Wednesday, December 3, 2025

God Has No Religion

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
(Originally written August 3, 2015; Expanded 2025 Edition)

Abstract

This paper critically examines the theological statement “God has no religion,” contrasting the divine nature of the Christian God with the human construct of religion. It demonstrates that religion is a human attempt to reach God through ritual, law, and moral performance—while true Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God established through Jesus Christ. The study concludes that Allah, as depicted in Islam, cannot be the true God because Allah himself has a religion—Islam—whereas the true God transcends religious identity and institutional boundaries.

1. The Holiness and Transcendence of God

The Holy God is absolutely pure and has no fellowship with sin. Scripture affirms, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Between humanity and God lies a vast chasm of sin that no human effort can bridge. Humanity has sought to reach God through various means—religion, moral deeds, rituals, and prayers—but all these fall short of divine righteousness (Isaiah 64:6).

Religion, therefore, is man’s attempt to reach God through human effort. Christianity, on the other hand, is God’s act of reaching man through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus bridges the gap between sinful humanity and the holy God by His atoning sacrifice.

2. Jesus Christ: The Only Way to God

The Christian faith asserts that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. As the Apostle Peter declares, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18). Likewise, Paul emphasizes, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and was raised on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

Jesus Himself declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). This statement eliminates all other religious paths as insufficient to reconcile humanity with God.

3. Salvation by Grace, Not by Religion

Human beings cannot earn fellowship with God through religious observance or moral perfection. Salvation is a divine gift of grace, received through faith in Christ alone. “But to all who received Him, He gave the right to become children of God—to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).

The Apostle Paul elaborates: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).

Thus, Christianity is not a religion of human works but a relationship of divine grace.

4. The Personal Reception of Christ

The relationship with God begins when one receives Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. Revelation 3:20 illustrates this invitation: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him.”

To receive Christ means:

Recognizing one’s sinfulness and repenting.
Trusting God for complete forgiveness through the cross of Christ.
Allowing Jesus Christ to reign as Lord over one’s life.

Faith is not mere intellectual assent but personal trust in the living Savior.

5. Assurance of Salvation

Those who receive Jesus possess eternal life. “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11–12).

Believers are assured that Christ dwells within them (Colossians 1:27), and He will never leave them (Matthew 28:20). Faith, not emotion, confirms this relationship. As Hebrews 13:8 proclaims, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

6. Spiritual Growth and Fellowship

After receiving Christ, the believer begins a journey of spiritual growth:

Prayer: Communing daily with God (John 15:7).
Bible Study: Meditating on God’s Word (Acts 17:11).
Obedience: Living out God’s truth (John 14:21).
Witness: Sharing faith through words and actions (Matthew 4:19).
Trust: Depending on God in all circumstances (1 Peter 5:7).
Spirit-led Living: Walking in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16–18).

Fellowship with other believers is vital, as Hebrews 10:25 reminds: “Do not neglect meeting together.” Like coals in a fire, believers sustain their spiritual warmth in community.

7. The Theological Contrast: God vs. Allah

The Christian God—YHWH—transcends religion. He is not the founder, subject, or adherent of any religion. Religion is humanity’s structure; God is self-existent (Exodus 3:14).

Conversely, Allah of Islam is described as having a religion: “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (Qur’an 3:19). This verse explicitly shows that Allah has a religion—a system of belief, rules, and rituals that binds even Allah to a specific theological framework.

This contradicts the nature of the true God, who is beyond all religious categories. The true Creator cannot be contained by a system; He establishes covenant relationships, not religious institutions.

If Allah has a religion, then Allah is part of a created system—a being within a belief structure, not the transcendent source of being itself. The Christian God precedes religion; Allah depends on it.

Therefore, Allah cannot be the true God, because the true God has no religion—He is the origin of existence, not a participant in it.

8. Conclusion

The statement “God has no religion” is not a denial of organized faith communities but a profound theological truth: the divine transcends human attempts to categorize Him. True communion with God comes not through religion but through revelation—through Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

The contrast between the Christian God and Allah reveals that the former offers relationship by grace, while the latter demands submission through law. Religion seeks to ascend to God; grace reveals that God descended to humanity in Christ.

Hence, salvation is not in religion but in relationship—not in Islam, but in Christ.

References

The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).
The Qur’an, Surah 3:19, 5:3, 9:33.
Augustine, Confessions, Book I–III.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 1952.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
John Stott, Basic Christianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Jesus Existed Before the Creation of the World: A Theological Exposition

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Monday, August 17, 2015

Jesus Existed Before the Creation of the World: A Theological Exposition

Abstract

This study presents a Christological exposition of the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ. Drawing from key New Testament texts, including John 8:58, John 17:5, Colossians 1:16–17, and John 1:3, the article affirms that Jesus’ existence precedes creation itself, thereby substantiating His divine nature. This theological truth challenges Islamic and other humanistic claims that reduce Jesus to a mere prophet or moral teacher. The analysis demonstrates, through both scriptural and logical reasoning, that Jesus Christ is co-eternal with God the Father, and thus, fully divine.

1. Introduction

One of the profound declarations of Jesus Christ recorded in the Gospel of John challenges human understanding of time, existence, and divinity. In John 8:58, Jesus proclaims:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58, ESV)

This statement stands as one of the most explicit affirmations of Christ’s eternal nature and divine identity. It implies that Jesus’ existence transcends human temporality, affirming His pre-incarnate being before Abraham and, as further Scripture attests, even before the creation of the world. Such claims are unique to Jesus; no prophet or religious leader—whether from Judaism, Islam, or any other tradition—has ever claimed pre-existence prior to creation itself.

2. Jesus’ Declaration of Pre-Existence

The expression “I am” (Greek: ἐγώ εἰμι, egō eimi) in John 8:58 is not a mere grammatical assertion but a theological one. It directly echoes the divine self-identification in Exodus 3:14, where God revealed Himself to Moses saying, “I AM WHO I AM.” This linguistic and theological connection implies that Jesus identified Himself with Yahweh, the self-existent God of Israel.

By claiming existence “before Abraham,” Jesus not only placed Himself above one of the patriarchs revered by both Jews and Muslims but also affirmed His eternal continuity. The Jewish audience immediately recognized the divine implications of this claim, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59).

3. Jesus’ Glory Before Creation

Jesus further substantiates His pre-existence in His prayer recorded in John 17:5:

“And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.” (John 17:5, ESV)

Here, Jesus speaks of a shared glory with the Father prior to the creation of the cosmos. This pre-creation relationship affirms the eternal fellowship between the Father and the Son. It also reveals that Jesus’ divine identity was not conferred upon Him at birth or baptism, as some heresies (e.g., Adoptionism) have proposed, but is intrinsic to His nature.

4. Christ’s Role in Creation

The Apostle Paul reinforces this divine pre-existence in Colossians 1:16–17:

“For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

Similarly, John 1:3 declares:

“All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”

Both passages attribute the act of creation directly to Christ, identifying Him as the divine agent through whom all existence came into being. Therefore, the New Testament presents Jesus not as a created being but as the Creator Himself. This identification aligns with the Old Testament revelation of God as the sole Creator (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24), indicating that Jesus shares the same divine essence.

5. Theological Implications

From these scriptural evidences, several theological conclusions can be drawn:

Jesus’ Eternity: Christ’s existence before creation affirms His eternal nature, distinguishing Him from all created beings.
Jesus as Co-Creator: Creation itself bears witness to Christ’s divine authority and power.
Jesus’ Unity with the Father: His request for restored glory (John 17:5) underscores the ontological unity of the Godhead.
Refutation of Islamic Christology: The Qur’an acknowledges that only God existed before creation (Surah Al-Hadid 57:3). Since Jesus affirms pre-existence before creation, this logically places Him in the divine category, contradicting the Islamic claim that He was merely a prophet.

Thus, the pre-existence of Christ is not a peripheral doctrine but central to Christian theology, confirming that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the words of Jesus, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), and His prayer for restored glory (John 17:5) provide irrefutable evidence of His divine pre-existence. The testimony of Colossians 1:16–17 and John 1:3 further cements His identity as the Creator and sustainer of all things. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not a mere prophet or moral teacher but the eternal Word (Logos), co-existent and co-equal with God the Father.

Indeed, Jesus lived before the world was created—because He is God.

References

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
The Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hadid 57:3.
Augustine of Hippo. On the Trinity. Translated by Edmund Hill. New York: New City Press, 1991.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan, 2020.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Baker Academic, 2013.
Shimba, Maxwell. Christology and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Shimba Theological Publications, 2024.

JESUS IS GOD ACCORDING TO THE QURAN (PART ONE)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Originally written on January 20, 2016

Abstract

This paper seeks to establish, through textual and theological analysis, that the Qur'an itself ascribes divine attributes to Jesus Christ (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam). While Islamic theology denies the divinity of Jesus and emphasizes strict monotheism (tawḥīd), a careful reading of several Qur'anic passages reveals that Jesus shares essential divine qualities reserved only for God (Allāh). This comparative analysis between the Qur'an and the Bible demonstrates internal theological consistency regarding the divinity of Christ.

Introduction

Muslim apologists and Islamic scholars frequently argue that Jesus Christ cannot be divine because, in their view, God cannot be born or take on human form. This argument is often emphasized in public daʿwah forums and interreligious debates. However, the Qur'an, when examined closely, attributes to Jesus qualities that belong exclusively to God.

This study investigates whether Jesus possesses divine characteristics according to the Qur'an, using both Islamic and biblical sources to evaluate the nature of His divinity.

1. GOD AS KING

1.1 The Qur’anic Testimony

In the Qur'an, one of the exalted attributes of God is that He is “The King.”

Qur’an 59:23
“He is Allah, besides Whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver, the Mighty, the Compeller, the Supreme. Glory be to Allah above all that they associate with Him.” (Qur’an 59:23, Al-Hashr)

Here, the attribute “The King” (Al-Malik) is reserved solely for God, denoting absolute sovereignty and rulership over all creation.

1.2 The Biblical Testimony

The Bible attributes the same sovereign title to Jesus Christ:

Revelation 17:14 (NKJV)
“These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

Jesus is explicitly called “King of kings,” a title parallel to the Qur’anic divine title Al-Malik. Therefore, both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm that kingship belongs to the divine, and Jesus is identified with this divine sovereignty.

Conclusion: If the Qur’an declares that God alone is King, and the Bible reveals Jesus as King of kings, the implication is clear — Jesus shares the kingship that belongs only to God.

2. GOD AS HOLY

2.1 The Qur’anic Testimony

The second divine attribute of God mentioned in the Qur’an is that He is “The Holy One” (Al-Quddūs):

Qur’an 59:23
“He is Allah, besides Whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace...” (Al-Hashr 59:23)

Holiness, according to the Qur’an, is an attribute that belongs exclusively to Allah — absolute moral and spiritual perfection.

2.2 The Qur’anic Declaration of Jesus’ Holiness

However, the Qur’an also identifies Jesus with the same attribute of holiness:

Qur’an 19:19
“He (the angel) said: I am only a messenger of your Lord to announce to you the gift of a pure son.” (Arabic: ghulāman zakiyyā) — interpreted as a holy son.

Islamic commentators such as Al-Tabari and Al-Jalalayn interpret zakiyyā as “sinless” or “pure,” indicating that Jesus (ʿĪsā) is uniquely holy among all human beings.

2.3 Theological Implication

Holiness belongs solely to God, as established in the Qur’an (59:23). Yet, the same Qur’an attributes holiness to Jesus, a title not shared by any other prophet. This correspondence implies the divine nature of Jesus within the Qur’anic framework.

3. GOD AS LORD

3.1 The Qur’anic Testimony

Another exclusive title of divinity in the Qur’an is “Lord” (Rabb):

Qur’an 39:29
“Allah presents an example: a man belonging to many disputing partners and another belonging exclusively to one man — are they equal in comparison? Praise be to Allah! But most of them do not know.”

Here, “Lord” signifies the exclusive authority and ownership of God over His creation.

3.2 Jesus as “Lord” in the Qur’an

In another passage, the Qur’an ascribes lordship to Jesus:

Qur’an 3:39
“While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called to him: ‘Indeed, Allah gives you good tidings of John, confirming a word from Allah, noble, chaste, and a prophet from among the righteous.’”

The “Word from Allah” (Kalimatun minhu) refers to Jesus (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam), who is elsewhere called the Word of God (Qur’an 3:45). The same verse identifies Him as “noble” and “lordly” (sayyidan), an Arabic term connoting leadership, honor, and authority — all elements of divine lordship.

3.3 Biblical Confirmation

Revelation 17:14
“The Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings.”

The Bible, therefore, identifies Jesus as Lord of lords, aligning with the Qur’anic notion of Rabb as the supreme Lord. Both scriptures attest to Jesus’ divine lordship.

Conclusion

Muslim theologians often pose the question: “Is Jesus God?”
The Qur’an itself provides an affirmative answer. Jesus Christ possesses all the primary divine attributes acknowledged in the Qur’an:

He is King (Qur’an 59:23; Revelation 17:14).
He is Holy (Qur’an 19:19; Qur’an 59:23).
He is Lord (Qur’an 3:39; Qur’an 39:29; Revelation 17:14).

Hence, by the Qur’an’s own testimony, Jesus Christ embodies the essential qualities of divinity. The convergence of Qur’anic and Biblical revelation therefore substantiates the Christian doctrine that Jesus is indeed God.

Bibliography

The Holy Bible (New King James Version). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

The Qur’an. Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2009.

Al-Jalalayn, Jalal al-Din. Tafsir al-Jalalayn. Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1999.

Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Jamiʿ al-Bayan ʿan Ta’wil Ay al-Qur’an. Cairo: Dar Hijr, 2001.

Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. Oxford University Press, 1956.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. London: Sheldon Press, 1965.

Shimba, Maxwell. The Divinity of Christ in Islam and Christianity. Orlando: Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2013.

Jesus is God According to the Qur’an (Part Two)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
(Originally written on August 8, 2015)

Abstract

This study investigates whether Jesus Christ (ʿĪsā in Arabic) possesses divine attributes as affirmed in the Qur’an. The analysis compares the Qur’anic attributes of Allah with the biblical description of Jesus Christ to determine theological parallels, specifically focusing on the attribute Al-Wārith (“The Heir” or “The Inheritor of All Things”). Through scriptural comparison, it is demonstrated that the Qur’an, though written over six centuries after Christ, indirectly affirms Jesus’ divine nature by attributing to Him a title that is one of the exclusive Names of Allah.

1. Introduction

The Qur’an attributes to Allah several divine names known as Asma’ al-Husna (the 99 Beautiful Names of God). Among these is Al-Wārith (ٱلْوَارِثُ), meaning “The Inheritor of All Things.” This divine quality signifies that God is the ultimate possessor and heir of the heavens and the earth.

This paper examines whether the same attribute is also found in reference to Jesus Christ in the Bible, and if so, what theological implications arise when both texts—Qur’an and Bible—affirm the same divine characteristic.

2. The Qur’anic Witness: Allah as Al-Wārith

The Qur’an affirms this attribute in Surah Maryam (19:40):

“Indeed, We will inherit the earth and whoever is on it, and to Us they will be returned.”
(Qur’an, Surah Maryam 19:40, Sahih International Translation)

In this verse, Allah declares Himself as the heir (Al-Wārith) of the entire world and all within it. According to Islamic theology, this attribute emphasizes Allah’s eternal sovereignty and ownership over creation.

However, the Qur’an was revealed approximately 632 A.D., over six centuries after Jesus’ earthly ministry. The concept of divine inheritance was already established in Christian Scripture, specifically in the New Testament, long before the Qur’an was written.

3. The Biblical Witness: Jesus as the Heir of All Things

The Epistle to the Hebrews explicitly attributes the same divine title to Jesus Christ:

“But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He also made the universe.”
(Hebrews 1:2, NIV)

Here, Jesus Christ is not only declared as the Heir of all things—a title equivalent to Al-Wārith—but also as the divine agent through whom the universe was created. This dual claim identifies Him both as Creator and as the eternal Inheritor of all creation, roles reserved for God alone.

Therefore, by comparing these two sources, one observes that the Bible ascribes to Jesus the same eternal attribute that the Qur’an ascribes to Allah. This shared title signifies divine continuity, not contradiction.

4. Theological Analysis

The chronological sequence is vital for theological inquiry. Since the Bible predates the Qur’an by over six centuries, any divine attribute later echoed in the Qur’an must be understood as derivative rather than original within Islamic revelation.

Historical methodology dictates that earlier data holds greater evidentiary weight. The biblical record, existing long before the Qur’an, establishes Jesus as “Heir of all things.” Thus, when the Qur’an later affirms that Allah is “the Inheritor of all things,” it inadvertently validates the prior biblical declaration that Jesus is the divine heir.

Consequently, one must conclude that the Qur’an—perhaps unintentionally—acknowledges the divinity of Christ by confirming His possession of a title belonging exclusively to God.

5. Conclusion

The investigation clearly reveals that Jesus Christ possesses the divine attribute of Al-Wārith—“The Heir of All Things.” This title, first revealed in the Bible (Hebrews 1:2), was later reiterated in the Qur’an (Surah Maryam 19:40) as a divine attribute of Allah.

Therefore, by its own theological admission, the Qur’an affirms a core truth of Christian theology: Jesus Christ shares in the divine essence of God. This realization invites the reader to consider which revelation—the earlier and consistent witness of Scripture or the later derivative text—provides the authoritative declaration of divine truth.

Bibliography

The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
The Qur’an, translated by Sahih International. Jeddah: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, 1997.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God (Al-Maqsad al-Asna fi Sharh Asma’ Allah al-Husna). Translated by David B. Burrell and Nazih Daher. Islamic Texts Society, 1992.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Theology and Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. New York: Paulist Press, 1994.
Shimba, Maxwell. Yesu ni Mungu Kutokana na Qur’an (Part II). Shimba Theological Institute Publications, 2015.

In His Service,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Copyright © Max Shimba Ministries, 2015

The Historical Treatment of Christians under Islamic Rule: Lessons for Contemporary Western Policy

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper examines the historical status of Christian communities under Islamic governance, particularly during the so-called “Golden Age of Islam.” It highlights the social, legal, and economic challenges faced by Christians as dhimmi (“protected but subjugated people”) within the Islamic caliphates. The discussion then extends to contemporary Western policies on religious coexistence and migration, urging policymakers to reflect on historical precedents in order to safeguard religious freedom and cultural identity.

1. Introduction

Throughout history, relations between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East have been complex and often asymmetrical. While Islamic civilization is frequently lauded for its intellectual and scientific advancements during the medieval era, less attention is given to the social realities experienced by non-Muslims, particularly Christians, who formed the majority population in regions such as Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia before the Islamic conquests of the 7th century (Lewis, 1984).

2. The Dhimmi System and Its Implications

Under Islamic law (sharia), Christians and Jews were recognized as Ahl al-Kitab (“People of the Book”) and permitted to practice their religion; however, they were subjected to the dhimma contract, a system of protection in exchange for political and social subordination. This included the payment of a special poll tax known as jizya (Qur’an 9:29), which symbolized their inferior status and served as a visible marker of their submission to Islamic authority (Bat Ye’or, 1985).

Historical records indicate that non-Muslims were restricted in various ways:

They were prohibited from building new churches or repairing old ones without official permission.
They were required to wear distinguishing clothing or badges in certain regions.
They were sometimes compelled to step aside or walk behind Muslims in public spaces.
Legal testimony by Christians was often invalid in Muslim courts (Lewis, 1995; Stillman, 1979).

Such measures contributed to systemic social inequality, often leading to the gradual decline of Christian communities in the Middle East. Many converted to Islam under economic or political pressure, while others migrated to preserve their faith and freedom.

3. Historical Consequences for Christian Civilization in the East

The cumulative impact of these restrictions led to a significant demographic and cultural transformation. Once-flourishing centers of Christian thought — such as Antioch, Alexandria, and Edessa — witnessed the erosion of their religious identity. By the late Middle Ages, Christians had become minorities in lands where they had previously been dominant (Shaw, 1970).

This historical pattern invites reflection on the fragility of religious coexistence under ideologically exclusive systems. The experience of Eastern Christians serves as a cautionary tale for societies that value pluralism and equality under the law.

4. Implications for Modern Western Societies

In modern Europe and North America, where Christianity has historically shaped cultural and moral foundations, policymakers face the challenge of balancing religious tolerance with the preservation of national identity and security. Immigration and multicultural policies must be informed by historical awareness — ensuring that openness does not lead to cultural erosion or the marginalization of Christian values that underpin Western civilization (Huntington, 1996).

The lessons of history suggest that tolerance must be coupled with prudence. Genuine coexistence depends not merely on goodwill but on mutual respect, legal reciprocity, and the rejection of supremacist ideologies from any quarter. The West must ensure that religious liberty remains a two-way principle: freedom for all, not submission for some.

5. Conclusion

History demonstrates that imbalance in religious and political power can erode the fabric of coexistence. The plight of Middle Eastern Christians under Islamic rule offers vital insight for contemporary governance: liberty must be protected by law, informed by history, and guided by justice. Western nations, while remaining compassionate and inclusive, must also preserve the moral and cultural foundations that have enabled freedom, prosperity, and faith to flourish.

References

Bat Ye’or. The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Lewis, Bernard. Islam and the West. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Stillman, Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979.

Jesus is God According to the Qur’an (Part Three)

Jesus is God According to the Qur’an (Part Three)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
Originally written: Saturday, August 8, 2015

Abstract

This study explores the Qur’anic attribute Al-Malik al-Mulk—“The Owner and Sovereign of All Things”—and examines whether Jesus (ʿĪsā) in Christian Scripture possesses the same divine attribute. By comparing both the Qur’an and the Bible, this paper argues that Jesus embodies the divine qualities attributed to God, affirming His divinity from both theological and comparative religious perspectives.

Introduction

The Qur’an attributes to Allah the title Al-Malik al-Mulk, meaning “The Owner and Sovereign of all things.” This title, one of the 99 names of Allah in Islamic theology, denotes ultimate dominion, control, and authority over all creation. The question arises: does Jesus, as presented in the Bible, possess this same attribute of divine ownership and sovereignty?

This paper analyzes relevant Qur’anic and Biblical texts to assess whether Jesus Christ shares in the divine prerogative of Al-Malik al-Mulk and to demonstrate the theological implications of this claim.

1. The Qur’anic Declaration of Divine Ownership

The Qur’an asserts Allah’s absolute sovereignty in several verses, including:

Surat Ya-Sin 36:83
“So exalted is He in whose hand is the dominion (mulk) of all things, and to Him you will be returned.”

This verse emphasizes that Allah alone is the possessor and ruler of all creation, encompassing creation, governance, and ultimate judgment. According to Islamic belief, this attribute is unique to Allah and non-transferable.

2. Jesus’ Declaration of Universal Sovereignty

Centuries before the revelation of the Qur’an, Jesus Christ proclaimed an identical claim of divine authority and ownership. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus declares:

Matthew 11:27 (NIV)
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

Here, Jesus reveals that all things—ta panta in Greek—have been handed over to Him by the Father, signifying comprehensive authority and ownership. This statement predates the Qur’an by approximately six centuries (circa A.D. 30 vs. A.D. 632).

Therefore, if Allah is called Al-Malik al-Mulk in the Qur’an (632 A.D.), and Jesus already claimed ownership of all things in 30 A.D., the Biblical record precedes and substantiates Jesus’ divine sovereignty.

3. Jesus’ Possession of All That Belongs to the Father

Further evidence of Jesus’ divine authority is seen in the Gospel of John:

John 16:15 (NIV)
“All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”

This declaration establishes a shared possession between the Father and the Son, confirming a unity of essence and authority. The phrase “All that belongs to the Father is mine” demonstrates an equality of divine ownership, consistent with the attribute Al-Malik al-Mulk.

In theological terms, this unity reflects the doctrine of perichoresis—the mutual indwelling and sharing of divine attributes within the Godhead. Therefore, Jesus’ statement not only parallels but fully embodies the divine sovereignty described in the Qur’an.

4. Comparative Analysis: Jesus and the Qur’anic Allah

The Qur’an was revealed six centuries after the time of Jesus Christ. When comparing these sources, one must apply the historical-critical method, prioritizing earlier testimonies. In research methodology, earlier data carry greater evidential weight. Thus, the Biblical claim of Jesus’ universal ownership predates and informs later theological assertions found in the Qur’an.

Consequently, if the Qur’an recognizes Al-Malik al-Mulk as an exclusive divine attribute, and Jesus has already declared Himself as possessing all things, then logically, Jesus bears the divine identity. Therefore, even by Qur’anic standards, Jesus manifests divine qualities that belong solely to God.

5. Theological Conclusion

The Qur’an identifies Al-Malik al-Mulk as an attribute of God, meaning “The Owner and Sovereign of All Things.” Yet, centuries earlier, Jesus Christ explicitly claimed and demonstrated this same attribute through His teachings in the Gospels.

This analysis leads to the inescapable conclusion: Jesus is God, for He possesses the divine prerogative of total sovereignty and ownership over all creation. The evidence, both Biblical and Qur’anic, affirms that Jesus holds the same attribute—Al-Malik al-Mulk—that defines God’s ultimate authority.

Therefore, in response to the common Islamic objection, “Is Jesus God?”, the Qur’an, by implication, affirms His divinity when its own descriptions of divine sovereignty are compared to Jesus’ words in the Bible.

References

The Qur’an

Surat Ya-Sin 36:83.
Surat Al-Hashr 59:23 (for Allah’s divine names including Al-Malik al-Mulk).

The Bible

Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).
Matthew 11:27.
John 16:15.
Colossians 1:16–17 – “For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

Secondary Sources

Al-Ghazali, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1992).
F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983).
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).
Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1934).

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
© Max Shimba Ministries, 2015

Jesus as God According to the Qur’an (Part Four)

Jesus as God According to the Qur’an (Part Four)

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
Monday, August 10, 2015

Abstract

This article presents a comparative theological analysis between the Qur’an and the Bible regarding the divine identity of Jesus Christ. The study explores the Qur’anic designation of Jesus as the Word of God (Kalimatullah) and juxtaposes it with the Biblical assertion that the Word was God (John 1:1). The argument advances the premise that both sacred texts, though differing in context, affirm the eternal and divine nature of the Word, which the Bible identifies as Jesus Christ.

1. Introduction

The Qur’an refers to Jesus (‘Isa ibn Maryam) with the distinctive title Kalimatullah — “the Word from God.” This title suggests that the origin of Jesus is divine rather than human. The same Qur’an also attests that the Word of God is eternal and uncreated, existing with God from eternity (Qur’an 6:115; 10:64; 18:27).

Conversely, the Bible, written centuries earlier, declares that the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). This mutual recognition of the eternal Word within both scriptures implies an intersection of theological truth that transcends doctrinal divisions.

2. The Qur’an Declares Jesus as the Word of God

2.1. Qur’an 3:45 — Jesus Announced as the Word from God

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and among those nearest to Allah.’”
(Surat Āl ʿImrān 3:45)

This passage reveals that Mary conceived Jesus through the Word of God. Therefore, the essential nature of Jesus, according to the Qur’an, originates not from humanity but from the Word that proceeds from God Himself.

2.2. Qur’an 4:171 — Jesus as the Word and Spirit from God

“O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say ‘Three’; desist—it is better for you. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him—that He should have a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a disposer of affairs.”
(Surat an-Nisā’ 4:171)

This verse affirms two profound theological claims:

Jesus is the Word of God sent to Mary.
Jesus is a Spirit proceeding from God.

Thus, within Islamic scripture itself, Jesus’ being is inseparably connected to the divine Word and Spirit, denoting a unique ontological relationship with God.

3. The Eternal Nature of God’s Word in the Qur’an

The Qur’an further asserts that the Word of God is eternal and immutable:

“The Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His words.” (Qur’an 6:115)
“There is no change in the words of Allah.” (Qur’an 10:64)
“And recite what has been revealed to you from the Book of your Lord; none can change His words.” (Qur’an 18:27)

If Jesus is indeed the Word of God, and God’s Word cannot be altered or created, then Jesus shares in the eternal nature of that divine Word.

4. The Bible Declares the Word as God

John 1:1–3

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.”

The Apostle John identifies the Word (Greek: Logos) as both preexistent and divine. This aligns closely with the Qur’anic view of the Word as eternal and inseparable from God’s essence. The Christian revelation, however, goes further by identifying this Word as the incarnate Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

5. Chronological Considerations

It is crucial to note that the Bible predates the Qur’an by over six centuries. The Gospel of John was written approximately in the first century A.D., whereas the Qur’an was compiled around 632 A.D. Hence, the Qur’an’s affirmation that Jesus is the Word of God appears to echo the Biblical theology that had long established the divine identity of the Word.

6. The Qur’an Commands Inquiry to the People of the Book

Qur’an 10:94

“And if you are in doubt concerning what We have revealed unto you, then ask those who read the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord, so be not among the doubters.”

This verse, revealed in Mecca and translated by Sheikh Ali Muhsin Al-Barwani, recognizes the People of the Book—Christians and Jews—as authoritative witnesses to divine revelation. It therefore authorizes verification of Qur’anic claims through Biblical testimony.

As a Christian scholar, I affirm that Jesus Christ is indeed the Word of God—and that the Word was God. This truth, revealed in the Bible centuries before the Qur’an, is reaffirmed even within Islamic scripture itself.

7. Conclusion

Both the Qur’an and the Bible converge on a remarkable truth: Jesus is the Word of God. The Qur’an proclaims that this Word is eternal and uncreated, while the Bible declares that the Word was with God and the Word was God. Thus, from both perspectives, Jesus’ divine identity stands affirmed.

In sum, when the Qur’an calls Jesus Kalimatullah, and the Bible identifies the Word as divine, it becomes evident that Jesus Christ is God manifested through His eternal Word.

Bibliography

The Holy Qur’an. Translated by Sheikh Ali Muhsin Al-Barwani. Dar Al-Andalus, 1986.
The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Beltsville: Amana Publications, 2005.
Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1995.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an and the Bible: Text and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
Shimba, Maxwell. Comparative Theology: Islam and Christianity in Dialogue. Shimba Theological Institute Publications, 2015.

Proposed Outline (for an academic treatment)

Introduction / Problem Statement
- The claim: The Qur’an, as a revelation from an all-knowing God (Al-ʿAlīm), should not contain historical error.
- A point of tension: The Qur’an appears to deny the crucifixion of Jesus (Surah 4:157), whereas nearly all historical reconstructions accept that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
- Goal: Analyze whether the Qur’an is “historically accurate” in this case, evaluate the Christian critique, and assess possible Muslim responses.
Historical Evidence for the Crucifixion
- Survey non-Christian sources: Tacitus, Josephus, etc.
- Survey early Christian sources and patristic witnesses.
- Note critical issues (e.g. reliability, textual transmission, how “outside” sources corroborate the Gospel accounts).
- Conclusion: The crucifixion is widely judged by historians to be one of the least disputed events in ancient Christian origins.
The Qur’ānic Text and Its Classical Interpretation
- Present the relevant verse(s): 4:157–158 and adjacent context.
- Classic (Sunni / Shīʿī) tafsīr views (substitution theory, “it appeared so,” etc.).
- The consensus (ijmāʿ) of Muslim exegetes: that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion (or at least that the Jews did not crucify him).
- Examples: al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, and major commentators.
- Strengths and internal consistency of their reading within the Qur’ānic worldview (e.g. God’s protection of prophets from humiliation).
Christian / Scholarly Critiques of the Qur’ānic Denial
- The challenge of external historical evidence versus a Qur’ānic denial.
- The claim that the Qur’ānic position is inherently less plausible than affirming the crucifixion given independent sources.
- Internal difficulties in the substitution / “made to appear” approach.
- Possible anachronisms: e.g. references to “crucifixion” in earlier stories (Pharaoh, Joseph) in the Qur’an (some critics see this as chronological error)
- Linguistic / semantic criticisms: whether the Arabic of 4:157 can bear an alternative reading that allows actual crucifixion.
Muslim Responses and Alternative Interpretations
- Minority or revisionist readings: e.g. scholars who argue that the Qur’an doesn’t unequivocally deny crucifixion (e.g. Todd Lawson). (EUP Publishing)
- The view that the denial in the Qur’an is primarily a denial of Jewish claim/responsibility (i.e. “they did not kill him”) rather than a denial of the event. (Answering Islam)
- Allegorical or spiritual readings: that “it was made to appear” is metaphorical or addresses human perception rather than objective reality. (Reformed Faith & Practice)
- The argument that the Qur’ānic denial addresses theological concerns (e.g. protecting prophetic dignity) rather than offering a full historical report.
- Attempts to harmonize via other Qur’ānic verses or Jewish/Christian traditions (e.g. appeals to Talmudic background). (ajis.org)
- Critique of the minority view by scholars who maintain the classical consensus. (ajis.org)
Evaluation: Can the Qur’an Be Held Historically “Inerrant”?
- The standard Christian-apologetic criterion: an infallible revelation should not contradict established fact.
- The problem: determining what is “established fact,” and what is interpretation or inference.
- Weighing the burden of proof: Should the Christian side demand the Muslim explanation accept the crucifixion, or should Muslim interpreters show how their reading is more plausible or at least defensible?
- The possibility of “nonliteral” genres in the Qur’an (poetic, polemical, rhetorical), and how that affects assessing historical claims.
- If a Qur’anic reading is less plausible than the historical consensus, what does that tell us about the claim of divine omniscience?
Conclusion
- My judgment (or your thesis) about whether this count as a “Qur’ānic error,” or rather a deep interpretive tension.
- Implications for interfaith dialogue, apologetics, and the doctrine of revelation.
- Suggestions for further research (e.g. deeper philological study of “shubbiha,” exploring early non-Muslim reactions, locating stronger sources by Maxwell Shimba, etc.).
Bibliography / References

Key Arguments & Objections (Sketch)

Here are some of the strongest arguments Christians typically make, and possible counterpoints, in the form of a table:

Christian Argument	Strength / Force	Muslim / Alternate Response	Difficulty for Muslim View
Widespread independent attestation of crucifixion (Roman, Jewish)	It’s historically highly probable Jesus was crucified	Muslims can argue those sources have limitations, or are being misinterpreted	The volume and convergence of sources is hard to dismiss
Qur’an denies “they crucified him” in clear Arabic	The negations (“lam yaqtulūhu, wa lam yuṣlَبūhu”) are quite explicit in classical readings	Some propose alternate parsing: the negative is more about causality or responsibility, not absolute denial	This approach tends to contradict the classical consensus
The substitution / “made to appear” theory is ad hoc and complicated	It seems more complex than simply acknowledging crucifixion	Muslim exegetes see it as the best way to preserve prophetic dignity	It raises questions of fairness, justice, and why God would allow deception
References to crucifixion in earlier Qur’anic stories (Pharaoh, Joseph) appear anachronistic	If crucifixion was not known until later, how can the Qur’an retroject it earlier?	Muslim responses: crucifixion in those cases may be metaphorical, or “crucify” in a more general sense (e.g. “impale” or “punish”)	The argument is technical and depends a lot on semantics
If the claim is false, it undermines the doctrine of divine omniscience	That’s a strong theological critique	Muslim defenders might reply that interpretation is fallible even if revelation is perfect, or that the passage is poetic or rhetorical	This is a serious pressure on the notion of inerrancy

You can expand each with textual examples, counter-interpretations, and more detailed linguistic work.

On “Dr Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute”

I attempted to locate credible academic publications by “Dr Maxwell Shimba” or an institution called “Shimba Theological Institute,” but did not find peer-reviewed works under that name or institutional affiliation. I did find that Quran Theological Errors by Shimba is listed on commercial sites (e.g. Barnes & Noble) as a polemical or apologetic work. (Barnes & Noble) I also saw a Facebook page referencing “A Theological Critique of Islam’s Claims by Dr. Maxwell Shimba.” (Facebook)

If you wish to cite Shimba in your paper, you would need to:

Establish his credentials and academic standing (Is he a recognized scholar in Qur’ānic studies, ancient history, theology?).
Check whether his arguments stand up to peer review.
Compare them to more mainstream academic scholarship on the issue (such as the works already cited above).

But you can still frame your paper as a Christian critique, using Shimba as one of several voices rather than the sole authority.

Sample Excerpt (Re-phrased within your style)

Theological and Historical Tension in Surah 4:157

The Qur’ānic verse reads: “And for their saying, ‘Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah’ — and they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them...” (4:157, interlinear). The traditional Islamic interpretation, held by the great exegetes (e.g. al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurtubī, al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī), understands this as a categorical denial that Jesus was crucified.

From the Christian side, this raises a serious challenge: the crucifixion of Jesus is among the most strongly attested events in ancient Christian origins. Tacitus, in his Annals (c. 116 AD), states that “Christ … suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.” Likewise, Josephus in Antiquities (18.3) reports that “Pilate condemned him to the cross.” These testimonies, though contested in minor details, converge on the core fact of crucifixion.

If the Qur’an, revealed by an omniscient God, plainly denies what strong historical consensus affirms, then one must ask: is the Qur’ānic denial correct (and the historians wrong), or has the Muslim interpretive tradition misread the verse? The Christian critique contends that it is more plausible to accept the historical consensus and insist that the Qur’an (or its interpreters) must be interpreted differently, or else concede a possible error in its historic claims.

Jesus’ Death in the Qur’an and Ḥadīth — A Scholarly Challenge to the Denial

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract. Many Muslims assert that ʿĪsā (Jesus) was neither killed nor crucified, citing Qurʾān 4:157 as definitive. Yet the Qurʾān itself contains verses that — when read plainly and in their exegetical context — speak of Jesus’ death (and later resurrection/raising). Likewise, some ḥadīth literature and classical tafsīr treat his death as an eventual reality (whether before or after the eschatological return). This article lays out the Qurʾānic and ḥadīth evidence that supports the proposition “Jesus dies,” asks why a straightforward reading is often resisted, and invites Muslim scholars to reconcile apparent tensions honestly and transparently.

1. Plain Qurʾānic Statements that Speak of Death

Two Qurʾānic verses are central to this discussion:

Sūrat Maryam (19:33). The infant ʿĪsā speaks: “And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive.” This is an explicit first-person declaration that includes the day “I die.” The verse appears in the cradle-speech narrative and is unambiguous in wording. (Quran.com)
Sūrat Āl ʿImrān (3:55). In many translations and readings this verse contains the verb mutawaffīka (I will cause you to die / will cause you to be taken in death) followed by rafiʿuka (I will exalt you). Numerous readers and exegetes point out that the sequence—death followed by exaltation—naturally reads as death preceding the elevation. (Those who argue for an interpretation that means “I will cause you to be taken up alive” must explain the grammatical and contextual difficulty such readings introduce.) (Al Hakam)

These two verses together form strong textual ground for the claim that the Qurʾān envisages a genuine death for ʿĪsā (either in history or as a final event).

Load-bearing claim citation: the literal text of 19:33 and the wording and readings of 3:55 are primary evidence. (Quran.com)

2. The Commonly Cited Verse of Denial (4:157) — What It Says and What It Does Not

Sūrat An-Nisāʾ (4:157) reads in many translations: “And [for] their saying, ‘Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary’ — but they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; it was made to appear so to them…” This verse is the scriptural basis for the widespread Muslim claim that Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. (Quran.com)

However, there are several interpretive pathways Muslims have taken:

Apparent substitution theory: someone was made to resemble Jesus and was crucified in his stead (classical view).
Apparent-vision theory: the crucifixion was an illusion; Jesus was neither crucified nor killed.
Spiritual/representational readings: the verse denies any salvific or ontological significance to the crucifixion rather than denying an actual bodily death.

Each interpretation attempts to reconcile 4:157 with other Qurʾānic statements. But none of these interpretive moves removes the plain meaning of 19:33 or 3:55; rather, they read 4:157 as denying the Jewish/Christian boast “we killed him,” while still permitting Jesus’ eventual death in God’s timing. Readers should face the cognitive tension: how do we reconcile a verse that plainly says “I die” with another that says “they did not kill him”?

Load-bearing claim citation: the language of 4:157 and the existence of multiple classical readings. (Quran.com)

3. Classical Tafsīr and Scholarly Notes That Recognize Jesus’ Death

Classical exegetes register the wording of 19:33 and treat it as significant. For example, Ibn Kathīr and other commentators note the phrase “the day I die” and discuss narrations and readings that speak of Jesus’ death and his being raised. Some modern Muslim writers also point to 3:55’s wording (mutawaffīka) as an admission of death followed by exaltation. Tafsīr collections and commentaries often wrestle with how to harmonize these verses with 4:157. (QuranX)

Thus, there is a long exegetical history that acknowledges the textual problem and treats Jesus’ death as a theologically meaningful datum in some senses.

Load-bearing claim citation: tafsīr references for 19:33 and 3:55. (QuranX)

4. Ḥadīth and Later Traditions

Several post-Qurʾānic traditions and Muslim histories treat Jesus’ earthly existence as culminating in death (especially after his eschatological return). Works that collect prophetic reports or later historical accounts — for instance, writings that quote earlier exegetical traditions — sometimes assert that ʿĪsā will return, live a period of years, and then die and be buried. Ibn al-Jawzī’s Al-Wafāʾ and related reports preserve traditions that the Prophet (or early transmitters) spoke of Jesus’ eventual death and burial. While hadith evidence varies in strength and provenance, the presence of such traditions in the Muslim corpus complicates the absolutist claim “the Qurʾān and ḥadīth uniformly deny Jesus’ death.” (Hadith of the Day)

Load-bearing claim citation: presence of post-Qurʾānic traditions speaking of death after return. (Hadith of the Day)

5. Questions for Muslim Theologians and Believers

How do you reconcile 19:33’s plain “the day I die” with a strict, universal denial that Jesus ever died? If 19:33 is literal, whose death is being referenced if not Jesus’?
What grammatical and contextual arguments justify reading mutawaffīka in 3:55 as other than death? Several exegetes take that verb to mean “cause to die” — if so, why prefer interpretive moves that avoid death?
Does 4:157 deny only the Jewish/Christian boast (“we killed him”) rather than every possible death of Jesus? If so, what interpretive mechanism distinguishes “they did not kill him” from “he will never die”?
When later Muslim traditions speak of Jesus returning and then dying, how are those traditions to be weighed against the common modern claim that Islam uniformly denies Jesus’ death? Are those traditions to be dismissed, explained away, or accepted?

These are not mere rhetorical questions: they are invitations to fuller exegesis and to honest engagement with texts and traditions.

6. Expository Commentary: A Concise Argument That Jesus Died

Literal reading of 19:33 — the infant Jesus’ words include “the day I die.” A literal, face-value reading affirms death. (Quran.com)
Syntactic reading of 3:55 — the phrase mutawaffīka is commonly rendered “I will cause you to die/ I will take you in death”; the sequencing (death then exaltation) favors death preceding exaltation. (Al Hakam)
4:157 does not necessarily preclude death — it emphatically denies that they killed him or that they achieved the boastful claim “we killed the Messiah.” It can be read as a denial of the perpetrators’ claim, not a metaphysical denial of any death. (Quran.com)
Historical/traditional layers — later Muslim writings and some hadith strands describe Jesus’ return, subsequent life, and eventual death — indicating that at least some streams within Islamic tradition accept the concept of Jesus’ death. (Hadith of the Day)

Taken together, these points make a strong prima facie case that the Qurʾān and Islamic tradition do not unambiguously require a perpetual denial of Jesus’ death.

7. Conclusion and an Open Scholarly Challenge

If Muslims insist on a total and perpetual denial that Jesus ever died, they must offer robust explanations for:

the plain wording of 19:33 (“the day I die”);
the grammatical implications of 3:55 (mutawaffīka); and
the existence of later traditions that speak of Jesus’ death after his return.

I invite Muslim exegetes to publish careful, fully documented responses that engage the verses and narrations above directly — not by assertion, but by argument. Honest inter-confessional scholarship benefits both communities and deepens mutual understanding.

References & Selected Bibliography

Qurʾānic verses (primary texts):

Qurʾān 19:33 (Sūrat Maryam). (Quran.com)
Qurʾān 4:157 (Sūrat An-Nisāʾ). (Quran.com)
Qurʾān 3:55 (Sūrat Āl ʿImrān) and treatments discussing mutawaffīka. (Al Hakam)

Tafsīr and classical commentary:

Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr on Sūrat Maryam (19:33). (The Quran Blog - Enlighten Yourself)
Collections of tafsīr comments collected at QuranX and related sites on 19:33. (QuranX)

Articles and modern discussions:

“Proving the death of Jesus from the Holy Qurʾān” — Al Hakam analysis (discussion of 3:55 and Quranic sequence). (Al Hakam)
Scholarly article: “It Was Made to Appear Like That to Them” — discussion of the Qurʾān’s denial of crucifixion and scholarly responses. (Reformed Faith & Practice)

Hadith / later traditions:

Ibn al-Jawzī, Al-Wafāʾ (tradition collection referencing Jesus’ return, life after return, and death). Summaries and discussions available in modern compilations and articles. (Hadith of the Day)

The Grateful Response to Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice

Title: The Grateful Response to Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This reflection explores the theological significance of gratitude toward Jesus Christ for bearing the punishment of humanity’s sin. Rooted in biblical theology and covenantal promises, the paper highlights the steadfast love of God as expressed in the prophetic assurance of Isaiah 54:10. The believer’s gratitude is not a mere emotional response but a theological recognition of divine mercy manifested through the redemptive work of Christ.

Introduction

The Christian faith is grounded in the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer. The declaration “Jesus is my Savior. Amen.” is not merely a personal confession but a profound theological affirmation that encapsulates the essence of soteriology—the doctrine of salvation. The prophet Isaiah records a divine promise that illuminates God’s unwavering commitment to His people:

“For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says the Lord, who has compassion on you (Isaiah 54:10, ESV).

This passage affirms the eternal constancy of God’s love and His covenant of peace, which finds its ultimate fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The Theology of Substitutionary Atonement

At the heart of Christian gratitude lies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement—Christ’s act of taking upon Himself the punishment deserved by humanity. The Apostle Paul writes, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV).

This act of divine substitution reflects not only justice but also infinite compassion. Jesus bore the weight of humanity’s transgressions, satisfying divine justice while extending mercy. As John Stott articulates, “The concept of substitution lies at the heart of both sin and salvation. For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting Himself for man” (Stott, The Cross of Christ, 1986, p. 160).

The Covenant of Peace and Divine Compassion

The “covenant of peace” mentioned in Isaiah 54:10 is a theological foreshadowing of the New Covenant established through Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20). While the mountains and hills may symbolize the temporal and fragile nature of creation, God’s love remains immovable and eternal. The Hebrew term ḥesed—translated as “steadfast love”—signifies God’s loyal, covenantal affection that persists even in human unfaithfulness.

In Romans 5:8, Paul reinforces this covenantal love: “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Gratitude, therefore, becomes the believer’s rational and spiritual response to divine compassion—acknowledging that salvation is not earned but graciously given.

The Grateful Response

To be grateful that Jesus took one’s punishment is to embrace the full meaning of grace. Gratitude in this context transcends emotion; it becomes an ethical and spiritual disposition that transforms the believer’s life. As Karl Barth notes, “Grace and gratitude belong together like heaven and earth. Grace evokes gratitude like the voice an echo” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, p. 41).

Thus, the believer’s gratitude is expressed through worship, obedience, and service—a life lived in response to divine mercy. True gratitude recognizes that the punishment of sin was fully absorbed by Christ, liberating humanity from guilt and reconciling them to God (Romans 8:1).

Conclusion

The assurance of God’s steadfast love and covenantal peace, as declared in Isaiah 54:10, culminates in the redemptive act of Jesus Christ. Gratitude toward Christ for taking humanity’s punishment is both a theological affirmation and a spiritual necessity. It is the believer’s conscious recognition that salvation is a gift of divine love that neither mountains nor hills—nor the failures of humanity—can ever remove.

References

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV/1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Wright, N. T. The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion. New York: HarperOne, 2016.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.