GOD IS IMPARTIAL, BUT ALLAH IS PARTIAL—FAVORING ONLY THE ARABS

GOD IS IMPARTIAL, BUT ALLAH IS PARTIAL—FAVORING ONLY THE ARABS

By Dr. Max Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

When you first learned the truth about Jehovah, the God of the Bible, and understood His divine purpose, your faith began to grow. You realized that although you were born in sin and separated from God, the Father, through Jesus Christ, opened the way for you to attain the perfection that Adam lost and to receive the gift of eternal life.

The Bible, written more than six hundred and fifty years before the birth and establishment of the Qur’an, clearly teaches that God shows no favoritism.
As it is written:

Romans 2:11 – “For there is no respect of persons with God.”
Acts 10:34 – “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.”

This is the essence of Jehovah’s divine character: our God loves all people equally, without discrimination or favoritism.

However, when I read the Qur’an, I discovered that Allah exhibits clear favoritism toward a specific group of people—particularly the Arabs—and expresses disdain toward others.

A reference from the Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:3, declares:

“Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and the strangled, the beaten to death, the fallen, the gored, and that which wild beasts have eaten—except what you are able to slaughter before death—and that which has been sacrificed on stone altars. Also forbidden is dividing (meat) by raffling with arrows; that is defiance. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion. But whoever is forced by hunger without inclination to sin—then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
(Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:3)

This verse reveals that Allah “has chosen Islam for you,” addressing specifically the Arabian community. Hence, Islam emerges as a religion of favoritism—a faith designed for the Arabs and imposed upon others. This raises an important theological question: When did God, the Creator of all humanity, ever show such partiality or enmity toward other peoples?

The God of the Bible stands in complete contrast. Scripture declares:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
— John 3:16–17

Jehovah’s love embraces all humanity—Jews, Arabs, Africans, Asians, and every nation under heaven. His salvation through Christ is universal, not ethnic or regional.

Therefore, the Gospel must be proclaimed to all nations, as it is written:

“And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
— Matthew 24:14

Let us, therefore, dedicate ourselves to the Great Commission—bringing the message of salvation through Jesus Christ to all people everywhere.

For Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
— Hebrews 13:8

---

May God bless you all.
By Dr. Max Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, our Great God and Savior.
— Titus 2:13

For Max Shimba Ministries Org
© 2016 Max Shimba Ministries Org. All Rights Reserved.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document verbatim, provided no alterations are made.

---

GOD IS IMPARTIAL, BUT ALLAH IS PARTIAL: A THEOLOGICAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE GOD OF THE BIBLE AND THE ALLAH OF THE QUR’AN

GOD IS IMPARTIAL, BUT ALLAH IS PARTIAL: A THEOLOGICAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE GOD OF THE BIBLE AND THE ALLAH OF THE QUR’AN

By Dr. Max Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, Orlando, Florida

---

Abstract

This paper explores the fundamental theological distinction between the impartial God of the Bible and the partial and ethnically preferential Allah of the Qur’an. Drawing from both biblical and Qur’anic texts, the study argues that while Jehovah (Yahweh) demonstrates universal love and equality toward all humanity, the Allah of Islam appears to exhibit favoritism, particularly toward the Arabs. The paper further examines the implications of this theological contrast for global salvation, divine justice, and the universality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

---

1. Introduction

One of the core attributes of the Judeo-Christian God is His impartiality—His equal love and redemptive invitation extended to all people without ethnic, racial, or national distinction. The God of the Bible is revealed as the Creator of all humankind, offering salvation through Jesus Christ universally.

Conversely, when one studies the Qur’an, it becomes evident that Allah’s favor is often directed specifically toward the Arabs, the initial recipients of Islam. This contrast invites an important question in comparative theology: Can a deity who favors a single ethnic group truly represent the universal Creator of all?

---

2. The Biblical Foundation of Divine Impartiality

The doctrine of God’s impartiality is deeply rooted in both the Old and New Testaments.

• Romans 2:11 explicitly states:

  “For there is no respect of persons with God.”

• Likewise, Acts 10:34–35 affirms:

  “Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.”

These verses underscore a fundamental truth: God’s relationship with humanity is based on faith and righteousness—not ethnicity, nationality, or social status.

From Genesis to Revelation, Jehovah’s redemptive plan is inclusive and global. Through Jesus Christ, the “second Adam,” humanity is offered reconciliation and eternal life (Romans 5:18–19).

---

3. The Qur’anic Depiction of Allah’s Favoritism

In contrast, the Qur’an portrays Allah as a deity who demonstrates preferential treatment toward a specific group, often the Arabs or the followers of Islam.

A critical verse that reveals this selective favor is found in Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:3):

“This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion.”

The phrase “chosen for you Islam” (Arabic: wa radiytu lakumu al-islāma dīnan) suggests a divinely selective endorsement—addressed to a particular people, primarily those within Muhammad’s Arab community.

The question arises: If Allah’s love and redemption are limited to those who submit to Islam, where does that leave the rest of humanity? Such exclusivity contradicts the concept of a universally loving Creator and raises serious theological and moral implications regarding divine justice and equity.

---

4. The God of the Bible: Universal Love and Redemption

In sharp contrast, the God of the Bible reveals Himself as a God of universal compassion and inclusivity. The most well-known verse in Christian theology declares:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
— John 3:16

The following verse adds:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
— John 3:17

Here, divine love is unconditional and global—embracing all nations, languages, and peoples. Salvation through Jesus Christ transcends geographical, ethnic, and cultural barriers.

Jesus’ Great Commission further reinforces this universal mission:

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
— Matthew 24:14

Thus, biblical theology presents a God who is not ethnocentric, but cosmocentric—whose love envelops the entire world.

---

5. Comparative Theological Analysis

Attribute	Jehovah (God of the Bible)	Allah (God of the Qur’an)
Nature of Love	Universal, unconditional	Selective, ethnically centered
Scope of Salvation	All humanity through Christ (John 3:16)	Only those who submit to Islam (Surah 3:85)
Impartiality	“No respect of persons” (Romans 2:11)	Prefers specific groups (e.g., Quraysh Arabs)
Mission	Global evangelization (Matthew 28:19)	Islamic expansion by submission or conquest
Relationship	Fatherly love and grace	Master-servant relationship

This comparative framework illustrates that the Biblical God is universal in scope, whereas Allah’s theological model is restrictive—defined by cultural, linguistic, and geographical limitations.

---

6. Theological Implications

The concept of divine impartiality is central to understanding God’s justice and love. A God who shows favoritism cannot be the moral and eternal standard of righteousness. The biblical narrative reveals that God’s desire is that “none should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Therefore, the exclusivity of Allah in the Qur’an presents a moral and theological contradiction to the universal benevolence revealed in Scripture. It confines divinity to an ethnocentric construct, undermining the universality of divine love and redemption.

---

7. Conclusion

The study concludes that Jehovah, the God of the Bible, stands as the only truly impartial and universally loving God. His redemptive plan through Jesus Christ is inclusive of all humanity, irrespective of ethnic origin or geographical boundary.

On the other hand, the Qur’anic Allah exhibits partiality, favoring specific peoples and religious adherents, thereby contradicting the very essence of divine justice and love.

Therefore, the Christian message remains urgent and universal:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” — Hebrews 13:8

Let us, then, fulfill the divine mandate to proclaim the Gospel to all nations until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

References

1. The Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV).

2. The Qur’an. Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:3); Surah Aal Imran (3:85).

3. Romans 2:11, Acts 10:34–35, John 3:16–17, Matthew 24:14, Hebrews 13:8, 2 Peter 3:9 – WordProject Bible Online.

4. Shimba, Max. Comparative Theology and the Abrahamic Faiths. Orlando: Shimba Theological Institute Press, 2022.

5. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961.

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

---

© 2016–2025 Max Shimba Ministries Org. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction permitted with acknowledgment and without alteration.

---

Jesus as the Living God: The Light of the World

A Scholarly Sermon from the Peshitta

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

The Peshitta, the ancient Syriac translation of the Holy Scriptures, preserves a unique theological witness to the identity of Yeshua (Jesus). In John 8:12, it records the Lord’s profound declaration:

“I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Light of the world. Whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness but shall find the light of life.”

This verse, when examined closely in the light of Semitic linguistics, Christological theology, and biblical context, affirms the full divinity of Jesus Christ. Unlike some modern translations that render the verse simply as “I am the light of the world”, the Peshitta retains a bold Christological assertion: “I AM THE LIVING GOD.” This is not a mere metaphor, but a declaration of divine ontology.

---

Exegetical Consideration of the Text

1. “I AM” – An Echo of Exodus 3:14

   • In the Septuagint, God’s self-revelation to Moses is recorded as “Ego eimi ho ōn” – “I AM the One who is.”

   • The Peshitta preserves this same divine title in Christ’s declaration. By stating “I AM THE LIVING GOD”, Jesus directly identifies Himself with the God of Israel, the eternal “I AM.”

   • This is a clear claim to divine self-existence (aseity), which belongs only to Yahweh.

2. “The Living God” – A Title of Yahweh

   • Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the title “the Living God” is applied exclusively to Yahweh (Deut. 5:26; Jer. 10:10; Dan. 6:26).

   • By adopting this title, Jesus not only identifies Himself as divine, but also as the covenantal God of Israel who acts, speaks, and gives life.

   • The Peshitta leaves no room for interpreting Jesus as a mere prophet or enlightened teacher. He stands as the very essence of the Living God.

3. “The Light of the World” – Cosmic and Redemptive Significance

   • Light in biblical theology represents both creation and revelation. God created light on the first day (Gen. 1:3), and He is Himself “light” (Ps. 27:1; 1 John 1:5).

   • In claiming to be “the Light of the world,” Jesus claims divine prerogative as the source of both physical and spiritual illumination.

   • This universal claim transcends Israel, showing that His divine light shines upon all nations, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy that the Servant of the Lord will be “a light to the Gentiles” (Isa. 49:6).

---

Theological Implications

1. Christology of the Peshitta

   • The Syriac text refuses to reduce Jesus to a moral guide or spiritual teacher.

   • The phrase “I AM THE LIVING GOD” situates Christ in the center of the divine identity. The Peshitta thereby contributes to Nicene orthodoxy centuries before formal councils debated the question.

2. Soteriological Dimensions

   • “Whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness but shall find the light of life.”

   • Salvation here is not merely deliverance from sin, but participation in divine life. To walk in Christ is to enter into the eternal light of God Himself.

   • This is a strong affirmation of theosis—the believer’s union with God through Christ.

3. Apologetic Force Against Unitarian and Islamic Christologies

   • While some traditions attempt to demote Jesus to prophet or moral teacher, the Peshitta preserves an explicit self-claim: Jesus is the Living God.

   • This makes the Peshitta an important text in Christian apologetics, especially in dialogues with Islam, where Jesus is denied divine status.

---

Pastoral Application

For the church today, this declaration means:

• Identity in Christ – We do not follow a dead prophet but the Living God who conquered death.

• Direction in Life – To walk with Christ is to be free from darkness: fear, sin, and ignorance.

• Mission to the World – As He is the Light of the world, we are called to reflect that light in our witness, embodying the divine presence in a darkened world.

---

Conclusion

The Peshitta’s rendering of John 8:12 is a theological gem, reminding us that Jesus Christ is not a mere man, not only a prophet, but the Living God Himself. His claim, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Light of the world”, unites Old Testament revelation with New Testament fulfillment, affirming that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is present and embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.

Therefore, the church must proclaim with boldness and conviction: Jesus Christ is the Living God, the Light that overcomes all darkness, and the source of eternal life.

---

📖 Soli Deo Gloria.

---

Divine Uncertainty in Qur’an 47:28: A Theological Inquiry into Allah’s “Installation”

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This article investigates the peculiar expression in Qur’an 47:28, where Allah is portrayed as “installing” or “setting” (imlāʾ) something within the disbelievers, which raises profound questions about divine certainty, omniscience, and intentionality in the Qur’anic text. The study employs comparative theological analysis, hermeneutical exegesis, and linguistic critique to uncover whether the verse implies divine uncertainty or a reactive, rather than sovereign, mode of action in Allah’s dealings with human beings.

---

1. Introduction: The Problem of Divine Intention in Qur’an 47:28

Qur’an 47:28 states:

“That is because they followed what angered Allah and disliked what pleased Him, so He made their deeds fruitless.”
(Qur’an 47:28, Sahih International)

However, several classical and modern translations also render key verbs in ways that suggest installation, deliberate placement, or allowance — terms which carry semantic connotations of gradual process, testing, or even hesitation. The Arabic phrase fa-ahbaṭa a‘mālahum (“so He made their deeds fruitless”) and related interpretive commentaries imply an intervention that occurs after observation, not by predetermined decree.

This raises critical theological questions:

• If Allah’s omniscience is perfect, why must He “install” or “set” reactions after observing human choices?

• Does this imply that Allah’s judgment is contingent upon unfolding events?

• How can an all-knowing deity “test” what He already knows with absolute certainty?

---

2. Linguistic and Exegetical Analysis of “Installation” (إملاء)

The Arabic term imlāʾ (from the root m-l-y) occurs in several Qur’anic passages (e.g., 3:178; 7:183), often translated as “granting respite,” “installing,” or “allowing delay.” This verb is sometimes used to describe Allah’s extended patience toward sinners before punishment.

Yet, the morphology of the word suggests process rather than finality. It depicts a deity who acts through stages, waiting, observing, and then implementing outcomes based on human response.

In classical tafsīr works (e.g., Tafsir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Qurtubi), scholars attempted to reconcile this with Allah’s omniscience by claiming that imlāʾ refers to divine testing (ibtilāʾ). However, testing presupposes uncertainty about the test’s result — a philosophical contradiction to omniscience.

This invites deeper inquiry:

• Why does Allah “grant time” or “install” disbelief rather than instantaneously decreeing it?

• Does imlāʾ reflect a temporal learning process within Allah’s actions?

• Can a timeless being operate within temporal delay?

---

3. Theological Implications: Is Allah Reactive or Proactive?

The Qur’an often portrays Allah as reacting to human behavior: rewarding faith, cursing disbelief, or altering decrees based on obedience (Qur’an 13:39; 8:53). In Qur’an 47:28, this reactive tendency is evident — Allah responds to their dislike of what pleases Him by nullifying their deeds.

In contrast, the Biblical God declares, “I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6) and “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). The Biblical framework depicts omniscience as an eternal constancy, not adaptive reaction.

Hence, the question arises:

• Does the Qur’an’s Allah act sequentially, responding to events as they occur?

• If so, can divine knowledge in Islam be truly eternal and unchanging?

• Does Allah’s “installation” of delay suggest dependence on human decision-making to complete His will?

---

4. The Problem of Divine Psychology: Is Allah Testing Himself?

If Allah’s “installation” implies that He must observe before judging, this introduces a divine cognitive process resembling human reasoning. This anthropomorphic depiction contradicts the classical Islamic doctrine of tanzīh (absolute transcendence), which asserts that Allah is beyond time, space, and human emotion.

Yet, Qur’an 47:28 and related verses describe Allah as being angered, pleased, or testing believers. Such human-like emotions raise theological tension:

• Can an immutable being become “angry” or “pleased”?

• Is Allah’s decision-making process an evolving response rather than a predetermined decree?

• If Allah installs disbelief or guidance progressively, is He learning from human actions?

---

5. Comparative Reflection: Divine Certainty in the Bible vs. Qur’an

In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, God’s foreknowledge precedes creation itself (Isaiah 46:10; Romans 8:29). There is no notion of divine installation or delay because God’s decrees are absolute, not observational.

By contrast, the Qur’anic Allah’s behavior appears inconsistent with omniscient sovereignty. He “tests” to know (Qur’an 47:31), “changes” decrees (Qur’an 13:39), and “installs” or “grants time” (Qur’an 47:28; 3:178).

Thus, the philosophical debate centers on whether the Qur’anic portrayal of Allah reflects epistemic limitation — an unfolding divine consciousness tied to time and human action — or whether these are merely metaphors misunderstood by interpreters.

---

6. Conclusion: A Call for Re-examining Qur’anic Theism

Qur’an 47:28 exposes deep theological ambiguity. The “installation” language challenges the coherence of Allah’s omniscience, sovereignty, and immutability. The Qur’an’s God appears to operate within temporal frameworks, responding to human choices rather than governing from eternal certainty.

This invites broader philosophical and theological questions:

• If Allah must install, test, or wait, can He be truly omniscient?

• Is the Qur’an’s deity engaged in temporal trial and error?

• Does this reveal an evolving concept of God in early Islamic theology?

• Or does it point to a fundamentally human authorship behind the Qur’an, reflecting psychological projection rather than divine omniscience?

---

References

1. The Qur’an, Surah 47:28, 3:178, 7:183, 13:39, 8:53, 47:31.

2. Al-Tabari, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān.

3. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān.

4. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-ʿAzim.

5. Cragg, Kenneth. The Event of the Qur’an: Islam in Its Scripture. Oxford University Press, 1971.

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

7. The Holy Bible (KJV): Malachi 3:6; Acts 15:18; Isaiah 46:10; Romans 8:29.

---

Title: A Scholarly Debate on Ishmael’s Lineage and the Ethnic Origins of Muhammad

 Title: A Scholarly Debate on Ishmael’s Lineage and the Ethnic Origins of Muhammad

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

The Islamic tradition holds that the Prophet Muhammad is a direct descendant of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. This genealogical claim is foundational to Islamic identity, as it connects Muhammad—and therefore Islam—to the Abrahamic covenantal line. However, when examined through both scriptural and historical lenses, this claim raises several inconsistencies. A critical question arises: if Ishmael’s mother was Egyptian and his wife was also Egyptian, does this not imply that his descendants—if traceable—would be African rather than Arabian?

This academic inquiry aims to provoke a theological and historical debate by juxtaposing the biblical narrative with Islamic claims. The purpose is not to diminish faith but to invite reasoned dialogue rooted in textual integrity and historical truth.

---

1. The Biblical Account: Ishmael’s African Connection

According to Genesis 16:1–12 and Genesis 21:9–21, Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was an Egyptian handmaiden of Sarah. Later, as Genesis 21:21 records, Hagar took a wife for Ishmael from the land of Egypt. This means Ishmael was the child of an Egyptian mother and married an Egyptian woman—making both his maternal and marital lines African in origin.

Rabbinic commentary in Genesis Rabbah 53:15 reinforces this by citing the proverb:

“Throw a stick into the air, and it will always fall on its end.”
In context, this saying means that Hagar, being Egyptian, naturally chose an Egyptian wife for her son.

Thus, if Ishmael’s lineage continued biologically, his offspring would have carried Egyptian (African) blood.

---

2. The Islamic Claim: Muhammad as a Descendant of Ishmael

Islamic tradition asserts that Muhammad descended from Ishmael through his son Kedar (Qidar). This claim, however, lacks direct historical documentation before Islam emerged in the 7th century CE. There exists no continuous genealogical record linking Ishmael to Muhammad. The genealogy is largely retrospective—constructed after Muhammad’s lifetime to affirm his prophetic legitimacy within the Abrahamic line.

Critical Questions:

1. Where is the documented genealogical chain from Ishmael to Muhammad found before the 7th century?

2. How can Ishmael’s African lineage be reconciled with the claim that Muhammad was purely Arab?

3. If Arabs claim descent from Ishmael, does this not also imply that they share African ancestry through Hagar?

4. Why do many Muslims reject any notion that Muhammad could have had African blood when their own tradition connects Ishmael to Egypt?

---

3. Historical and Ethnological Analysis

The term Egyptian in the biblical sense refers to people of North African descent, part of the Hamitic line (Genesis 10:6). Therefore, Ishmael’s genealogy is partly Hamitic through Hagar and his Egyptian wife, and partly Semitic through Abraham. Any claim of pure Semitic descent through Ishmael ignores this dual heritage.

Furthermore, ancient Arab tribes such as the Qedarites were nomadic groups in northwestern Arabia, but their ethnic composition was not uniform. Archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests significant African influence and intermarriage in those regions.

If we accept the Islamic claim that Muhammad descended from Ishmael, logic dictates that Muhammad’s ancestry was at least partially African. Yet, this conclusion is often rejected in Islamic discourse, revealing a contradiction between faith-based genealogy and ethnological reality.

---

4. The Debate: A Call for Consistency

Muslims must face one of two possibilities:

1. If Muhammad is indeed a descendant of Ishmael, then by scriptural and historical reasoning, he carried African (Egyptian) blood.

2. If Muhammad was not African, then the claim that he descended from Ishmael collapses, since Ishmael’s lineage is inextricably tied to Egypt.

Therefore, the question remains:

“Can Islam uphold Muhammad’s Ishmaelite heritage without acknowledging his African ancestry?”

If not, then perhaps the genealogical claim itself was theological rather than historical—a symbolic link to Abraham to grant Muhammad prophetic legitimacy.

---

5. Scholarly Conclusion

This debate exposes a fundamental tension in Islamic historiography: the desire to connect Muhammad to Abraham through Ishmael, while distancing him from Africa through Hagar.
But the biblical record is unambiguous—Hagar and Ishmael’s line began in Egypt.

Hence, the argument concludes:

• Either Muhammad was an African by descent through Ishmael,

• Or he had no genealogical connection to Ishmael at all.

Until verifiable historical evidence bridges this 2,500-year genealogical gap, the claim remains a theological assertion rather than a historical fact.

---

Final Provocative Question:
If Islam insists on an Abrahamic lineage through Ishmael, will it also embrace the African heritage inherent in that lineage—or continue to deny it in pursuit of an Arabized identity?

---

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Orlando, Florida, USA

The Holy Spirit as Parakletos: Our Divine Helper

The Holy Spirit as Parakletos: Our Divine Helper

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God (Titus 2:13)

---

1. Introduction

The term Parakletos—translated as “Comforter,” “Counselor,” or “Helper”—is a profound Greek word that encapsulates the multifaceted ministry of the Holy Spirit. Biblical references such as Isaiah 11:2 and John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7 all point to this divine function. The term “Paraclete,” derived from parakletos, refers to the Holy Spirit as the One called alongside believers to assist, comfort, and guide them in their Christian journey.

When Jesus was about to depart from the world, His disciples were deeply troubled, fearing the loss of His comforting presence. Yet, He promised to send another Helper—the Holy Spirit—who would dwell with them and within them, assuring them of divine companionship and spiritual strength. The Holy Spirit also “bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children,” thus affirming our salvation (Romans 8:16).

---

2. The Promise of the Helper (John 14:14–17)

Before His departure, Jesus introduced the Holy Spirit to His disciples through a series of profound teachings that reveal the Spirit’s divine nature and purpose:

“If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.
If you love Me, keep My commandments.
And I will pray to the Father, and He shall give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever;
even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.
But you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.”
— John 14:14–17 (NKJV)

This passage encapsulates the heart of Jesus’ promise: the enduring presence of the Holy Spirit as the continuing manifestation of divine guidance and truth. The “Helper” (Parakletos) is both a personal and active agent of God’s will within believers.

---

3. Theological Analysis of the Term Parakletos

The Greek word parakletos carries multiple layers of meaning—Advocate, Comforter, Counselor, and Intercessor. Scholars have explored its historical and religious origins across various traditions, including Jewish, Qumranic, and Mandaean literature. While linguistic studies reveal its antiquity, the Christian concept of Parakletos represents a new revelation: the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God as the believer’s divine Companion.

In the New Testament context, the Holy Spirit is depicted as a Shepherd (Job 33:23), an Advocate (1 John 2:1), and an active Helper guiding believers after Christ’s physical departure. Although Jesus would soon be absent in body, through the Spirit, His followers continue to experience His presence. Unlike “the world,” which neither perceives nor understands the Spirit, true believers discern this indwelling reality through intimate relationship and obedience.

---

4. Obedience as the Expression of Love

A recurring theme in John’s writings is that love for Christ must manifest in obedience. Jesus declares, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Love is not an abstract sentiment but an active demonstration of faith through adherence to His teachings (1 John 2:7–11). Genuine discipleship is thus inseparable from obedience, for one cannot claim to love Christ while disregarding His word.

As the narrative of John 14 progresses toward Jesus’ impending crucifixion, the contrast between light and darkness intensifies. The obedience of the Son to the Father’s will—culminating in the Cross—becomes the ultimate model for believers. Through this act of divine submission, Jesus fulfills the Father’s redemptive plan, and the Spirit continues this work within the hearts of believers.

---

5. The Attributes and Ministry of the Holy Spirit

The Scriptures present a rich and comprehensive theology of the Holy Spirit’s personhood and work:

1. Parakletos – The Comforter, the One who is with us (John 14:16, 26; 15:26)

2. Knows the deep thoughts of God (1 Corinthians 2:10–11)

3. Speaks to believers (Acts 13:2; Hebrews 3:7)

4. Teaches and enlightens (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:13)

5. Acts as a spiritual Parent, ensuring we are not orphans (John 14:18)

6. Guides into all truth (John 16:13)

7. Dwells within believers (1 Corinthians 3:16; Romans 8:9, 11; Ephesians 2:22)

8. Intercedes for us in prayer (Romans 8:26–27)

9. Can be grieved or insulted (Ephesians 4:30; Hebrews 10:29)

10. Testifies of Christ (John 15:26)

11. Possesses intellect and emotion (Romans 8:27; 15:30)

12. Makes divine decisions (1 Corinthians 12:11)

13. Searches the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:9–10)

14. Groans and cares deeply for believers (Romans 8:26)

These attributes demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force but a divine Person possessing will, intellect, and emotion. He is actively involved in the sanctification, empowerment, and preservation of believers.

---

6. Conclusion

The Holy Spirit, as Parakletos, remains the believer’s perpetual Companion, guiding, comforting, and empowering the Church throughout the ages. His presence ensures that the absence of Christ’s physical body does not mean spiritual abandonment. Through Him, the divine relationship continues in vitality and intimacy.

The Spirit searches the deep things of God, intercedes for humanity, and leads believers into the fullness of truth. Thus, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is central to Christian theology, worship, and life—affirming that God’s presence is not distant, but eternally near.

---

Shalom,
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Servant of Jesus Christ, Our Great God (Titus 2:13)

---

THE FIRST CHRISTMAS WAS CELEBRATED BY ANGELS

THE FIRST CHRISTMAS WAS CELEBRATED BY ANGELS

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Servant of Jesus Christ, the Great God (Titus 2:13)
Originally written on Tuesday, December 25, 2018

---

Abstract

This article examines the biblical origin and theological foundation of Christmas as first celebrated by the angels at the birth of Jesus Christ. Drawing upon Luke 2:8–15, it argues that the heavenly hosts were the inaugural participants in the worship of the incarnate Christ, thereby legitimizing human celebration of Christ’s birth as both holy and divinely approved.

---

1. Introduction

It is crucial for every believer to understand that the very first celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ—what we now call Christmas—was not initiated by human beings, but by the holy angels of God. The Gospel according to Luke provides a vivid record of this divine event.

---

2. The Angelic Celebration of Christ’s Birth

The Gospel of Luke 2:8–15 recounts:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not: for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.’” (Luke 2:8–14, KJV)

The appearance of the angelic host, glorifying God at the birth of Jesus, represents the first divine celebration of Christ’s nativity. This event marks the origin of Christmas worship, carried out in heaven before it was ever observed on earth.

---

3. Theological Implications of Angelic Worship

If the holy angels of God rejoiced and praised Him for the birth of Jesus, it cannot be considered sinful for believers to commemorate the same event. The angelic proclamation of “good news of great joy for all people” (Luke 2:10) affirms that this celebration is meant to be universal. The joy expressed by the angels signifies divine approval and sanctity of the occasion.

Therefore, any person who rejoices at the birth of Jesus aligns with the heavenly hosts. The refusal to celebrate or find joy in Christ’s birth might symbolically indicate spiritual alienation from the divine, for even demons cannot rejoice at the coming of Christ, since His incarnation stripped them of power over humanity (cf. 1 John 3:8).

---

4. The Meaning of Christmas

The term Christmas derives from two words: Christ and Mass. The union of these terms—Christ-Mass—literally means the worship of Christ. Hence, Christmas is fundamentally an act of worship directed toward the incarnate Son of God.

This worship began officially when Jesus was born, as the angels conducted the first Mass of Christ (Luke 2:13). Their praises to God marked the first earthly worship service dedicated to the Messiah. Consequently, when believers celebrate Christmas, they are not engaging in a secular tradition but in a sacred continuation of angelic worship.

---

5. Conclusion

The celebration of Christ’s birth is, therefore, not a human invention but a heavenly precedent. To commemorate Christmas is to participate in a sacred act first modeled by the angels themselves. Since what the angels of God performed was holy, it follows that when humanity celebrates the birth of Jesus, they too perform a holy act pleasing to God.

Thus, the true essence of Christmas is divine worship — glorifying God for the gift of salvation through the incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ.

---

Bibliography

• The Holy Bible, Luke 2:8–15.

• Titus 2:13 – “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

• Shimba, Maxwell. The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels. Shimba Theological Institute, 2018.

---

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

---

The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels

The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute, Orlando, Florida, USA

---

Abstract

This article explores the biblical and theological foundation of Christmas as first celebrated by the angels at the birth of Jesus Christ. Drawing upon Luke 2:8–15, it contends that the heavenly hosts were the original worshipers of Christ’s incarnation, thereby providing divine precedent for human celebration of Christmas. Through exegetical and doctrinal analysis, the study argues that angelic worship of the newborn Christ validates Christmas as a sacred and God-approved commemoration.

Keywords: Christmas, angels, incarnation, worship, theology, Luke 2:8–15

---

1. Introduction

The celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, commonly known as Christmas, is one of the most significant events in Christian tradition. However, few realize that this celebration was first conducted not by human beings but by the angels of heaven. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angels of God were the first to proclaim and glorify God for the birth of Christ. This theological truth establishes that Christmas, at its core, is an act of divine worship rather than a mere human invention.

---

2. The Angelic Celebration of Christ’s Birth

The biblical foundation for the angelic celebration is found in Luke 2:8–15:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.’” (Luke 2:8–14, KJV)

This passage marks the first divine worship service conducted on earth. The angels, rejoicing and praising God for the incarnation of His Son, established the original Mass of Christ—from which the term Christmas is derived. The angelic chorus was therefore the first Christmas celebration in history.

---

3. Theological Implications of Angelic Worship

The angelic proclamation signifies more than heavenly rejoicing; it represents divine approval of Christ’s birth as a universal event of joy. The message declared by the angel—“good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people”—underscores the universality of salvation through Christ. Thus, celebrating the birth of Jesus is not merely permissible; it is theologically mandated by heaven’s own example.

The angels’ worship validates Christmas as a sacred act of adoration directed toward the incarnate Son of God. As the angels glorified God, believers are likewise called to rejoice in the gift of salvation manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. To reject or neglect this celebration is to ignore the joy proclaimed by the heavenly hosts.

Furthermore, spiritual beings opposed to God cannot rejoice in the incarnation, for the coming of Christ signifies the defeat of demonic power. The Apostle John confirms: “The Son of God appeared for this purpose—to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8, NASB). Therefore, joy at the birth of Christ is a distinguishing mark of divine alignment and faithfulness.

---

4. The Meaning and Etymology of Christmas

The word Christmas originates from the combination of Christ and Mass. The term Mass refers to the Eucharistic celebration or worship in the Christian tradition. Hence, Christ-Mass literally means “the worship of Christ.”

According to Luke 2:13–14, the angels’ act of praising God at the birth of Jesus constitutes the first Mass or act of worship dedicated to Christ. This divine origin of worship establishes Christmas as an inherently sacred observance. Consequently, every believer who celebrates Christmas partakes in a worshipful tradition inaugurated by heaven itself.

---

5. Conclusion

The birth of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the angels, making Christmas an event of divine initiative. The angels’ act of praise in Luke 2:8–15 represents the original and pure form of Christmas worship. Therefore, when humanity celebrates Christmas, it participates in a heavenly tradition that glorifies God and honors the incarnation of His Son.

What the angels of God performed was holy; thus, when believers commemorate the same, they engage in a holy act pleasing to the Creator. The true essence of Christmas lies in worship—adoring God for His indescribable gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.

---

References

The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611). Luke 2:8–15; 1 John 3:8.

Shimba, M. (2018, December 25). Krisimasi ya Kwanza Ilifanywa na Malaika [The First Christmas Was Celebrated by Angels]. Shimba Theological Institute.

Titus 2:13 — “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

---

Correspondence:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Orlando, Florida, USA
Email: [contact@shimbatheological.org] (optional placeholder)

---

JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba – Shimba Theological Institute
(Originally written August 15, 2015)

Introduction

One of the most persistent questions raised by Muslim scholars and believers concerns the Christian confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Muslims often ask:

1. How can Jesus be the Son of God?

2. How can God have a Son without a wife?

These questions reveal a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of divine sonship. The phrase “Son of God” does not imply a biological relationship or a physical act of procreation, as understood in human terms. Instead, it signifies a profound theological and spiritual truth rooted in divine revelation.

---

1. How Is Jesus the Son of God?

Jesus Christ is not the Son of God through human parentage or natural generation. God did not marry or engage in a physical relationship with Mary to produce a son. The Bible clearly rejects any notion of divine-human sexual union. Rather, Jesus’ sonship expresses God’s self-revelation in human form.

As the Gospel of John affirms:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1, 14).

Thus, the title “Son of God” emphasizes that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh—the visible image of the invisible God.

---

2. How Can God Have a Son Without a Wife?

This question presupposes a human and material understanding of divine sonship. According to Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel explained the mystery of Christ’s conception to Mary:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

Here, the Scripture explicitly states that Jesus’ conception was by the Holy Spirit, not through human means. The divine power of the Holy Spirit, who is God, brought about the incarnation of the Son. Therefore, Jesus is called the Son of God because His origin is divine.

Mary was told that the holy child she would bear would be called “the Son of God”—not because of a biological act, but because of the supernatural act of divine creation within her womb.

---

3. Jesus Affirms His Sonship Before the High Priest

During His trial before the Jewish High Priest, Jesus was directly questioned about His divine identity:

“The high priest said to Him, ‘I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus replied, ‘You have said it yourself; but I tell 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 26:63–64).

In this passage, Jesus did not deny being the Son of God. His response, instead, confirmed it. The Jewish leaders understood this as a claim to divinity and accused Him of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65–66).

---

4. The Jewish Acknowledgment of Jesus’ Claim

When Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate, the Jewish leaders declared:

“We have a law, and according to that law He must die because He claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7).

This verse is significant because it demonstrates that even the Jewish accusers recognized that Jesus claimed divine sonship. Their accusation of blasphemy arose precisely because they understood “Son of God” to mean “equal with God.”

In Jewish thought, to call oneself the Son of God was to claim oneness in nature and essence with God Himself—a claim intolerable to those who rejected His divinity.

The writer of Hebrews affirms this same truth:

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3).

Thus, Jesus’ title as the Son of God expresses His divine essence, eternal relationship with the Father, and His participation in divine glory.

---

5. The Meaning of “Son” as Manifestation, Not Biology

In Scripture, the term “son” is sometimes used metaphorically to describe character or nature rather than literal descent. For example, in John 17:12, Judas Iscariot is called “the son of perdition,” not because perdition gave birth to him, but because he embodied destruction.

Similarly, Jesus as the Son of God means He manifests God’s nature and essence. He is God revealing Himself in human form—divine truth made visible to humankind.

---

Conclusion

This theological exploration clarifies that the Christian confession—“Jesus is the Son of God”—does not imply physical generation but expresses divine revelation and incarnation. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and acknowledged even by His accusers as claiming equality with God.

Therefore, the question that Muslims frequently raise—“How can God have a Son?”—finds its answer in Scripture:
God’s Sonship is not biological but spiritual and ontological. It reveals the mystery of God’s love, self-expression, and redemption through Jesus Christ.

Truly, Jesus is the Son of God.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)

• John 1:1, 14

• Luke 1:35

• Matthew 26:63–66

• John 19:7

• Hebrews 1:3

• John 17:12

• 1 Chronicles 24:15 (referenced in context)

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder, Shimba Theological Institute
Max Shimba Ministries
August 15, 2015

---

IF JESUS WAS GOD, THEN TO WHOM WAS HE PRAYING?

 IF JESUS WAS GOD, THEN TO WHOM WAS HE PRAYING?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute
(Originally written: August 17, 2015 – Revised and Arranged Academically and Scholarly)

---

Abstract

The question of Jesus’ divinity and His act of prayer to the Father has been a theological point of contention across various religious traditions. Critics—especially from Islamic scholarship and Jehovah’s Witnesses—often question how Jesus could be God while simultaneously praying to another being. This paper provides a systematic theological exposition to clarify the biblical and doctrinal understanding of Jesus’ dual nature as both fully God and fully man, and explains the theological significance of His prayers within the framework of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

---

1. Introduction

The inquiry, “If Jesus was God, then whom was He praying to?” has perplexed many believers and critics alike. This question often arises in interfaith dialogues, particularly with Muslim scholars and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who argue that Jesus’ prayer life contradicts His divinity. For instance, they refer to Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46) as evidence that He could not be divine if He prayed to another.

However, such reasoning fails to consider the Christian theological understanding of the Incarnation—that Jesus Christ possessed two natures: divine and human. Therefore, this discussion must be approached with a sound grasp of the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, where Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man.

---

2. The Eternal Relationship Between the Father and the Son

Before the Incarnation, the relationship between God the Father and God the Son was eternal. Scripture attests to this eternal coexistence (John 1:1–3; 17:5). Isaiah 9:6 prophetically declares:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given…”

The Son was not created; He was given—eternally existent within the Godhead. This Son, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forms the Trinity—one God in three coequal and coeternal Persons. The Trinity does not imply three gods, but one divine essence shared among three distinct Persons (Matthew 28:19; John 10:30).

Jesus affirmed this unity when He declared, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). This oneness denotes unity of essence, not identity of personhood. Thus, when Jesus prayed, He was not praying to Himself, but communicating within the eternal fellowship of the Godhead—a relational act between divine Persons, not a contradiction of divinity.

---

3. The Dual Nature of Christ: Divine and Human

The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5–11). When the Word became flesh, He did not cease to be God; rather, He voluntarily set aside His heavenly glory to assume human nature. Paul explains this beautifully in Philippians 2:7–8:

“He made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

As a man, Jesus experienced the full range of human limitations—hunger, fatigue, pain, and even the need for prayer. His prayers were the natural expression of His human dependence upon the Father. As God, He remained omnipotent; as man, He modeled perfect obedience and humility.

---

4. The Purpose and Meaning of Jesus’ Prayers

In His earthly ministry, Jesus frequently withdrew to pray (Mark 1:35; Luke 6:12). His prayers were not signs of weakness or ignorance but manifestations of His humanity and obedience to the Father’s redemptive plan (Hebrews 5:8).

In John 17—the “High Priestly Prayer”—Jesus prays for the glorification of the Father and the sanctification of His disciples. This prayer reveals deep relational intimacy within the Trinity, not subordination in essence.

By praying, Jesus demonstrated:

1. Dependence in Humanity – He relied on the Father’s will and strength as the perfect man.

2. Submission in Obedience – He aligned His human will to the divine plan of salvation (Matthew 26:39).

3. Exemplary Devotion – He provided a model of prayerful life for all believers, underscoring total reliance on God (John 11:41–42).

Thus, Jesus’ prayers affirm—not deny—His divine mission and perfect obedience as the incarnate Son.

---

5. Theological Implications of the Incarnation and Prayer

The act of Jesus praying does not diminish His divinity. Rather, it illuminates the mystery of the Incarnation, wherein God entered human experience without surrendering His divine nature. His prayer in Gethsemane, “Not My will, but Yours be done,” (Luke 22:42) epitomizes the alignment of His human will with divine will, not a conflict between two deities.

Through His prayers, Christ exemplified perfect communion between God and humanity, achieving the reconciliation of mankind through the cross (2 Corinthians 5:19). His resurrection validated His divine authority and fulfilled His redemptive purpose (Romans 1:4).

---

6. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no theological contradiction in Jesus, the Son of God, praying to the Father. Within the unity of the Trinity, communication and relationship exist eternally. As man, Jesus prayed to the Father for strength, wisdom, and guidance; as God, He revealed the perfect model of obedience and faithfulness.

Jesus’ dual nature allows us to understand His prayers not as evidence against His divinity, but as demonstrations of His redemptive mission and relational unity within the Godhead. Indeed, Jesus Christ is God—eternal, incarnate, crucified, and risen.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).

• Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1–14; John 10:30; John 17; Philippians 2:5–11; Hebrews 5:8; Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 1:35; Luke 6:12; Romans 1:4; 2 Corinthians 5:19.

• Augustine, On the Trinity. Trans. Arthur West Haddan. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3.

• Athanasius, On the Incarnation. Trans. John Behr. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.

• Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan, 1994.

• Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Academic, 2013.

• Shimba, Maxwell. The Two Natures of Jesus Christ. Shimba Theological Institute Publications, 2015.

---

Author:
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Founder and President, Shimba Theological Institute
Orlando, Florida, USA
Contact: maxshimbaministries@gmail.com

---