarly, Sahih Muslim, Volume 2, Book 5, Hadith 401, Number 2348 (page 519) indicates that Muhammad’s family retained shares of the spoils, illustrating that these acts contributed to their personal wealth.

The first organized seizures of people’s property by early Muslims are historically documented as the Nakha’ Raid. Even during the sacred months, when fighting was traditionally suspended, Muhammad’s followers attacked caravans, killing individuals and taking the survivors as captives. Muhammad personally led the second raid at Badr, consolidating both wealth and influence.

Muhammad further expanded his wealth through attacks on Jewish settlements, notably Khaybar. He and his loyal followers seized goods, women, and other property. Historical accounts record that after the surrender of 700–1,000 Jewish men from the Banu Quraiza tribe, they were executed, and their women were taken. This raises critical questions regarding the ethical and prophetic nature of such actions.

The evidence challenges the conventional narrative of Muhammad as solely a spiritual leader, showing that his rise was also facilitated through warfare, conquest, and appropriation of wealth.

—
Shimba Theological Institute Newsletter

You are forcing me to say how we got here instead of how we get out of here?!

Bishop Kalikawe Lwakalinda Bagonza, PhD:

“You are forcing me to say how we got here instead of how we get out of here?!”

I have said many times that it is not important to ask how we got here, but rather to ask how we get out of here.
However, a respected senior figure “forced” me to explain how we got here.
Out of respect, I now say this:

For many years we have had peace without justice — and there were no protests.
For many years elections have been disputed — and there were no protests.
For many years candidates have been disqualified, votes stolen — and there were no protests.
For many years candidates have been abducted, election officers hiding under tables — and there were no protests.
For many years corruption has flourished, reports of the Controller and Auditor General ignored, electoral bribery and use of tear gas common — yet there were no protests.
For many years the Diaspora has existed, supporting both the opposition and CCM — and still no protests.
For many years opposition leaders have divided themselves, sold victories, even staged their own kidnappings — still no protests.
For many years opposition leaders have defected to CCM, and false treason charges have been fabricated — yet there were no protests.
For many years opposition leaders have been arrested, denied justice, imprisoned, and fined — still we saw no protests.
For many years the Electoral Commission has been appointed by the president, counted votes, or invented results — still no protests occurred.

SO, WHAT HAPPENED THAT PROTESTS FINALLY ERUPTED?

a) Abductions, torture, and brutal killings became rampant, while those responsible remained silent.
b) The issue was brought before Parliament — but the Speaker dismissed it. Had it been accepted, the kidnappings would have stopped. The blood of the innocent cries against the previous Parliament.
c) Cases were taken to court (Habeas Corpus), but were thrown out. And when a court finally ruled in favor of victims, the police defied the ruling. Judges, beware — innocent blood is dangerous.
d) Some religious leaders raised their voices, only to be beaten with iron bars and have their churches closed. Those who remained silent — God will not remain silent for them. Remember: speech is free; the mouth pays no tax.
e) Diplomats were threatened for listening to opposition voices and activists. As I know, the Geneva Convention makes “the king’s dog the king of all dogs.”
f) Brave and independent CCM members warned and advised — but were ignored, threatened, or disqualified from candidacy.

Finally, critics were told to wait until Jesus returns!

Beloved, every human being has a certain threshold of endurance. That endurance is sustained by hope — the hope that tomorrow will be better than today. But that hope disappeared when every avenue to justice was closed. All branches of power united to attack the people’s freedom and rights with impunity.

A poor person stripped of justice and freedom becomes very dangerous. I plead with you — let us reflect on ourselves. Do not just blame the youth or call them “thugs.” A serious economic crisis is approaching. Let us look to the nation before our political parties. We are running late.

I commend all who have begun to see the truth: something is fundamentally wrong. It will not be solved by arrests, imprisonment, deploying more soldiers in the streets, banning political parties, or blaming neighboring nations. The Electoral Commission has lost credibility and integrity. We have shed too much blood for no reason.

If those responsible refuse to listen, then they should expand our prisons — because without repentance and change, today’s jailers will be tomorrow’s prisoners.

Let this truth not destroy our friendships, nor turn shame into anger.

Who is the terrorist — the one who abducts, or the one who is abducted?

These are my thoughts.
You have yours.
The killers have theirs.
The dead have none.

We have wronged them.

Shimba Theological Institute

I AM

— “God said, ‘This is My name forever’ (Exodus 3:15) and ‘I am’ (Exodus 3:14) — Why does Islam not have a parallel where Allah calls Himself “I Am”?

1. Introduction

In the Judeo‑Christian tradition, one of the most momentous revelations of the Divine Name occurs in Exodus 3:14‑15. Moses asks God: “What is Your name?” (3:13). God replies:

“I AM WHO I AM” (Hebrew: ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh) — “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (3:14)
Then:
“The LORD, the God of your fathers… has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and my memorial to all generations.” (3:15) (Bible Hub)

This passage undergirds how God is understood to be self‑existent, eternal, unchanging, and the foundation of covenantal relationship. (Sermon Writer)

The question then arises: in the Islamic text, the Qur’an, does God (Allah) ever use the equivalent formula “I AM WHO I AM” or “I am … I am”? If not, why not? That is the thrust of our present reflection.

2. Exegesis of Exodus 3:14‑15

2.1 The Hebrew expressions

In Exodus 3:14, the Hebrew ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh is traditionally rendered “I AM WHO I AM” or “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.” Some scholars highlight that the root h‑y‑h means “to be, to become” so the phrase may better reflect God saying: “I will be whatever I will be for you.” (IslamiCity)

Then in verse 15 God identifies Himself with the tetragrammaton YHWH (rendered LORD) — “This is my name forever.” Many commentaries take this to mean that the one who declares “I AM” is the same covenant‑keeping God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Bible Hub)

2.2 The theological import

– Self‑existence and aseity: God is not caused, but causes; He simply is. The “I AM” emphasises that God is independent of the created order. (hub.emmausroadsf.com)
– Eternality / immutability: The phrase “This is my name for ever” links God’s name with timelessness and enduring covenant. (Precept Austin)
– Covenantal identity: The name YHWH and the “I AM” formula tie the God of Moses to the patriarchal God, signalling continuity of promise. (Logos Sermons)
– Revelation of Being: The focus is not just on an attribute but on God’s beingness. He reveals what He is in Himself and in relation to His people. (abideinchrist.com)

2.3 “Memorial to all generations”

By declaring “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations,” God instructs that His name—and what it signifies—be remembered endlessly. The “name” is not merely a label but an invocation of who God is‑‑and what He does. (NEV Bible app with Commentary, free)

3. The Islamic side: Names of Allah and “I am” in the Qur’an

3.1 Allah’s self‑declaration

In the Qur’an one finds, for example:

“Indeed I am Allah. There is no deity except Me; so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.” (Ta‑Ha 20:14) (My Islam)

This verse is often cited in discussions of God’s self‑identification in Islam.

3.2 Differences in phrasing and emphasis

But while the Qur’an uses “I am Allah,” it does not replicate the exact pattern of “I AM WHO I AM” or an equivalent Hebrew‑style *’ehyeh’ formula. As scholar Christine Schirrmacher notes: “The Koran does not contain any passages which comprise any kind of systematic description of God. … God does not introduce himself in the Koran like he does in the Old Testament with the words ‘I am who I am’.” (islaminstitut.de)

3.3 Islamic theology on names and attributes

Islamic tradition emphasises that Allah has beautiful names (asmâ’ ul‑Ḥusna) and attributes, and that humans may call upon Him by these names. (Islam Religion)
The name “Allah” is regarded as the proper name of the one True God in Arabic, but not necessarily as the exclusive name in all languages or traditions. (whoisallah.net)

4. Why then does Allah not (appear to) call Himself “I AM WHO I AM”?

In light of the above, several observations and scholarly reasons suggest why Islam treats God’s naming somewhat differently.

4.1 Linguistic‑cultural context

– The Hebrew disclosure in Exodus arises in a specific covenantal, Jewish context, with Hebrew verb forms, Hebrew root h‑y‑h, and ancient Israelite naming conventions.
– The Qur’an is revealed in Arabic, within a different historical‑linguistic milieu. The Arabic phrase “innī anā Allāh, lā ilāha illā anā…” (20:14) means “Indeed I am Allah; there is no god but Me.” The form is different from Hebrew ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh.
– Because of this the exact Hebrew formula has no direct Arabic parallel in the Qur’an.

4.2 Theological orientation

– In Judaism/Christianity the “I AM” formula emphasises God’s being (ontology) and God’s covenant with Israel.
– In Islam the discourse focuses more on God’s unity (tawḥīd), transcendence (tanzīh), and His names/attributes rather than a single ontological self‑formula. The emphasis is on who Allah is through names/attributes rather than a verbal self‑definition of being.
– As noted, “Allah” is presented as the proper name for the Creator, and the Qur’an avoids mechanical correspondences with Hebrew theological formulas.

4.3 Revelation‑history and continuity

– The Torah’s presentation of God’s name is embedded in the Israelite revelation history.
– The Qur’an affirms it is the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob (cf. 28:30; 6:102) but does not reproduce all Old Testament naming conventions.
– Some Christian‑Muslim comparative scholars point out that the Qur’an remains “silent” on the Hebrew tetragrammaton and the exact “I AM” self‑designation. (Answering Islam)

4.4 Purpose of disclosure

– In Exodus, the revelation of the name serves Moses’ mission to deliver Israel, emphasising God’s covenant identity and presence.
– In the Qur’an, the self‑statement “I am Allah” serves to assert monotheism, demand worship, and situate prayer for remembrance — a different functional emphasis (see 20:14).
– Thus the variant form reflects different redemptive‑historical settings and theological priorities.

5. Scholarly Implications for Christian‑Muslim Dialogue

From a theological‑scholarly perspective (as at the Shimba Theological Institute), the following implications emerge:

Shared Ground: Both traditions affirm one ultimate Being who exists, sustains, and is to be worshiped. The Exodus “I AM” and Qur’an 20:14 “I am Allah” share the reality of Divine Self‑revelation.
Different Emphases: The manner of naming reflects different revelation‑communities: Israel’s covenant identity vs Islam’s universal monotheism.
Respectful Recognition: In dialogue, Christians and Muslims can recognise the respective naming‑traditions for what they are—a function of scripture, language, and theology—rather than reductive equivalence.
Hermeneutical Caution: One should not impose the Hebrew formula onto the Qur’an or assume its absence implies a deficiency; different revelatory contexts yield different expressions.
Opportunity for Deeper Study: Exploring how naming of God functions in each tradition opens up rich fields in theology, comparative religion, and scriptural hermeneutics.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the fact that the Qur’an does not record a phrase exactly equivalent to “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14) is not evidence of omission or error but of different revelation‑contexts, languages, theological emphases and purposes. The Hebrew text at Sinai reveals God’s being and covenant name in the heart of Israel’s identity; the Qur’an reveals Allah’s oneness, self‑affirmation and demand for worship in the universal monotheistic framework of Islam.

Hence, while Christians may draw meaning from the Exodus revelation of the divine name, Muslims understand Allah through the names and attributes revealed in Arabic, including the statement “I am Allah” — a truth that meets them linguistically and theologically in the Qur’an rather than reproducing the Hebrew phrase verbatim.

Bibliography

“The Names of God (Part 1 of 3): Who is Allah?” IslamReligion.com. (Islam Religion)
“Exodus 3:13‑22 – God’s Faithfulness to Reveal His Name,” Logos Sermons. (Logos Sermons)
“The Koran does not contain any passages … God does not introduce himself … with the words ‘I am who I am’.” – Christine Schirrmacher, Who is God in the Koran? (islaminstitut.de)
“I Am Who I Am” – Sermon Writer commentary on Exodus 3:13‑15. (Sermon Writer)
“Responses to Bismikaallahuma: Regarding I AM WHAT I AM” at Answering‑Islam.org. (Answering Islam)
“Attributive Names of Allâh | Who is Allah” (www.whoisallah.net). (whoisallah.net)

A Theological Examination of the Biblical God (YHWH) and the Quranic Allah

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

The identity of God remains one of the most profound subjects of inquiry in comparative theology. Within Judeo-Christian tradition, God reveals Himself as YHWH (Yahweh)—the covenant-keeping, self-existent One who declares, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). In contrast, the Quranic depiction of Allah presents a being whose attributes, actions, and relationship with humanity differ substantially from the Biblical revelation of God.

From a Biblical standpoint, Yahweh is not only the Creator but also a relational and redemptive God, revealed through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14). Christianity holds that God’s ultimate revelation is incarnated in Christ, who embodies divine love and truth. Conversely, Islamic theology explicitly denies the divinity and sonship of Jesus (Quran 4:171), emphasizing absolute monotheism (tawḥīd) in a way that excludes any Trinitarian understanding.

Scholars such as Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb (Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, Baker, 2002) have argued that, although the term God may appear linguistically similar, the ontological essence and moral attributes of Allah and Yahweh diverge significantly. The Biblical God reveals Himself as love (1 John 4:8), while the Quranic Allah is primarily characterized by power and transcendence rather than personal communion.

Therefore, the assertion that Allah and Yahweh are the same being is theologically untenable within classical Christian doctrine. Any attempt to conflate the two diminishes the uniqueness of the Trinitarian revelation and the redemptive role of Jesus Christ. For Christians, Yahweh alone is the one true God, self-revealed in the Scriptures and in His Son—the incarnate Word.

Outrage and Grief: Mass Atrocities in Sudan — A Call to Prayer, Witness, and Action

Shimba Theological Institute — Emergency Newsletter

Date: 31 October 2025
Subject: Outrage and Grief: Mass Atrocities in Sudan — A Call to Prayer, Witness, and Action

Dear friends and partners,

We write with heavy hearts. In recent days the world has been confronted with horrifying evidence that mass atrocities are unfolding in Sudan — particularly in El-Fasher and parts of Darfur — where satellite analysis, survivor testimony and frontline medical teams report summary executions, mass killings and widespread targeting of civilians, including women and children. These are not isolated battlefield losses; humanitarian organisations and UN monitors are warning of mass graves, bodies in the streets, and what may amount to ethnic cleansing. (OHCHR)

The methods and scale of the violence are chilling. Independent satellite analysts observed clusters and ground discolorations consistent with bodies, and on-the-ground witnesses describe people being separated, hunted and killed as they tried to flee. Medical teams and relief agencies are reporting scenes of mass casualties and grave shortages of food, water and medical care for the displaced. The International community must call these acts what they are: crimes against humanity and, where the evidence supports it, genocide. (doctorswithoutborders.ca)

We are also alarmed by credible reporting that external arms flows have fueled and prolonged this conflict. Investigations by journalists and international bodies point to states and networks that have been supplying weapons, fuel and equipment to combatants — a strategic decision that has made the violence more deadly and the humanitarian emergency worse. Supplying arms that enable massacres of civilians is morally indefensible; it binds suppliers to the suffering they help unleash. (Reuters)

What must we do now?

Pray and Lament. As Christians and citizens of conscience we must stand in prayerful solidarity with the innocent. Pray for the bereaved, for those hiding or on the run, for healthcare workers and aid teams, and for a swift end to violence.
Speak and Witness. Churches, pastors, students and civic groups should use their voices — in sermons, public statements and letters to elected officials — to demand accountability and protection for civilians. Silence helps the perpetrators.
Support Humanitarian Relief. The most immediate need is aid for survivors: food, water, emergency medical care and shelter. Trusted agencies on the ground include UNICEF and Médecins Sans Frontières; gifts to these organisations provide life-saving assistance. (UNICEF)
Demand Accountability. We urge governments, regional bodies and the UN Security Council to: (a) condemn the atrocities unequivocally; (b) press for independent, international investigations; and (c) impose targeted measures on actors who provide material support to forces committing atrocities. Recent sessions at the UN and reporting in major outlets make clear the urgency of such steps. (The Guardian)
Protect Refugees and Displaced People. Neighbouring states and the international community must keep borders and humanitarian corridors open, and ensure safe passage for those fleeing. Humanitarian access cannot be negotiable.

A theological word: when nations descend into brutality, the church is called to be a sanctuary for the voiceless — to lament with those who lament, to feed the hungry, to shelter the frightened and to stand for justice. Scripture teaches that God hears the cries of the oppressed; we must not let our hands be idle while others suffer. (Isaiah 1:17; Psalm 34:18.)

Shimba Theological Institute stands with the people of Sudan. We will be monitoring developments closely and publishing updates, guidance for churches and resources for relief giving. If your congregation or organisation would like a short bulletin insert, prayer liturgy, or guidance on how to organise local advocacy or a relief collection, reply and we will provide materials you can use immediately.

In grief, in solidarity, and in faith,

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

FURTHER DISCUSSION OF JOHN 5:23

Affirming the Deity of Jesus Christ

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

1. INTRODUCTION

John 5:23 is one of the most pivotal verses for understanding the deity of Jesus Christ and the essence of the Christian faith. This single verse encapsulates the divine equality between the Father and the Son and leaves no room for a diminished or merely human interpretation of Christ’s person.

To rightly interpret John 5:23, we must situate it within its broader context. The verse is part of a 27-verse discourse (John 5:19–46) — the longest uninterrupted monologue of Jesus in the Gospel of John — delivered after His miraculous healing of the lame man at Bethesda on the Sabbath (vv. 9–10).

The miracle itself becomes a theological statement: the divine Son acting in perfect harmony with the Father, unconstrained by human traditions. The Jewish leaders, blinded by their legalism, accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. Yet, as John 5:17–18 reveals, Jesus’ declaration “My Father is working until now, and I am working” provoked them even further — not only because He “broke” their Sabbath traditions but because He was “making Himself equal with God.”

This equality — not in function alone but in essence — is the very heartbeat of Christian theology.

“He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” — John 5:18

As the great theologian Augustine observed:

“Behold, the Jews understood what the Arians do not understand.”

The religious leaders understood exactly what Jesus was claiming: not to be like God, but to be one with God.

2. JESUS STATES HIS CASE

Jesus could have avoided conflict altogether by healing on another day or by clarifying that He was acting as a mere prophet. Instead, He intensifies His claim, affirming divine equality with the Father.

“The Son can do nothing by Himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” — John 5:19

This is not subordination; it is ontological unity. The Son mirrors the Father’s actions perfectly because He shares the Father’s nature.

Jesus then asserts that:

The Father “shows Him everything” (v. 20),
The Son “gives life to whomever He wills” (v. 21), and
“All judgment has been entrusted to the Son” (v. 22).

This climaxes in verse 23 — a verse that makes explicit what the preceding verses imply:

“So that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” — John 5:23

The Son’s divine prerogatives — giving life, executing judgment, and receiving equal honor — are uniquely divine attributes. To honor Jesus just as the Father is to worship Him as God.

3. HONOR AS WORSHIP

The Greek word τιμάω (timaō) means to prize, revere, or esteem highly. It carries a sense of reverence indistinguishable from worship when applied to God. In fact, Scripture equates “honor” and “worship” when directed toward the divine (cf. Matthew 15:8–9; Revelation 4:9–11; 5:12–14).

Thus, when Jesus commands that the Son be honored “just as” (Greek: καθὼς, kathōs) the Father, He demands identical worship. The construction kathōs does not denote similarity but equality of degree and kind.

To worship the Father rightly is to worship the Son rightly — for their honor is indivisible. To withhold divine worship from the Son is, according to Jesus, to dishonor the Father.

As the Book of Revelation shows:

“Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him who sits upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.” — Revelation 5:13

The Lamb — identified in John 1:29 as Jesus — receives the same worship due to God on the throne. Heaven itself bears witness that Jesus Christ is not a creature but the Creator, worthy of divine adoration.

4. DOES HONOR NECESSARILY INCLUDE WORSHIP?

Yes. The honor demanded in John 5:23 is divine worship, not mere respect.

If Jesus were not God, His command to be honored “just as” the Father would be blasphemous and idolatrous. But because He is God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, worshiping Him is not idolatry — it is obedience to God.

“All must honor Him with equal honor to that which they pay to the Father — and whosoever does not… does not honor Him at all.” — Henry Alford, Greek Testament Commentary

Thus, John 5:23 stands as a direct and irrefutable claim to deity. Jesus affirms that divine worship belongs equally to Him and the Father.

5. THE DIVINE NATURE OF JESUS IN JOHN 5

Some argue that Jesus’ words refer merely to His human or priestly role. Yet the text itself refutes this. John 5:18 shows that the Jews wanted to kill Him precisely because He was “making Himself equal with God.” Jesus does not retract this statement — He expands upon it.

He claims:

Unity in action: “Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (v. 19).
Equality in life-giving power: “The Son gives life to whomever He wills” (v. 21).
Authority in judgment: “The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” (v. 22).

Each of these prerogatives belongs to God alone. Therefore, the Son’s right to receive the same honor as the Father flows from His divine essence, not from any temporary, humanly conferred office.

The honor of John 5:23, then, can only mean worship — the recognition of Jesus as God.

6. “THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I” — UNDERSTANDING SUBORDINATION

Passages such as John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”) do not deny Jesus’ deity. They describe functional subordination within the Economic Trinity — the order of roles in salvation history — not inequality of essence within the Ontological Trinity.

Just as a father may have greater authority than his son without the son being less human, the Father can have greater authority than the Son without the Son being less divine.

The Son eternally shares the same divine nature as the Father:

“I and the Father are one.” — John 10:30

To deny the Son’s equality is to deny the Father’s self-revelation, for the Father is fully revealed in the Son (John 14:9).

7. CONCLUSION

John 5:23 is one of the most direct declarations of Christ’s deity in the New Testament. Jesus demands the same honor, reverence, and worship as the Father — not as a representative or prophet, but as God Himself.

To worship the Father without worshiping the Son is to dishonor both.
To honor the Son as God is to honor the Father who sent Him.

Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made flesh, is not merely a messenger of God; He is God manifested in human form.
As John declares at the opening of his Gospel:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1

And as Jesus affirms in John 5:23 — He is to be honored, worshiped, and adored “just as” the Father.

Jesus’ Confession of His Divinity and His Acceptance of Worship: A Theological and Scholarly Analysis

Jesus’ Confession of His Divinity and His Acceptance of Worship: A Theological and Scholarly Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Throughout the Gospel narrative, one truth stands undeniably clear: Jesus Christ never denied His divinity, nor did He ever forbid the worship that was rightly offered to Him. On the contrary, Jesus both confessed His divine identity and accepted worship as an attribute consistent with His eternal nature as God the Son.

1. Jesus’ Divine Confession Before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63–65)

In Matthew 26, Jesus stood before the high priest Caiaphas, accused of blasphemy. The high priest demanded under oath:

“Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (Matthew 26:63)

Jesus’ response was both profound and revelatory:

“You have said so. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)

This declaration is not a denial but a divine affirmation. Jesus invoked the imagery of Daniel 7:13–14, where “One like the Son of Man” comes on the clouds of heaven and is given everlasting dominion, glory, and worship. The reaction of the Sanhedrin confirms their understanding: the high priest tore his robes, declaring, “He has spoken blasphemy!” (Matthew 26:65). In Jewish context, blasphemy was not merely claiming to be a prophet or messiah—it was claiming divine status. Jesus’ words therefore constituted a confession that He is indeed God in the flesh.

2. Jesus Never Denied His Deity

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say, “I am not God,” nor does He ever discourage anyone from worshipping Him. In fact, those who approached Him in worship were consistently affirmed rather than rebuked:

The Magi bowed and worshipped Him as an infant (Matthew 2:11).
The leper worshipped Him saying, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean” (Matthew 8:2), and Jesus did not reject his worship.
The disciples worshipped Him after He calmed the storm, confessing, “Truly, you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33).
The blind man healed in John 9 worshipped Jesus, and Jesus accepted it (John 9:38).
Thomas, upon seeing the risen Christ, exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), to which Jesus responded, “You have believed because you have seen me” (John 20:29), affirming Thomas’s declaration, not rejecting it.

In contrast, when worship was wrongly directed toward created beings, the response was immediate rejection. Peter refused worship (Acts 10:25–26), and angels forbade it (Revelation 19:10). Yet Jesus never once forbade or corrected those who worshipped Him—because worship belonged rightly to Him.

3. The Theological Implications of His Confession

Theologically, the confession in Matthew 26 reveals Jesus’ conscious identity as Yahweh incarnate. By declaring that He would sit at the right hand of Power (a Jewish circumlocution for God), Jesus equated Himself with the divine authority of the Father. He did not claim to be a god among many, but the divine Son who shares in the essence and authority of God Himself.

Jesus’ consistent self-revelation—through titles such as “I Am” (John 8:58), “The Light of the World” (John 8:12), “The Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25), and “The Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6)—confirms that His mission was not to point to another deity, but to reveal Himself as the visible manifestation of the invisible God (John 14:9; Colossians 1:15).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Jesus’ silence in denying His divinity is not mere omission—it is a deliberate theological assertion. His acceptance of worship, His divine titles, and His self-identification with the Father all testify that He is truly God. The accusation of blasphemy in Matthew 26 proves that even His enemies understood His claim clearly.

In sum, Jesus never said, “I am not God,” nor did He say, “Do not worship Me.” Rather, He openly confessed His divine nature, accepted worship as His right, and demonstrated through His life, death, and resurrection that He is indeed Emmanuel—God with us.

References

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV)
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. Doubleday, 1993.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Eerdmans, 2003.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Eerdmans, 2008.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Fortress Press, 1996.

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

A Comparative Theological Observation on Islamic Prayer Practices

A Comparative Theological Observation on Islamic Prayer Practices
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

From a comparative religion perspective, Islam’s daily prayer rituals (Salat) include repeated invocations of the Prophet Muhammad’s name through blessings (salawat), expressing reverence for him as the messenger of God. While Muslims understand this as an act of honor and respect, not worship, some scholars from other theological traditions have noted structural parallels between these invocations and ancestral remembrance rituals found in pre-Islamic and other traditional belief systems.

In these systems, adherents often call upon deceased ancestors as part of their spiritual communication or ritual devotion. This similarity invites deeper examination of how monotheistic faiths integrate remembrance of their founders or prophets into religious practice—raising important questions about the boundaries between veneration, intercession, and worship.

Thus, while Islam firmly asserts its monotheism, the ritual emphasis on the Prophet Muhammad in daily life presents an area of comparative study for theologians exploring the evolution of sacred remembrance within world religions.

Question for Muslim Scholars and Believers

Question for Muslim Scholars and Believers:
In Islamic theology, the Injeel (Gospel) is described as a divine revelation given by Allah. According to the Qur’an, the Injeel was revealed to ʿIsa (Jesus), who, as even the Qur’an affirms, was sent to the Children of Israel (see Qur’an 3:49; 61:6).

Therefore, a critical question arises:
To which community was the Injeel originally addressed?
A. The Jews, to whom Jesus was sent
B. The Muslims, who did not yet exist as a religious group
C. The Christians, who only later emerged as followers of Jesus’ teachings

From a historical and theological standpoint, the answer must logically be A — the Jews, since Jesus’ ministry, according to both the Bible (Matthew 15:24) and the Qur’an, was directed to the people of Israel.

This question highlights a fundamental point in comparative theology: the Injeel was a revelation within the Jewish context, not an Islamic one, and its message later gave rise to Christianity — centuries before Islam’s formation.