Where in the Qur’an does it explicitly state that Muhammad is a son or direct descendant of Abraham, or where Abraham himself declares Muhammad as his descendant?

 Professional, Text-Based Analysis

Question: Where in the Qur’an does it explicitly state that Muhammad is a son or direct descendant of Abraham, or where Abraham himself declares Muhammad as his descendant?

Answer:
There is no verse in the Qur’an in which Abraham explicitly names Muhammad as his son or descendant, nor any verse where Muhammad is directly identified as Abraham’s biological offspring.

What the Qur’an does affirm is Abraham’s lineage through Ishmael, and it places Muhammad within the broader Abrahamic tradition, not through an explicit genealogical statement.

Key Qur’anic Passages Commonly Cited

1. Abraham and Ishmael

   • “And We gave him Isaac and Jacob, and guided them; and Noah We guided before; and among his descendants, David, Solomon… and Ishmael…”
     (Qur’an 6:84–86)

   Ishmael is clearly identified as Abraham’s son. Muhammad is not mentioned here or elsewhere as Abraham’s son.

2. Prayer of Abraham and Ishmael

   • “Our Lord, raise among them a messenger from among themselves who will recite to them Your verses…”
     (Qur’an 2:129)

   This verse is interpreted by later Islamic tradition as a reference to Muhammad, but:

   • Muhammad is not named

   • No biological lineage is stated

   • The connection is interpretive, not explicit

3. Religion of Abraham

   • “Then We revealed to you [Muhammad]: Follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth.”
     (Qur’an 16:123)

   This establishes theological continuity, not biological descent.

4. Muhammad Identified by His Immediate Lineage

   • “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah…”
     (Qur’an 33:40)

   Notably, the Qur’an never traces Muhammad’s genealogy back to Abraham, despite doing so for other prophets.

Scholarly Conclusion

• The Qur’an does not explicitly state that Muhammad is a son or direct descendant of Abraham.

• Abraham never declares Muhammad as his descendant in the Qur’anic text.

• The claim that Muhammad descends from Abraham comes from later Islamic historiography and tradition, not from a clear Qur’anic assertion.

• The Qur’an connects Muhammad to Abraham theologically, not genealogically.

In summary:
Any assertion that the Qur’an plainly teaches that Muhammad is a direct descendant of Abraham goes beyond the explicit wording of the Qur’an and relies on post-Qur’anic tradition rather than direct textual evidence.

Is the Qur’an Allah? Is the Qur’an identical to Allah, or distinct from Allah?

 Is the Qur’an Allah?

Eternity, Createdness, and the Problem of Monotheism in Islamic Theology
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

One of the most persistent and unresolved theological tensions within Islam concerns the nature of the Qur'an. Classical Islamic theology is divided over whether the Qur’an is created or uncreated. This article argues that both positions generate serious philosophical and theological problems for Islamic monotheism (tawḥīd). If the Qur’an is created, it cannot be the eternal speech of Allah. If it is uncreated and eternal, then Islam appears to affirm two eternal realities, raising fundamental questions about whether Islam consistently maintains monotheism while simultaneously rejecting the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

---

1. The Central Question: What Is the Qur’an?

Islam universally affirms that the Qur’an is the kalām Allāh—the speech of Allah. However, Islamic theology has never reached consensus on how this speech exists in relation to Allah Himself. The dilemma can be framed simply:

• Is the Qur’an created in time, or

• Is the Qur’an uncreated and eternal?

This question is not peripheral. It strikes at the heart of divine ontology, revelation, and the coherence of Islamic monotheism.

---

2. The Created Qur’an: A Finite Revelation?

The Muʿtazilite school famously argued that the Qur’an is created. Their motivation was to preserve absolute divine unity and avoid positing anything eternal alongside Allah.

However, this position generates severe consequences:

1. Denial of Eternal Speech
   If the Qur’an is created, then Allah’s speech is not eternal. This implies that Allah was once without speech, contradicting the Islamic claim that divine attributes are eternal.

2. Undermining Divine Perfection
   Speech is not an accidental attribute but an essential expression of intellect and will. A God who acquires speech in time is, by definition, mutable—an attribute incompatible with classical theism.

3. Theological Instability
   If the Qur’an is created, then it becomes a contingent object, subject to historical conditions. This weakens claims of its absolute, timeless authority.

Thus, in attempting to protect monotheism, the “created Qur’an” position undermines divine immutability and perfection.

---

3. The Uncreated Qur’an: Two Eternals?

The dominant Sunni position holds that the Qur’an is uncreated, eternal, and subsisting with Allah. This view avoids the problems of mutability but introduces a far deeper contradiction.

If the Qur’an is:

• Eternal

• Uncreated

• Distinct from creation

then the following dilemma arises:

Is the Qur’an identical to Allah, or distinct from Allah?

3.1 If Identical to Allah

If the Qur’an is Allah, then Muslims effectively identify a book, words, sounds, and letters with God Himself. This is theologically incoherent and borders on bibliolatry.

3.2 If Distinct from Allah

If the Qur’an is not Allah, yet eternal and uncreated, then Islam affirms two eternal realities:

1. Allah

2. The Qur’an

This violates the very principle of tawḥīd Islam claims to defend. Monotheism, by definition, does not permit multiple uncreated eternals.

---

4. The Trinity Objection Reconsidered

Islam frequently rejects the Christian Trinity on the grounds that it compromises divine unity. Yet Christianity does not teach three gods, but one God with eternally existing personal distinctions.

Ironically, classical Sunni Islam affirms:

• One God (Allah)

• An uncreated, eternal speech (the Qur’an)

• Multiple eternal divine attributes without personal distinction

The question then becomes unavoidable:

How can Islam accuse Christianity of polytheism while affirming an eternal reality alongside Allah that is not Allah?

At minimum, Islam faces the same metaphysical complexity it condemns—without the philosophical clarity Christianity provides through Trinitarian ontology.

---

5. Philosophical Implications

From a philosophical standpoint, Islam is caught in a false dilemma:

• Created Qur’an → God is mutable and not eternally speaking

• Uncreated Qur’an → Two eternals, undermining monotheism

Both options compromise either:

• Divine perfection, or

• Divine unity

There is no third coherent alternative within Islamic theology.

---

6. Conclusion

The question “Is the Qur’an Allah?” is not rhetorical—it is unavoidable. Islamic theology cannot coherently maintain that the Qur’an is eternal, uncreated, and yet not divine without collapsing into contradiction.

Thus, Islam faces a fundamental challenge:

How can Islam consistently claim monotheism if both Allah and the Qur’an are eternal and uncreated?

Until this dilemma is resolved, Islamic claims of theological simplicity and superior monotheism remain philosophically and logically unsubstantiated.

---

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The Angelic Guardianship in Psalm 91:11: A Scholarly and Inspirational Exploration

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

Psalm 91:11 declares: “For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.” This verse offers profound theological insight into divine protection, angelology, and the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human security. The promise of angelic guardianship has inspired believers across generations, assuring them of divine intervention in the face of life’s uncertainties. This article examines Psalm 91:11 through biblical, theological, and historical lenses, offering a scholarly interpretation that maintains its inspirational essence.

---

I. Introduction: The Context of Psalm 91

Psalm 91 is often regarded as the “Psalm of Protection,” cherished by both Jewish and Christian traditions for its assurances of safety under divine care. The psalm emphasizes God’s role as refuge and fortress (Ps. 91:2), offering comfort to those who trust in Him. Verse 11 specifically introduces the ministry of angels as mediators of God’s protective power, underscoring their role within the divine economy of salvation.

Scholars have noted that Psalm 91 was likely used liturgically during times of danger, possibly for soldiers or pilgrims seeking divine assurance before embarking on hazardous journeys.¹ Its relevance extends to contemporary believers who interpret its promises spiritually and existentially.

---

II. The Angelic Charge: Exegesis of Psalm 91:11

The Hebrew phrase כִּ֤י מַלְאָכָ֨יו֙ יְצַוֶּה־לָּ֔ךְ (“For He shall give His angels charge over you”) conveys divine commissioning. The verb צָוָה (tsavah) denotes authoritative command, highlighting that angels act not independently, but under God’s direct orders.²

The term mal’akim (“messengers” or “angels”) suggests beings created for service (cf. Heb. 1:14), whose role is to guard (shamar) God’s people in “all your ways”—a phrase encompassing both physical and spiritual pathways. The promise thus transcends mere physical safety, encompassing divine guidance in moral and spiritual decisions.

---

III. Angelology in Biblical Theology

The concept of angels as protectors finds consistent support throughout Scripture. In Exodus 23:20, God promises to send an angel to guard Israel on their journey. Similarly, Psalm 34:7 proclaims, “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them.” This reinforces the notion of angelic guardianship as both protective and redemptive.

The New Testament further affirms this ministry. In Hebrews 1:14, angels are described as “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation.” Jesus Himself acknowledges angelic activity in Matthew 18:10, indicating that “their angels” behold the face of the Father, suggesting a divine assignment of angelic guardianship over believers.

---

IV. Historical and Theological Interpretations

The Church Fathers frequently commented on Psalm 91:11. Augustine viewed the angels as expressions of God’s providential care, sent to guide believers toward salvation rather than merely to protect from physical harm.³ Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, developed the doctrine of guardian angels, assigning each believer a personal angel as a reflection of divine love.⁴

In Reformation thought, Martin Luther emphasized the comfort provided by angelic guardianship, remarking that angels serve as “our daily protectors in both body and soul.”⁵ Contemporary evangelical commentators also stress the pastoral significance of this verse, urging believers to recognize angelic protection as evidence of God’s active involvement in human affairs.⁶

---

V. Practical and Inspirational Application

For the believer, Psalm 91:11 offers a theological assurance that transcends fear and uncertainty. Life’s challenges—illness, conflict, or spiritual attack—are not faced alone but under divine surveillance. Angels, though unseen, constitute a heavenly army commissioned for protection.

This truth inspires confidence in God’s sovereignty and instills courage in daily living. As Charles Spurgeon remarked, “He who has the angels for his guards is well attended.”⁷ Thus, the verse encourages believers to walk boldly in faith, knowing that divine guardianship is both a spiritual and existential reality.

---

VI. Conclusion

Psalm 91:11 encapsulates the mystery of divine providence through angelic mediation. While the modern world often dismisses angelic activity as myth, Scripture and Christian tradition affirm their role as protectors under God’s authority. This truth remains both academically significant and spiritually inspirational, offering assurance to believers that their lives are under God’s careful and sovereign watch.

---

References

---

Would you like me to make this article more devotional in tone while keeping it scholarly (similar to a theological journal for pastors), or keep it strictly academic with technical exegesis and historical commentary?

Footnotes

1. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 19. Waco: Word Books, 1983. ↩

2. Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, Charles A. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. ↩

3. Augustine. Expositions on the Psalms. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. ↩

4. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros., 1947. ↩

5. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol. 13. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956. ↩

6. Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: IVP, 1975. ↩

7. Spurgeon, Charles H. The Treasury of David. Vol. 2. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988. ↩

 

Rebecca, Sarah, and the “Child-Bride” Argument: a careful textual and historical rebuttal

By Dr Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract. Some modern apologists (including a number of Muslim polemicists) have argued that the Hebrew Bible presents Rebecca (Rivkah) as a child bride — allegedly born only after Sarah’s death and thus only a few years old when Isaac married her — and they use that reading to defend or relativize early marriage in other traditions. This article examines the biblical text, the traditional Jewish chronological reconstructions, and the logic of the claim. I show that the biblical narrative does not support the assertion that Rebecca was a toddler at marriage; the claim depends on speculative chronological squeezes or selective readings of post-biblical traditions and therefore fails as an historical or hermeneutical defense of child marriage.

---

1. The plain biblical facts (what the text actually says)

Three simple, directly stated data points in Genesis are central:

• Sarah’s death and age are explicitly recorded: “Sarah lived 127 years; these were the years of Sarah’s life. And Sarah died in Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.” (Gen. 23). (Bible Gateway)

• The narrative describing the finding and bringing of Rebecca as Isaac’s wife is Gen. 24; Rebecca is portrayed performing adult tasks (drawing water, speaking decisively, accompanying the servant with her maidens), and the servant treats her as marriageable. (Bible Gateway)

• The text gives Isaac’s age at marriage: “And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to be his wife.” (Gen. 25:20). (Bible Gateway)

Taken together, the canonical narrative nowhere records Rebecca’s year of birth. The text depicts Rebecca as a fully capable young woman at the time she meets Abraham’s servant (she draws water for camels, speaks, acts with agency, and travels with her maids), and it explicitly states Isaac’s age at marriage. The silence of the text about Rebecca’s precise birth year is crucial: it means any numeric claim about her being an infant or toddler at marriage must come from inference or from later tradition, not from the biblical narrative itself. (Bible Gateway)

---

2. Where the “3-year” claim comes from (tradition and arithmetic)

The claim that Rebecca was three (or very young) when she married Isaac originates not in Genesis itself but in later chronological reconstructions and some medieval rabbinic readings. Certain rabbinic sources (and later compilers who tried to make a continuous chronology) place events in ways that can produce a small numeric gap between Sarah’s death and Isaac’s marriage; some medieval commentators record traditions that lead to very young ages for Rebecca. Notably, Rashi and some midrashic strands are sometimes cited in discussions about Rebecca’s age. But these are interpretations or chronologies layered upon the text, not explicit biblical statements. (Wikipedia)

Two methodological cautions:

1. Chronological compression. The patriarchal narratives are episodic; many years may pass between narrated scenes (the biblical narrator regularly telescopes time). Inferring precise birth years from such telescoped narratives is risky. (Bible Gateway)

2. Variety of traditions. Different Jewish traditions give different ages for Rebecca (reports range widely — medieval sources themselves disagree), which shows the lack of a single authoritative ancient numerical tradition. (Wikipedia)

---

3. Textual (narrative) reasons why Rebecca could not plausibly be a toddler

Beyond the absence of an explicit birth year, the narrative contains elements incompatible with Rebecca being an infant:

• Active, adult behavior. Rebecca goes to a well, draws water, offers to water camels (a substantial, physically demanding task), interacts confidently with a stranger, and manages travel with her maidens. These are actions of a mature adolescent or young woman, not a child. Gen. 24’s portrait of Rebecca reads as a mature, marriageable woman. (Bible Gateway)

• Marriage customs and textual portrayal. The story treats marriage as an affair involving family negotiations, blessings, and travel with attendants; Genesis 24 repeatedly frames Rebecca as a bride-figure with social standing rather than as a dependent infant. (Bible Gateway)

Hence the plain sense (and the narrative cues) support reading Rebecca as a marriageable young woman rather than a toddler.

---

4. Why citing Rebecca as a precedent for child marriage is exegetically unsound

Modern polemical uses of the Rebecca-argument typically proceed by (a) combining chronological assumptions about Sarah’s death and Isaac’s age, (b) assuming Rebecca’s birth must therefore fall in a specific narrow window, and (c) concluding she was extremely young at marriage. This chain is fragile: it depends on speculative arithmetic and on privileging one post-biblical chronologizing tradition over the clear narrative picture. Because the biblical text itself does not report Rebecca’s age and because different traditions disagree, the argument cannot bear the weight of being used as an authoritative precedent for child marriage.

Scholars and careful exegetes (Jewish and Christian) therefore either reject the toddler-reading or treat it as a non-textual tradition rather than a biblical fact. In other words: the biblical text does not authorize the claim. (Bible Gateway)

---

5. Conclusion — responsible hermeneutics and polemics

It is understandable that contested modern practices (and accusations) produce vigorous apologetic responses. Yet scholarly and responsible hermeneutics require that conclusions be driven by the text and by careful engagement with tradition and context. The claim that Rebecca was born after Sarah’s death and was therefore a toddler-bride is not supported by the biblical narrative itself; it relies on later chronological reconstructions or selective readings of rabbinic material. As such, it is an inadequate and unsound precedent to justify or relativize child marriage in other religious traditions.

If one wishes to mount an argument about historical norms for marriage, the proper route is comparative, historically grounded study of ancient Near Eastern marriage practices, legal documents, and demographic realities — not selective readings that impose modern polemical aims on ancient narrative silence.

---

Selected bibliography and sources

• Genesis 23–25 (text and narrative: Bible Gateway editions consulted). (Bible Gateway)

• “Rebecca” (summary of traditional interpretations, including medieval rabbinic tradition). Wikipedia. (Wikipedia)

• Discussion of rabbinic/midrashic traditions and the range of ages ascribed to Rebecca; see MiYodeya / rabbinic discussions. (Mi Yodeya)

• Textual and popular critiques of the “Rebecca-as-toddler” claim (examples from contemporary apologetics and critical responses). (Modern Erudite)

---

Jesus is God, According to James and Jude

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

The epistles of James and Jude, though brief in length compared to Pauline letters, hold profound Christological significance. Both writers—James, the brother of Jesus, and Jude, also identified as a servant of Christ—make explicit references that affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ. In James 1, Jesus is called “Lord,” a divine title rooted in Old Testament Yahwistic theology. In Jude 1, the Lord who brought Israel out of Egypt is identified as Jesus, affirming that Christ was not merely a historical teacher, but the eternal God active in redemptive history. This article seeks to examine these texts exegetically and theologically, placing them within the framework of biblical revelation and early Christian faith, ultimately demonstrating how James and Jude affirm Jesus as God.

---

1. Introduction

The divinity of Jesus Christ has remained a central doctrine of Christianity from its inception. The early church did not invent the idea of Christ’s divinity; rather, it recognized it as the self-disclosure of God through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. While much of the discussion on Christology centers on the writings of Paul and John, the epistles of James and Jude provide valuable insights into the apostolic witness concerning Jesus as God. These letters reveal that the very family members of Jesus recognized Him as the divine Lord.

---

2. James’ Confession of Jesus as Lord

2.1 The Title “Lord” in James 1:1

James opens his epistle with the words: “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1, ESV). The juxtaposition of “God” and “the Lord Jesus Christ” is theologically significant. James places Jesus alongside God without distinction of nature or authority. The Greek term Kyrios (Lord) carries immense weight, as it was consistently used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate the divine name YHWH. By applying this title to Jesus, James acknowledges His divine identity.

2.2 Servanthood and Divine Authority

James identifies himself as a servant (doulos) of both God and Jesus Christ. This dual servanthood highlights that service to Jesus is not separate from service to God. Rather, James presents Jesus as the divine object of devotion, obedience, and worship—functions that in Jewish monotheism belong solely to God.

---

3. Jude’s Confession of Jesus as the Lord of Israel’s Deliverance

3.1 Jude 1:5 – Jesus as the Deliverer from Egypt

Jude writes: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5, ESV). This statement directly attributes the Old Testament act of deliverance from Egypt to Jesus Himself. While some manuscripts read “the Lord” instead of “Jesus,” the earliest and most reliable witnesses (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) affirm the reading of “Jesus.”

3.2 Theological Implications

If Jude identifies Jesus as the one who delivered Israel from Egypt, then Jesus is not simply a New Testament figure but the eternal Son active in the Old Testament. This aligns with Pauline Christology, where Christ is seen as the pre-existent rock that followed Israel in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4). Jude affirms continuity between the God of Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ, thereby equating them in divine identity.

---

4. The Familial Witness to Christ’s Divinity

It is noteworthy that both James and Jude were brothers of Jesus according to the flesh (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, His brothers initially doubted Him (John 7:5). However, following the resurrection, both became leading figures in the early church, boldly proclaiming Him as Lord and God. This radical transformation testifies to their conviction that Jesus was not merely their brother but the incarnate Lord.

---

5. Christological Continuity in Early Christianity

The witness of James and Jude complements the broader New Testament affirmation of Jesus’ deity:

• Pauline witness: Jesus is identified as “God over all” (Romans 9:5) and as the one in whom “the fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

• Johannine witness: The prologue of John identifies Jesus as the eternal Word who “was God” (John 1:1).

• Petrine witness: Peter calls Jesus “our God and Savior” (2 Peter 1:1).

James and Jude, therefore, stand in harmony with the wider apostolic teaching that Jesus is fully God.

---

6. Inspirational Implications for Believers

The recognition of Jesus as God by James and Jude should inspire contemporary Christians in several ways:

1. Faith in Christ’s power – If Jesus is the Lord who delivered Israel from Egypt, He is able to deliver us from sin, bondage, and death.

2. Confidence in suffering – James calls believers to steadfastness (James 1:2–4) because Jesus, the divine Lord, rules over all circumstances.

3. Worship and devotion – Jude urges believers to keep themselves in the love of God (Jude 1:21), affirming that worship of Jesus is inseparable from worship of God.

---

7. Conclusion

The epistles of James and Jude, though often overlooked, provide profound evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ. James identifies Him as Lord, placing Him alongside God as the object of faith and service. Jude identifies Jesus as the divine Lord who brought Israel out of Egypt, revealing His eternal role in salvation history. Together, these testimonies affirm that Jesus is not merely a moral teacher or prophet, but the eternal God who redeems His people.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Crossway, 2016).

• Bauckham, Richard. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.

• Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

• Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

• Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

• Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

• Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

---

Jesus is Not Isa bin Maryam:

Jesus is Not Isa bin Maryam: A Theological and Historical Challenge to Islamic Christology

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Introduction

The identity of Jesus Christ stands at the center of both Christian and Islamic theology, yet the portrayals diverge in irreconcilable ways. Christianity affirms Jesus as the eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh (John 1:14), who was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead (Mark 16:6). Islam, on the other hand, presents Isa bin Maryam (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) as a human prophet, neither crucified nor divine, whose story was written in the Qur’an over six centuries after the events of the New Testament. This article contends that Jesus of the Gospels is not the same as Isa of the Qur’an.

---

1. Eyewitness Testimony Versus Late Non-Eyewitness Accounts

The New Testament provides multiple independent eyewitness testimonies to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), along with apostolic letters, present historically verifiable claims grounded in first-century Palestine.

• Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:12).

• Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:32–50).

• Jesus rose bodily from the grave (Mark 16:6).

• Jesus claimed unity with the Father (John 10:36).

By contrast, the Qur’an (compiled c. 650 CE) presents Isa bin Maryam, not based on eyewitnesses, but mediated through Muhammad, who lived centuries after Christ. This Isa was:

• Conceived under a palm tree (Qur’an 19:22–25).

• Not crucified but replaced (Qur’an 4:157).

• Denied divine sonship (Qur’an 17:111).

Thus, whereas the Christian Gospel stands upon historical witness, the Qur’anic Isa arises from a late theological reinterpretation without historical grounding.

---

2. The Nature of Jesus versus Isa

Christianity presents Jesus as divine:

• “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

• “Christ Jesus, who being in very nature God” (Philippians 2:5–6).

• “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Conversely, Islam denies divinity to Isa, insisting:

• “Isa was only a messenger” (Qur’an 4:171).

• “It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son” (Qur’an 19:35).

This is not merely a difference in interpretation; it is a fundamental contradiction. Jesus’ divinity is attested by His works, His resurrection, and apostolic testimony. Isa, as portrayed in the Qur’an, is reduced to a prophet, stripped of his divine identity.

---

3. Crucifixion and Atonement

The crucifixion of Jesus is central to Christian faith:

• “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3).

• “The blood of Jesus… cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

• Jesus declared, “It is finished” on the cross (John 19:30).

Islam denies the crucifixion:

• “They did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them” (Qur’an 4:157).

If Isa did not die, there can be no atonement, no resurrection, and no salvation in the Christian sense. The denial of the cross undermines the very heart of the biblical Gospel, further proving that Isa is not the Jesus proclaimed by the apostles.

---

4. Isa as Muhammad’s Forerunner Versus Jesus as the King of Kings

In Christianity, Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy and the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (Revelation 17:14). In Islam, Isa is presented as the prophet who foretold Muhammad:

• “Isa brought Muhammad as the last prophet” (Qur’an 61:6).

This distortion recasts Isa into an Islamic framework, making him subservient to Muhammad rather than sovereign over all creation. It is an appropriation of Jesus’ identity for the service of another prophet, demonstrating that Isa is a constructed figure, not the historical Jesus.

---

Conclusion

Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, crucified and risen, is not Isa bin Maryam of the Qur’an. The Jesus of history and the New Testament stands upon multiple eyewitness testimonies, fulfilling prophecy, and offering salvation through His blood. Isa of the Qur’an, on the other hand, is a later theological invention, stripped of divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection, and used to validate Muhammad’s prophethood.

Therefore, Muslims who claim to honor Jesus by equating Him with Isa do not in fact know Him. The biblical Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), while Isa is a distant echo, an altered construct that cannot save.

---

References

Biblical References

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

• Luke 2:12; John 1:14; Mark 16:6; John 10:36; Matthew 27:32–50; John 19:30; 1 John 1:7; Philippians 2:5–6; Titus 2:13; Revelation 17:14.

Qur’anic References

• Qur’an 4:157–158; Qur’an 4:171; Qur’an 17:111; Qur’an 19:22–25; Qur’an 19:35; Qur’an 61:6; Qur’an 3:59; Qur’an 3:32.

Secondary Sources

• Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Doubleday, 1994.

• Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press, 2003.

• Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. Oneworld Publications, 1999.

• Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim.

---

📌 By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Jesus is Not Isa bin Maryam: A Theological and Historical Challenge to Islamic Christology

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This paper explores the sharp distinction between the Jesus of the New Testament and the Isa bin Maryam of the Qur’an. While Christianity identifies Jesus as the eternal Son of God, crucified and resurrected for humanity’s salvation, Islam presents Isa as a mortal prophet, denied of crucifixion, stripped of divine identity, and positioned as a forerunner of Muhammad. By analyzing scriptural evidence, historical witness, and theological implications, this study argues that Isa is not Jesus. Instead, Isa represents a seventh-century Islamic reconstruction of Christ’s figure, detached from historical foundations and apostolic testimony.

---

1. Introduction

The question of who Jesus is remains the dividing line between Christianity and Islam. Christians confess Jesus as the Christ, Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), the incarnate Word (John 1:14), and the Savior of the world (John 4:42). Islam, however, identifies Jesus with Isa bin Maryam, a prophet in the Qur’an who was neither divine nor crucified, but merely a messenger who prepared the way for Muhammad.

The importance of clarifying this distinction cannot be overstated. If Jesus and Isa are not the same, then interfaith assertions that Christians and Muslims worship the same figure are theologically misleading. This article demonstrates, through historical, textual, and doctrinal analysis, that Jesus of Nazareth is not Isa of the Qur’an.

---

2. Eyewitness Testimony and the Principle of Verification

2.1 Biblical Eyewitness Testimony

The New Testament rests on multiple eyewitness testimonies:

• Matthew, a disciple, records the crucifixion and resurrection.

• John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” presents theological reflections grounded in firsthand experience (John 21:24).

• Paul, though not an immediate disciple, encountered the risen Christ and corroborated earlier apostolic testimony (1 Corinthians 15:3–8).

The New Testament documents were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses (30–90 CE), offering historical credibility.

2.2 Qur’anic Non-Eyewitness Account

By contrast, the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad (610–632 CE), centuries after Jesus’ ministry. Muhammad never encountered Jesus, nor did any eyewitness of Jesus inform him directly. The Isa narrative derives from oral traditions, apocryphal writings, and theological constructs circulating in Arabia.

Ironically, the Qur’an itself states: “Bring two witnesses from among your men” (Qur’an 2:282). Yet the Qur’an offers no eyewitness to validate Isa’s story. Thus, the Qur’an fails its own epistemic requirement for truth verification.

---

3. The Identity of Jesus Versus Isa

3.1 Jesus as the Word and Son of God

Christianity confesses:

• “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14).

• Jesus is the “Son of God” (John 10:36).

• “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Jesus is not merely a prophet; He is divine, the eternal Logos incarnate.

3.2 Isa as a Created Prophet

Islam, however, describes Isa as:

• A prophet like Adam, created from dust (Qur’an 3:59).

• Not a son of God (Qur’an 17:111).

• Not Allah, but a messenger (Qur’an 4:171).

This Isa cannot be reconciled with the biblical Jesus. The Qur’an reduces Him to a mortal servant, denying His divine sonship and role in salvation history.

---

4. Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Atonement

4.1 Jesus’ Death and Resurrection

The crucifixion of Jesus is central to Christian theology:

• “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3).

• “The blood of Jesus… cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

• Jesus declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

Without crucifixion and resurrection, there is no Christian Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:17).

4.2 Islamic Denial of Crucifixion

The Qur’an denies the crucifixion: “They did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them” (Qur’an 4:157). Isa escapes death, and thus, in Islam, there is no atonement. This denial undermines the historical consensus, as even secular historians affirm Jesus’ crucifixion as one of the best-attested facts of antiquity.

---

5. Eschatology: Jesus the King Versus Isa the Herald of Muhammad

5.1 Jesus as King of Kings

Revelation 17:14 declares: “The Lamb will triumph… for He is Lord of lords and King of kings.” Jesus is enthroned as sovereign over all creation.

5.2 Isa as Servant of Muhammad

Islam subordinates Isa to Muhammad: “O Children of Israel, I am the messenger of Allah to you, confirming what was before me in the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad” (Qur’an 61:6).

Here Isa’s mission is reframed—not as Redeemer, but as forerunner to Muhammad. Such a view diminishes the biblical Christ and distorts His messianic role.

---

6. Theological Implications

1. Authority of Scripture: The New Testament rests on apostolic eyewitness; the Qur’an on non-historical revelation.

2. Nature of Christ: Jesus is divine; Isa is mortal.

3. Salvation: Jesus saves through His death and resurrection; Isa offers no salvation.

4. Eschatology: Jesus reigns as eternal King; Isa submits to Muhammad.

These divergences reveal that Isa is not Jesus but a theological invention serving Islamic claims.

---

7. Conclusion

The evidence is clear: Jesus of the New Testament cannot be equated with Isa bin Maryam of the Qur’an. Christianity presents Jesus as the eternal Son of God, crucified and risen for the redemption of mankind. Islam presents Isa as a prophet who denies crucifixion, sonship, and divinity, ultimately serving to legitimize Muhammad.

Therefore, Muslims who claim to honor Jesus through Isa are venerating a different figure. To know the true Jesus is to know Him as He is revealed in the Gospels: the Son of God, the Savior, and the risen Lord. Anything less is a distortion.

---

References

Biblical Sources

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

• Luke 2:12; John 1:14; Mark 16:6; John 10:36; Matthew 27:32–50; John 19:30; 1 John 1:7; Philippians 2:5–6; Titus 2:13; Revelation 17:14; 1 Corinthians 15:3–8.

Qur’anic Sources

• Qur’an 2:282; Qur’an 3:59; Qur’an 3:32; Qur’an 4:157–158; Qur’an 4:171; Qur’an 17:111; Qur’an 19:22–25; Qur’an 19:35; Qur’an 61:6.

Secondary Sources

• Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Doubleday, 1994.

• Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press, 2003.

• Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. Oneworld Publications, 1999.

• Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Fortress Press, 1976.

• Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim.

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith collections.

---

✍️ By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Jesus Christ: The Prince of Peace and God

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

In a world fractured by wars, hatred, and division, humanity continues to search for a peace that transcends politics, culture, and fleeting circumstances. The Bible reveals that this peace is not found in treaties, weapons, or human ingenuity, but in the person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Prince of Peace and God incarnate. The prophet Isaiah foretold His divine identity, declaring: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, ESV). This article examines the theological foundation of Jesus as both God and the bringer of ultimate peace, exploring the biblical, historical, and spiritual dimensions of His mission.

---

Jesus as the Prince of Peace

Peace in the biblical sense is not merely the absence of conflict; it is shalom—a wholeness, completeness, and reconciliation with God and one another. Jesus Himself declared: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you” (John 14:27). This peace is not fragile but eternal, grounded in His divine authority as the Son of God.

Paul emphasizes in Ephesians 2:14–16 that Christ “is our peace,” breaking down the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles, reconciling both to God through the cross. Thus, Jesus is not only the messenger of peace but the very embodiment of peace. Without Him, peace is temporary and superficial; with Him, peace is eternal and redemptive.

---

Jesus as God: The Foundation of True Peace

The identity of Jesus as God is central to His title as the Prince of Peace. Peace that comes from a mere man would be temporary, but peace that originates from God Himself is eternal. The apostle John affirms His divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Later, John proclaims, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), affirming that God Himself entered human history in the person of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Hebrews 1:3 declares: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Only God can sustain creation, forgive sins, and establish eternal peace. The peace of Jesus is thus inseparable from His divine nature.

---

Tools for Building Peace

The pursuit of peace is not passive but requires divine tools given to believers through Christ:

1. A Kind Heart – Kindness flows from the Spirit of Christ dwelling within. Paul exhorts, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32). A kind heart reflects the character of the Prince of Peace.

2. Sturdy Hands – True peacebuilding demands action. James reminds us that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17). Hands strengthened by faith build bridges where walls once stood.

3. Faith as a Measure – Hebrews 12:14 commands us to “pursue peace with everyone, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Faith measures the steps toward peace, enabling believers to trust Christ in reconciliation and forgiveness.

Through these tools, Christians become agents of peace, ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), carrying His divine presence into broken communities, families, and nations.

---

Jesus as Exactly What the World Needs

Our world is weary from conflict—political, ethnic, racial, and spiritual. Human systems promise peace but cannot deliver it. Jesus alone provides reconciliation with God (Romans 5:1) and among men. He is not only a moral teacher but the eternal God who took on flesh to bring redemption. Without Him, peace is an illusion; with Him, peace becomes reality.

Jesus is exactly what the world needs today: the God who forgives, the Prince who reigns in peace, and the Savior who unites humanity in love. The call is urgent: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

---

Conclusion

Jesus Christ stands as the only true source of peace because He is both Prince of Peace and God. His peace is holistic, reconciling humanity to God and to one another. Through kindness, strong action, and faith, believers are equipped to extend His peace into every sphere of life. In a time when the world is desperate for lasting peace, the message of Hebrews 12:14 resounds: without holiness and the peace that Christ brings, no one will see the Lord.

---

References

• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).

• Augustine of Hippo. The City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.

• Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV/1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.

• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

• Wright, N. T. Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. New York: HarperOne, 2011.

• Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

---

✍️ By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

---

Humility in the Light of 1 Peter 5:5

Humility in the Light of 1 Peter 5:5
By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

The apostle Peter exhorts the younger believers, “Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders” (1 Peter 5:5, NKJV). This call to submission is deeply rooted in the Christian virtue of humility, a virtue that lies at the heart of authentic discipleship. As Christians, our reason for humility is profound: we have been redeemed, reshaped, and refashioned by the saving work of Jesus Christ. Salvation was not attained through personal merit or human achievement, but solely through the grace of God. Thus, we are not “self-made,” but rather “God-made” and “Christ-saved.”

Boasting, then, becomes an affront to the reality of divine grace. It is easy to overvalue our own accomplishments while underestimating what we owe to God and to others. True reality, when honestly acknowledged, breeds humility. Therefore, instead of proudly declaring, “Look at me!” the Christian heart should declare, “Glory be to God, who has done this in me.” All human beings are fashioned by the Creator, and to Him belongs the glory, never to ourselves.

A humble heart is like a spiritual magnet, attracting the favor of God. Scripture consistently reminds us that “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5). Humility leads not only to divine favor but also to an enduring joy that pride can never provide. Pride is fleeting and destructive, but humility ushers in a joy that is permanent, for it is anchored in God’s presence. To live humbly is to live in alignment with God’s design; to live proudly is to resist it. Indeed, humility is the pathway to exaltation, for in due time God Himself raises the humble (1 Peter 5:6).

In short, the Christian life is not about self-exaltation but about glorifying God, who alone is the author of life and salvation. Enough said.

#Love #Trust

---

The Injeel in the Quran: A Counterfeit Gospel

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

The Christian faith stands on the historical and theological foundation of the Gospel—the Good News that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for the sins of humanity, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1–4). This message, preserved in the New Testament, is not only central to Christianity but also the very essence of salvation, as Paul affirms: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9, KJV).

In contrast, the Quran presents an alternative narrative of the Gospel (Injeel) that diverges fundamentally from the biblical record. The Quran denies the crucifixion of Jesus (Surah 4:157), claiming that He was not killed but rather someone else was made to resemble Him. Furthermore, it rejects the Sonship of Christ, insisting instead that He was merely a prophet and servant of Allah. This stands in direct contradiction to the New Testament witness, where Jesus openly affirms His divine Sonship (John 10:30; John 14:6) and where the Father declares, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17, KJV).

The denial of the crucifixion and resurrection undermines the very core of the Gospel message. Without the cross and the resurrection, there is no atonement for sin, no victory over death, and no assurance of eternal life. The Apostle Paul warns against “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6–9), affirming that any deviation from the true Gospel is a distortion not inspired by God. Thus, the Quranic portrayal of the Injeel cannot be considered a genuine continuation or revelation from the same God who spoke through the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and ultimately through His Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1–2).

Consequently, if the Quran denies the crucifixion, resurrection, and Sonship of Christ, it positions itself outside the divine revelation of God. Allah, as presented in the Quran, cannot be equated with the God of the Bible, and Muhammad, in delivering a message contrary to the Gospel of Christ, cannot be regarded as a true prophet. The authentic Gospel remains the unchanging truth: that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification.

---